Why are "bad" words bad?

[lynn cates]

discrimination

Hello Ally. Of course, that depends on the precise species of discrimination employed.

So, for example, in saying of X that it goes into category A and that Y is somehow different and goes not into A but into B, I have discriminated. But surely that is not objectionable? On the other hand, the discrimination MAY be objectionable if I ascribe to X or Y the epithet "superior."

But to return to the original intention of the thread, it may interest you to know that the Apostle Paul used a Greek word--the equivalent of our English s-word--in an epistle. The KJV chaps translated it as refuse or something of that sort.

Cheers.
LC

[protohistorian]

It exist homogeneously across human languages and is a mode of differentiation of groups within a culture. Every culture observed linguistically displays it so it seems to fulfill some need within the human to mark "us" as opposed to "them". Dave

[Ally]

Hello Ally. Here is a possible solution.

Consider our main classification of "objectionable" words into "vulgar" and "profane."

"Vulgar" is from the Latin, "vulgus" meaning "people." Hence "vulgar" actually refers to the way "common" people talk. So the "s-word"--common people talk; "faeces"--the learned way to talk.

"Profane" is whatever is not "sacred." Hence all blasphemies fall under profane as they use sacred words in a non sacred manner.

Cheers.
LC

We are however an egalitarian society now, which means class distinctions should fall by the wayside.

So purely on grounds of equality, I don't accept class distinctions in isolating specific words. To do so would be to support discrimination based on circumstances of origin, a purely reprehensible concept I am sure you would agree.


Hello Dave.

I already know that it exists and that there is a preference for Vagina over cnt. Saying that it exists does nothing towards answering the question of Why, which is the thrust of this debate.

[protohistorian]

Ally it varies. According to linguistic anthropologists, every language has a preferred mode of use. Being within the preferred mode reduces stigma attached to some words. This type of bias can be seen in biology with a favoritism for Latin derivations. Vagina is not a 'bad word yet c*nt' might get you hanged. Same anatomy, same thing, radically different levels of acceptance. Another reason a word might end up on the sh*t list is because it evokes an unpleasant image, like sh*t.
Both of these mechanisms are culturally bound, and as the culture fluctuates, so do the rules on usage and 'bad'itude of the word. This is why there are differences between English in England and English in America. Dave

[lynn cates]

solutio possibile

Hello Ally. Here is a possible solution.

Consider our main classification of "objectionable" words into "vulgar" and "profane."

"Vulgar" is from the Latin, "vulgus" meaning "people." Hence "vulgar" actually refers to the way "common" people talk. So the "s-word"--common people talk; "faeces"--the learned way to talk.

"Profane" is whatever is not "sacred." Hence all blasphemies fall under profane as they use sacred words in a non sacred manner.

Cheers.
LC

[Ally]

Prompted by another thread, I would love to have an interesting debate about why precisely we single out specific words as being "bad" when other words with the exact same meaning do not carry the same negative connotation.

For example: **** is bad, feces not bad. Same word, same denotative meaning, completely different connotations. Why precisely is the one bad and the other not?

I am also amused by the fact that "bloody" is considered a mild curse on the other side of the pond, which leads to the fact that one can't help but curse if one has been in an accident and is calling 911 or 999 (?) even if one is most polite. "911 What's the emergency?" "Well there's this woman lying on the side of the road and she's got oozing red liquid seeping from her" "You mean she's all bloody?"
GASP ..faint.

So please, someone, please tell me, why are some words bad, and some are not?