robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (12/26/83)
There is an instructive similarity between d*mn and G-d, and an instructive difference. Similarity: In both cases the writer feels that if the word is written in its correct form, it will be, in various ways, more powerful, and the disposition of the medium upon which it is written will require more attention. Difference: In the case of d*mn, the writer is primarily concerned with the sensibilities of his readers (sometimes himself or herself as well). In the case of G-d, the the reader is concerned with his own sensibility and religious requirements. In this conjunction I would like to quote (unattributed and from memory) an orthodox Jewish responsum on the question of whether to say "hashem" rather than the Hebrew word meaning "my lord", when it refers to G-d. The decision is essentially that this substitution is absolutely not required by Jewish law, but that anyone who feels it is required should be respected. I think we all find in practice that after some amount of time, a substitute word gains much of the symbolic power of the word it replaces, and then it is tempting to do another level of replacement. The same thing happens with euphemisms. For example, "toilet" is a euphemism for a euphemism for a euphemism... One can laugh at this historical process on logicl grounds, but it makes more sense to me to accept overwhelming historical evidence that this is the way the human mind operates, and to accept the process. - Toby Robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1 or: allegra!eosp1