fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (11/13/85)
Comedian George Carlin has a famous routine about "the seven words you cannot say on televison." Most of these words have ancient anglo-saxon roots, and close cognates in other teutonic languages. They must have been used fairly frequently, to survive so long. Yet, in many social groups, these words are forbidden. Articles in net.kids discuss the threats and punishments parents have used to discourage children from using them. Yet, the concepts, things and actions denoted by these words are unavoidable. We MUST have words to describe them. So, how and why did these words become taboo? Frank Silbermann
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (11/15/85)
>. . . "the seven words >you cannot say on televison." . . . . have ancient anglo-saxon roots, >. . . . >They must have been used fairly frequently, to survive so long. >Yet, in many social groups, these words are forbidden. . . . >. . . We MUST have words to describe them. So, >how and why did these words become taboo? [Frank Silbermann] From _Modern_American_Usage_ by Wilson Follett (Copyright MCMLXVI by Hill and Wang (now a division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc.)): forbidden words. 1. By reason of obscenity. . . . . 1. The words called "good old Anglo-Saxon" and also "four-letter words" are no longer excluded from high literature, though they are still rare in the periodical press and in civil conversation. . . . . The restoration to good repute of the strongest two or three among those words has been tried in vain, . . . . The obstacle, it is clear, does not consist in a stubborn remnant of prudishness among the public. It consists in the widespread spoken and fictional use of these words to express hate, disgust, and contempt. These are powerful emotions, which war against the return of the forbidden words in their simple and friendly aspect. The result is that there are no words but euphemisms or clinical terms for what many scenes of modern fiction profess to describe. charli
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (11/17/85)
Many of the taboo words refer to topics which are generally not
discussed in polite conversation, so the restrictions on their use
doesn't generally cause problems. For instance, discussion of
fornication is taboo, so the use of the word "fuck" is frowned upon.
The same goes for certain body parts and common bodily functions.
Also, when these topics MUST be discussed, words like "fornicate" and
"defecate" sound much more proper and technical than the vulgar bathroom
language. Also, euphemisms are generally preferred, as people fool
themselves into thinking that the real meaning is disguised; this is
sometimes even the case, because some euphemisms are ambiguous (e.g.
"making love" used to mean "necking", but now means "fornicating").
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarjcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (11/19/85)
> themselves into thinking that the real meaning is disguised; this is > sometimes even the case, because some euphemisms are ambiguous (e.g. > "making love" used to mean "necking", but now means "fornicating"). Even earlier than that, "making love" meant what you might call pitching woo, nothing more than talking. Check out Jane Austen's "Emma", in the scene where the heroine is riding in a carriage with a young fellow who starts "to make violent love to her". What is meant is impassioned entreaties and not tearing her clothes off or anything physical at all. -- jcpatilla
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (11/22/85)
> > language. Also, euphemisms are generally preferred, as people fool > themselves into thinking that the real meaning is disguised; this is > sometimes even the case, because some euphemisms are ambiguous (e.g. > "making love" used to mean "necking", but now means "fornicating"). I think the euphemism "sleep {with|together}" meaning to "have sex" sounds hilariously Victorian, especially since it is used by many people who think of themselves as having an open attitude toward sex and in situations where no sleeping is involved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A 85282 seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al, ihnp4!mot!al, ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al --------------------------------------------------------------------------
mgh@mtuni.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (12/12/85)
> > themselves into thinking that the real meaning is disguised; this is > > sometimes even the case, because some euphemisms are ambiguous (e.g. > > "making love" used to mean "necking", but now means "fornicating"). > > Even earlier than that, "making love" meant what you might call > pitching woo, nothing more than talking. Check out Jane Austen's "Emma", > in the scene where the heroine is riding in a carriage with a young fellow who > starts "to make violent love to her". What is meant is impassioned entreaties > and not tearing her clothes off or anything physical at all. > -- > jcpatilla Hmm, my grandmother would sometimes refer to people "fornicating on the doorstep" or admonish someone to "Stop fornicating around!" Obviously what she meant was "fooling around" or "mucking about." BTW she wasn't the only source of this strange usage -- it seems to have been quite common early this century all over England. -- Marcus Hand (mtuni!mgh)
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (12/16/85)
In article <112@mtuni.UUCP> mgh@mtuni.UUCP (Marcus Hand) writes: >Hmm, my grandmother would sometimes refer to people "fornicating on the >doorstep" or admonish someone to "Stop fornicating around!" >Obviously what she meant was "fooling around" or "mucking about." >BTW she wasn't the only source of this strange usage -- it seems to >have been quite common early this century all over England. "Oh, fornicate the penguin!" -- Monty Python (from the "Penguin on the Telly" sketch). -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar