Why are "bad" words bad?

[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?

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[Ally]

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

But as I have already said, we live in a classless society. We are not permitted by law to discriminate against people for their origins, so why precisely do we still discriminate against words?

You are basically using a bunch of techno-speak to say "Because they're just bad!" which again, does not answer the question. I am not asking for socio-precedent or linguistic history, all of which I know. I want a logical answer:

Why should we consider one word bad and not the other?

[Ally]

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

But is that not precisely what we are doing in elevating feces above "****" we are assigning one category as being superior.

Loving it but must go walk my dogs...back soon.

[protohistorian]

No Ally, Western culture is not egalitarian. We have rules restricting discrimination, an egalitarian society would not need rules to fulfill this role. Western culture, as a whole is riddled with class differentiation. American culture specifically refuses to intelligently address the very basic need to discriminate in the sense of marking differences and has taken the ostrich approach and adopted the position we will legislate the modality and it will cease to be an issue we can observe. Dave

[Ally]

But I am not asking for American culture to defend their lack of egalitarianism. I asking you specifically to defend your lack of egalitarianism in elevating one set of words above another.

To say we do it is not sufficient. Why do you do it?

[protohistorian]

As of 2010 we do not know. We only know it is everywhere, not why. Dave

[lynn cates]

elevation

Hello Ally. I am not clear on using the word elevation in this context. Society, rightly or wrongly (likely the latter), have decided that one set of words is appropriate whilst another is not. This seems rather like mandating one body function to be acceptable as a public one; another, private. Is one higher? Well, the halting of some body functions may prove fatal.

Does this distinction (discrimination) imply lack of egalitarianism? Although I cannot speak for Dave, he may well be an egalitarian. I clearly am not. I recognise my betters and am a thoroughgoing monarchist and, no, not the insipid constitutional variety.

Cheers.
LC

[Victor]

I have heard that the word f*ck is an acronym for "Fornincation Under Consent of the King" and refers to prima noctae tradition which was seen as objectionable to the peasants, the females of which were essentially getting raped by the nobility. This would suggest the opposite to Lynn's vulgar=common theory.

KR,
Vic.

[Rubyretro]

I think that in England it definately comes down to a 'class ' thing and, as society becomes more egalatarian, an age thing.

That is to say that words like **** and **** and **** were perceived as vulgar working class by people who were upwardly mobile like my parents and their parents, and so they became taboo to people with middle class pretensions.

The upper classes, ironically, never gave a **** about using them.

So using 'forbidden' words, in the 1960s and 1970s became about rebelling against the pretensions of the previous generations and levelling Society...hence the 'punks' -who felt that there was no hope of being 'upwardly mobile' (No Future), and who did not aspire to house in Middle Class Suburbia anyway, liberally peppered their songs with four letter words as a symbol.

There is a hilarious passage in the biography of David Bowie that I'm currently reading, where Nile Rodgers, who produced some of the first 'Rap' groups says that the bands were very embarrased by the poverty of thir lyrics and explained earnestly :' Sorry, Mr Rodgers -it's not that we like swearing all the time...but if we don't use words like 'whores' and '******s' we won't get played and no one will buy our records' (!).

Sadly, all those records contributed to not just eliminating the taboos for any of us under 50, but also making swearing de rigeur in the mdia. I have noted, when trying to Post very funny clips of Russell Grant, Alan Carr, or Jimmy Carr, that it is not possible on another website -because there is not one phrase that doesn't have a swear word in it. The Live audiences all seem very middle class (indeed, to be able to afford the expensive tickets and get some of the jokes they'd have to be both educated and in jobs -as are the comedians)...but the audiences don't even notice the swearing.

I wonder if those comics could be a success if they never ever used a swear word ? They would appear 'old' and pretentious, no doubt. There are situations (or a description of an exaggerated situation) where only a swear word will do.

I once found myself with a small baby, at my parent's house, totally lost for words in the English Language...how do you translate ' il a chié' or ' je pense que sa couche est pleine de merde' ?..I was reduced to blurting, red faced, "I'm sorry...I've forgotten...what euphemism do you use, now ?'

Sometimes, there is no other word for '****'..


:

[Rubyretro]

I have heard that the word f*ck is an acronym for "Fornincation Under Consent of the King" and refers to prima noctae tradition which was seen as objectionable to the peasants, the females of which were essentially getting raped by the nobility. This would suggest the opposite to Lynn's vulgar=common theory.

KR,
Vic.

I used to believe it was 'Full Use Of Carnal Knowledge'..but actually I don't think that it comes from either..

..I think it is old Saxon word, which is close to German...I'll go check now..