Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Jan 2000 20:17:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1933 times
|
| |
|
|
Tony Priestman wrote:
> WARNING: this post should not be read by children or those with weak
> constitutions, as it contains a word that some people have complained
> about.
"leaked 2001 scans?" :)
> But jumping on someone for saying d----- is ludicrous. I gave up having
> my English corrected twenty years ago, and I'm not going to put up with
> it now.
[dashing out of word is mine, and made only because my newsreader won't allow me
to insert an extra screen of carriage returns.]
I have to agree with Tony on that particular word and its ilk. However, it's not
a grammatical issue but one of comfort level--is swearing (which I wouldn't
define that as) the same as cursing (which I would define that as)? Children who
are sheltered from the influence of television and public swearing will still
hear the root of that curse at their churches from their clergy, supposedly the
paragons of morality. The difference is the context. When a word is
unacceptable in *any* context of a given meaning, that's when it should be
off-limits even as asterisks. Comfort level will always vary, however--I still
get essays from college students where they refuse to spell out "God" and will
write "G-d".
> If children and adults are going to coexist here to the satisfaction of
> those children's parents, and the adults who contribute, there is going
> to have to be some give and take. And probably regulation.
Possibly--or else self-censorship, which is the most effective of all. Sometimes
I've balked here at saying things that might be taken wrong, even though I know
that 99% of LUGNETters won't find it remarkable. I'd rather say "Hades heck" or
"H-E-double-hockey-stick" than use the word in its expletive form (which is a
very mild word in the grander scheme) just because it's more entertaining the
former two ways, despite its being an obvious Flanders-do-diddly-ism.
Of course, here's the question: Is a word acceptable when we're simply
discussing its usage, without the context of a curse (as I'm doing above)? Just
a thought.
best,
Lindsay
<pointless academe>
My 'professional' concern about the acceptability of swearing is that we're
beginning to lose the vernacular anchor that connects us to Anglo-Saxon. When
those words hit hte mainstream in print and speech, they begin to mutate more
quickly...as it is, they're the only words that let us figure out how English
sounded 400 years ago, because they sound virtually the same--a feat that few
"good" words can match. Oh, and it's also bad form to swear at formal
functions. ;)
</pointless academe>
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| Lindsay- That sound you hear is me weeping for the future. From where does *that* kind of nonsense come? -John (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) You won't hear that word very often at my church, but then my religion doesn't believe in eternal damnation. On the other hand, there are some people in my church who are VERY uncomfortable with the word God. follow ups to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Swearing?
|
| WARNING: this post should not be read by children or those with weak constitutions, as it contains a word that some people have complained about. Look, this is ridiculous. If everyone is going to whinge whenever someone uses a word that *may* be (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
