[HN Gopher] The linguistics of swearing explain why we substitut...
___________________________________________________________________
The linguistics of swearing explain why we substitute darn for damn
Author : pseudolus
Score : 28 points
Date : 2022-12-12 02:53 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.scientificamerican.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.scientificamerican.com)
| AndrewOMartin wrote:
| I assumed it was just poor kerning.
| posterboy wrote:
| I don't think it's a substitution. Lexicographically, there is a
| difference between an alternative (colour / color) and a synonym
| (hue). Now _darn_ might look like a variant if you don 't know
| the etymology, but ignorance is no basis for etymology. The
| substitution might abuse this fact somehow, but it isn't fooling
| nobody, is it? I hope the article will explain, but I expect they
| are blissfully unaware of how intricate soundchange is.
|
| For example, _dang_ seems to be a cognate of _danger_ , a
| francophone form of _damage_ , evident in _quelle domage_ "what a
| pitty", very far away from _damnit_ "may he burn in hell", but
| the details are hazy. So people err on the safe side of _I know
| what you are doing_ with the minced oath. In reality, it 's
| prudishness mixed with language racism, excuse my french.
|
| > a pilot study of 100 people who spoke one of five languages
| that are only distantly related: Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Korean
| or Russian
|
| That's where I stopped reading. Because my statistics isn't up to
| the task of engaging their methods, and not because I were a
| militant defender of multiple language genesis. I just really
| need an excuse to spend my time better, elsewhere.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _The substitution might abuse this fact somehow, but it isn
| 't fooling nobody, is it?_
|
| That's the whole point of the substitution. To use something
| that sounds similar enough as to be defensively inoffensive,
| while still alluding to the intended word as to no actually
| fool anybody. Thus the etymology is irrelevant.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| My niece was asking about "the T-word" when I was visiting family
| for Thanksgiving. Her mom was in favor of letting the matter go
| undiscussed, but I'm never one to back down from being a bad
| influence or the fun uncle (a lot of overlap there, actually).
| Plus, I might get to learn a new swear word.
|
| My niece asked about "tewkin'". (long 'u' sound, like Duke Nukem)
|
| I informed her that that was a new one for me.
|
| Mom, now intrigued, asked "Could the person you heard use it be
| referring to a bird called a toucan?"
|
| "I don't think so"
|
| "Well, what did they say?"
|
| "Aww, I forgot my tewkin mittens!"
|
| At which point, I informed my niece that she had likely
| encountered a Canadian who was underdressed for the weather and
| was lamenting that they had forgotten their toque and mittens,
| and we were all disappointed that she hadn't taught us all a new
| swear. Except mom.
|
| Tying this back to TFA, I find it interesting that my niece seems
| to have (at the age of 8) intuited the relation of hard-sounding
| consonants to swearing. Tewkin' meets the criteria of having a
| 't' and a 'k' and seems pretty plausible.
| jonsen wrote:
| Well done! I wish there were more tewkin uncles around.
| im3w1l wrote:
| I would assume that tewkin is a substitute for fucking (like I
| assume with hecking, freaking, frigging).
| ars wrote:
| I've heard people advocate for removing the taboo about swearing,
| and making it socially acceptable in most (or all) circumstances.
|
| What they don't realize is if we did that, the swear would lose
| all power. "Golly" was at one point a really bad swear.
|
| People who want to swear _need_ conservative people who are
| against swearing, in order for the swears to retain their meaning
| /shock value.
| retrac wrote:
| There's a conjecture (I hesitate to call it theory because it's
| not very well fleshed out) that profanity tends to reflect the
| taboo and/or sacred things of a society.
|
| Quebec used to be a highly religious society heavily controlled
| by the Catholic Church until the 1960s. Quebec profanities are
| full of slangy modifications of terms that, translated
| literally, mean things like "chalice" or "eucharist". English
| used to be like that as well. Damn and Hell were harsh words.
| With the decline in our religiosity has come a decline in the
| severity of the words. Most societies have taboos about sex and
| bodily waste, so little surprise that there's a profane term
| for those things in most languages.
|
| And what about today? Some of the most profane words in
| contemporary English are slurs used against racial and sexual
| minorities. N-word, F-word (no, not that one, the _other_
| F-word), and so on. Speaking these words invokes transgression
| of the most sacred values of society. Some are considered so
| powerful or dangerous, that simply saying them aloud is
| believed to have the ability to cause psychic harm, which is
| more than a little reminiscent of the old beliefs about the
| risk of supernatural destruction being inflicted on communities
| by God that tolerate blasphemy.
|
| As you note, I think this is likely a universal human tendency.
| There's always going to be the sacred and the taboo. And taking
| a big fat verbal shit on them will always outrage people.
| fluster wrote:
| benj111 wrote:
| smeagull wrote:
| Golly, I'd never have thought of that.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| lstodd wrote:
| I lived for a few years in a place where no word is taboo.
|
| What you don't realize is that when no word is taboo people
| tend to invent nontrivial sequences, or entire monologues to
| regain and further enhance the effect. Which I think is better
| than inventing pitiful euphemisms. It's almost poetry.
| saurik wrote:
| The people I have seen advocate for that absolutely realize
| that as they _want_ to rob these words of their power to
| offend.
| ars wrote:
| And then people will create new offensive words, because
| people sometimes need such words.
|
| So what have they accomplished?
| Teever wrote:
| Just another revolution on the euphemism treadmill:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Lifespan
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Well, they would accomplish a reverse revolution for
| once.
| jjulius wrote:
| That all depends on how the word is used, no? I swear often,
| but it's never _at_ people, rather I use them as adjectives or
| whatnot (eg, "Take the fucking trash out,") or during times of
| frustration (eg, "God fucking damnit", "Jesus fucking christ").
| That's where I think the argument can be made about removing
| the taboo, because really, at least when I say it (and perhaps
| that's where this argument falls apart? Because it all boils
| down to intent...), there's no difference between, "Aww man,"
| and "Oh for fucks sake", or, "Take the stupid trash out," and
| "Take the fucking trash out".
| ars wrote:
| Try saying "Golly" instead. Would it work as well?
|
| I suspect not. That's what will happen if you succeed in
| removing the taboo.
| benj111 wrote:
| Bloody is pretty satisfying and Ron Weasley can say that in
| a Pg film.
| doubled112 wrote:
| I feel the same way. Often it comes down to swearing to me vs
| swearing at me.
| vlunkr wrote:
| I would say the taboo is gone in many places. Like podcasts or
| youtube, where the existing moderation controls hold no power.
| I wouldn't call it a great victory. It certainly reveals who
| has a shallow vocabulary and leans on the f-word like a crutch.
| pattisapu wrote:
| Slurs seem to share some of this violence in expression.
|
| In English, at least, many unspeakable words used to describe
| Blacks, Asians, Jews, gay men, lesbian women, and others seem to
| have some of these "k" (or "g" (voiced)) features, harsh
| consonant endings, etc.
|
| I wonder if it is like this in other languages too.
| rahkiin wrote:
| K and g are very regular sounds in Dutch. For any word. But
| they do show up also in 'bad' words.
|
| Our worst words are about giving other people terrible
| diseases.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-13 23:01 UTC)