Brett
460

all other things being equal, a person unwilling to use certain words has fewer to use than someone willing to use those words. Fewer words = a more limited vocabulary. — Frank Apisa


Using these words isn’t extending a vocabulary. Those words being used are just replacing another word. But it’s interesting that you think it’s extending a vocabulary by counting the words used, because when I hear people using these words it sounds like using twice as many words as necessary:

‘ I saw the ******* **** come out of the ******* **** bar, little *** she was, the ***** with her, ***** he’s a big ******, she’s a ******* ****! — Brett

Language is used that way.

I am an advocate of brevity...but poets often flow on and on...some authors of prose are verbose.

So what.

In any case, you mentioned a "limited vocabulary." The more words you use...the less limited your vocabulary. That is simply how the word "limited" works.

Bitter Crank
7.7k
↪Frank Apisa
Well, there is the matter of decorum. It isn't that "fuck" or "shit" are "adult words" and coitus and faeces are not. The former words are appropriate for one level of decorum and the latter are appropriate for another level. I would not expect that a doctor would ask me "Are you shitting OK?" I'd expect him to reference faeces and bowel movements. On the other hand, "Shit!" would be the appropriate response to a diagnosis of terminal cancer. Or "fucking shit" would be the appropriate term at a bar to reference something really stupid.

Policing adult language, as well as enforcing "political correct" language falls into he category of "boor control" or "controlling other people" or maintaining a "quality atmosphere". I disapprove of that sort of shit. But... some people can get away with it and some can't. — Bitter Crank

I agree that we humans have agreed that to be the case.

BUT WHY?

Why have we decided to make certain words objectionable.

Suppose we decided to make the word "elbow" objectionable...and had to refer to it in public as "arm joint."

If we got agreement on that...the word "elbow" would be one that causes offense.

It would make no sense...and "offensive language" makes no sense either.

It truly just doesn't.

Brett
460
I like to be in control of what I’m saying, well I try. I adjust my language to the occasion, the people. They’re only words but you can’t take them back once spoken. People can be hurt, or misunderstand you if you use language they’re not familiar with. Of course you can use the language any way you like, but language is about communication so why not use the most efficient word and one understood by the other person? — Brett

So...why not use "cock" for "penis"...and why, oh, why...would using cock be considered so offensive?

Can you not see that arbitrarily deeming certain words to be "offensive" truly makes no sense?

It seems to me that different languages regard profanity in very different ways. For example, in Spanish, the offense of profanity seems to be more closely associated with the context in which it is used, rather than through its mere utterance, as seems to be the case in English.

So...why not use "cock" for "penis"...and why, oh, why...would using cock be considered so offensive? — Frank Apisa

Because if I say ‘cock’ to people who don’t agree with its use they’ll stop listening to me. If I’m speaking to them then my intent is to communicate.

Why have we decided to make certain words objectionable. — Frank Apisa

I suspect it’s because people, adults, regard them as infantile.

I truly do not understand. — Frank Apisa

It threatens language by using such words as a substitute for a word that has an etymology.

As I said, it’s not extending a vocabulary, it’s just replacing a word with an alternative that has limited meaning. Most people will know what penis means, not as many will know what ‘cock’ means. It also suggests that the people choosing to use such language have no interest in reaching out to others outside their milieu.

Merkwurdichliebe
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa


It seems to me that different languages regard profanity in very different ways. For example, in Spanish, the offense of profanity seems to be more closely associated with the context in which it is used, rather than through its mere utterance, as seems to be the case in English. — Merkwurdichliebe

Thank you for that. I don't know how the issue is treated in other languages.

I think the way it is handled in English...is infantile.

Obviously you are content with the notion that certain words should offend. Okay.

I'd just as soon not communicate with people too anxious to be offended. They are jerk-offs.

Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’?

I think a cross linguistic comparison would be very helpful in understanding the universal essence of adult language. Mere reference to the socially improper seems insufficient.

Oh damn, i never thought I'd open up so easily to the ordinary use of language.

do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’? — Brett

I prefer to use it over pussy. Oops, sorry. Please disregard that comment.

You just reminded of this vid I watched several years ago (Enjoy!):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfTKWwxuF1g

Brett
464
↪Frank Apisa


Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’? — Brett

What makes you think I do?

I prefer to use either...and not give a damn about whether or not it "offends" someone.

Merkwurdichliebe
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa


Oh damn, i never thought I'd open up so easily to the ordinary use of language. — Merkwurdichliebe

Everyone should wonder about the same thing, Merk.

I like sushi
996
↪Frank Apisa
You just reminded of this vid I watched several years ago (Enjoy!):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfTKWwxuF1g — I like sushi

Yep...a tremendously useful word...that some people want to eliminate.

BUT WHY? — Frank Apisa

We didn't decide to make words objectionable. Words make themselves objectionable by filling possibilities in the discourse. One of which is the possibility to be offended. You may as well ask why we 'made' some words more intense versions of others. For example, why do we have 'overjoyed' and not just 'happy'? Answer, because it expresses a possibility in the discourse which in turn fills in a human emotion (or a shade of one) that can be usefully expressed. Being offended is just another such affective state. And as long as it is, a word will fill in that space.

Baden
7.8k

BUT WHY? — Frank Apisa


We didn't decide to make words objectionable. Words make themselves objectionable by filling possibilities in the discourse. One of which is the possibility to be offended. You may as well ask why we 'made' some words more intense versions of others. For example, why do we have 'overjoyed' and not just 'happy'? Answer, because it expresses a possibility in the discourse which in turn fills in a human emotion that can be usefully expressed. Being offended is just another such affective state. And as long as it is, a word will fill in that space. — Baden

I understand what you are attempting to communicate here, Baden...but I disagree with your first sentence so completely, that the remainder of the comment pales.

The only way a word can be objectionable...is if we DO decide to make it objectionable. It can only offend if we decide to find it objectionable.

Most English words have synonyms. In that first sentence you used the word "decide"...which could just as easily be written as "choose, elect, or select."

But if we had collectively decided (elected, chosen, or selected) to designate "decide" a crudity or vulgarity...that sentence would be seen as vulgar or crude.

Same thing with vulgar...which can easily be designated crude, uncouth, or unrefined. If we had collectively decided to be offended by the use of vulgar...my sentence would be seen as uncouth, crude or unrefined.

The damage to language (if there is any) is not in use of "vulgar" words...but in the notion that we can designate certain words to be objectionable...or offensive.

Really!

The notion that we should be doing this...is itself offensive.

I understand what you are attempting to communicate here, Baden...but I disagree with your first sentence so completely, that the remainder of the comment pales. — Frank Apisa

Ok, who decided to make the word "fuck" (for example) offensive and when? And who would be the "we" that could suddenly decide to designate it as unoffensive, and in what contexts, and how would we control the visceral reactions of others to that word in particular contexts? And what form would this collective decision make? How would it be enforced? Do you believe everyone has the power to consciously switch on and off their negative reactions to offensive words at will? Do you believe people would voluntarily do this on the basis of some democratic mandate or referendum to designate words differently?

The reason "fuck" has a much more casual decorum rating than "elbow" is its history. Words have histories, and their histories cling to them from generation to generation. The words we consider "too casual for formal settings" (like fuck, shit, asshole, pussy, cock, etc.) have been in use (in English, with equivalent words in other languages) since at least the transition from Old English to Middle English around 700-900 years ago. Chaucer's Miller's Tale is pitched low brow enough for those words to be OK. Chaucer's Nun's Tale was pitched at a high brow level. [Chaucer's 15th century readers would, of course, have been high brow.]. In the Nun's Priest's tale about Chanticleer (a lusty chicken) Chaucer chooses more decorous language. Rather than fucking Pertelote, Chanticleer "feathered" her.

He feathered Pertelote in wanton play
And trod her twenty times ere prime of day.

In some passages of classic Greek literature, "plowing a furrow" is a more polite term than fucking.

So, why do people set up (and enforce) categories of high brow, mid brow, and low brow? It has something to do with class. People with power (social, economic, hierarchical, etc.) generally prefer to control those with less power, and that includes policing the "brow" of proceedings. So high brow tends to go along with those who have power, and low brow tends to go along with those who have very little power.

TENDS -- not a rule. Richard Nixon had plenty of power, but in the privacy of the Oval Office he used plenty of very low brow language. But, important qualification, this was in the company of peers, NOT inferiors. Lyndon Johnson also had plenty of power, and he also tended to use quite a bit of low brow language, and not just among his inner circle.

The group who is touchiest about language is the middle-class mid-brow grouping. Middle class people (and here I mean aspiring to achievement, but not secure in their material accomplishments) very much want to use the language of the more powerful group above them, and bask in that kind of decorum. Unfortunately for this middling, mid-brow group, they often have fairly recent origins in the low class, low brow level--the memory of which they very much want to forget. So strivers, aspirers, upward reaching people are often the fussiest about policing decorum and language.

What's ahead? If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for language etiquette rules to disappear. The sanctioned words might change, but the top honchos will still be policing language the riff raff gets to use in public.

Take the discussion of "nigger" elsewhere on the forum. It is a term of derision rooted in the history of enslaving Africans (at least in the West; whether slave traders and slave holders in the Middle East had similarly derisory terms, I don't know). 154 years after slavery was ended, far fewer years after crude and pervasive discrimination against blacks was greatly reduced, we can not use this term freely. Nobody can -- not blacks, not whites. It certainly gets used, but not without a lot of freight. Rappers may use its freighted (fraught) loading for one effect, white power groups use the term's loading for quite different purposes. Blacks may use it in conversation to communicate one meaning, whites may use it in conversation to communicate quite different meanings.

Black, African American, and Negro also have fraught meanings that can't be dismissed. The history of the term clings to them, just as it does to Anglo Saxon, English and White.

Ok, who decided to make the word "fuck" (for example) offensive and when? — Baden

Common practice…and a healthy infusion of upper crust control of what could or could not be written. The word was not even included in any English dictionary until the 1960’s. One of the MOST used words in the English language…NEVER INCLUDED IN A DICTIONARY UNTIL THE 1960’s.

That’s who.

And who would be the "we" that could suddenly decide to designate it as unoffensive, and in what contexts, and how would we control the visceral reactions of others to that word in particular contexts? — Baden

Beats the shit out of me. (A supposedly vulgar expression that conveys a thought as well as any non-vulgar way of saying the same thing.)

I am not arguing for doing that. I am in an Internet forum devoted to philosophy…and discussing a subject that can easily be considered in a philosophical context.

And what form would this collective decision make? — Baden

I am not disposed to offer conjecture on that. Or “beats the shit out of me.” Your choice.

How would it be enforced?

How would it be enforced? — Baden

I give up. How?

Do you believe everyone has the power to consciously switch on and off their negative reactions to offensive words at will? — Baden

I do not do “believing.”

If you are asking if I suppose everyone has the power to consciously switch on and off their negative reactions to offensive words at will…

…my guess would be “Some people WON’T.” Whether they CAN or not…is a different story.

Do you believe people would voluntarily do this on the basis of some democratic mandate or referendum to designate words differently? — Baden

I do not do “believing.” If you are asking if people COULD do this on a voluntary basis…I would respond, “Yes.”

If, on the other hand you are asking if people WOULD do it on a voluntary basis…I would respond, “Almost certainly…NO.”

I really appreciate you coming to this issue and for your comments, Baden.

The history of the term clings to them, just as it does to Anglo Saxon, English and White. — Bitter Crank

Well, yes, and my point is that language will go its own way regardless of what you, I or frank thinks and words will continue to offend certain people in certain contexts on a visceral level whether we (or even they) like it or not. To think otherwise is a fantasy.

Common practice. — Frank Apisa

Well, that's more or less what I was saying. It's something that develops organically more than is consciously controlled. Bottom-up. As to...

and a healthy infusion of upper crust control of what could or could not be written. The word was not even included in any English dictionary until the 1960’s. One of the MOST used words in the English language…NEVER INCLUDED IN A DICTIONARY UNTIL THE 1960’s. — Frank Apisa

There may have been some top-down influence too. That would be difficult to quantify.

I do not do “believing.” If you are asking if people COULD do this on a voluntary basis…I would respond, “Yes.” — Frank Apisa

We differ here then. While some people may have this level of control, I don't think everyone or even most people do. We generally get offended in spite of ourselves not because we choose to.

I really appreciate you coming to this issue and for your comments, Baden. — Frank Apisa

I have a particular interest in the language-oriented threads so suits me.

What's ahead? If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for language etiquette rules to disappear. The sanctioned words might change, but the top honchos will still be policing language the riff raff gets to use in public. — Bitter Crank

I personally think there is very little chance of language etiquette rules disappearing or even relaxing significantly.

That is not my point here. I am just discussing what is...not my ideas of what should be or how to get there.

— Baden

Please see above comment from me.

We differ here then. While some people may have this level of control, I don't think everyone or even most people do. We generally get offended in spite of ourselves not because we choose to. — Baden

Perhaps.

But the pressures to be offended are so great...that it may seem it is being done the way a dog likes its own ass.

I think there is more choice involved than you do. We just disagree.

Baden
7.8k

I really appreciate you coming to this issue and for your comments, Baden. — Frank Apisa


I have a particular interested in the language-oriented threads so suits me. — Baden

Okay.

You do realize that "fuck" is not swearing. Nor is "fuck" cursing. Nor is "fuck" profane.

"Fuck" is vulgar.

And we both know that being vulgar means being "of the people"...sorta like the Vulgate version of the Bible.