Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,832 Year: 4,089/9,624 Month: 960/974 Week: 287/286 Day: 8/40 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How should one interpret foul language?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5899 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 74 of 87 (455138)
02-10-2008 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
02-10-2008 8:43 PM


Re: Buzsaw Interpretation Of Foul Language
shit = feces expelled waste from living things above plants. It is the foul stinky, putrid, unpleasant matter which is to be avoided, burried and disposed of, not to be around in living rooms, auditoriums or in the public fora such as on the www.
Then too, being a literalist, I see no reason for the subject of feces to be interspersed into board discussions and living room conversation etc.
I suppose it depends on what you're used to. Eschatological idoms are common throughout all languages. Whereas I don't particularly use them very often, they are quite succinct expressions used to quickly indicate a person's feelings and mood with little ambiguity. Although I grew up in a household where such language was considered unacceptable, my military service rapidly (in fact, the first day) cured me of any squeamishness.
As to the particular noun/verb you mention, I'm afraid that discussion of feces is an integral part of my job description. I spend much time closely examining scat, for instance, and spooning fresh cow manure into beer cups to use as bait. In other words, I work with shit every day, so I'm perhaps a bit less concerned than you apparently are about the "unpleasant matter that is to be disposed of". In fact, I and my colleagues often have dining room conversations on the subject.
All in all, I think you are being a bit harsh, here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2008 8:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2008 12:19 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5899 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 77 of 87 (455175)
02-11-2008 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
02-11-2008 12:19 AM


Re: Buzsaw Interpretation Of Foul Language
Hey Buz,
I certainly understand where you're coming from ("from whence you come" sounds too pedantic even for me - sorry about the dangling participle). As I said, I seldom use profanity, at least in writing. Unless, of course, the use of such in context provides an emphatic, unambiguous, and direct emphasis. Certainly Trixie's use of the idiom served that purpose, in my opinion. Sometimes a nice, short expletive serves well to express a poster's feelings. It can also be cathartic - to which I attribute Trixie's use in the Hill Billy case.
In the same vein, I do occasionally use profanity when I do something stupid (normally, I talk pretty much the way I write, pedantic as that might sound - old habit). The short, explosive exhalation that accompanies words like "shit" and "fuck" really IS cathartic. Just yesterday I bonked my head on the side of a house climbing out of a pit I was digging for a composting latrine. I most assuredly used several appropriate expressions in that case!
There is also another use of profanity - as a medium of creative expression. Although my command of the idiom is woefully limited, I can remember several people of whom I was in total awe at their command of creative invective. I knew a man who could literally swear for five minutes straight without repeating himself once. In short, I disagree with your contention that "nice folks" equates to "no profanity". In the appropriate context, it is a quite useful tool of language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2008 12:19 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by SGT Snorkel, posted 02-11-2008 11:04 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2008 12:46 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5899 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 83 of 87 (455634)
02-13-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
02-13-2008 12:46 AM


Re: Buzsaw Interpretation Of Foul Language
Hey Buz,
I really don't disagree completely with your position. As I said, I seldom use profanity. I just think you're overstating the case.
Did your head feel any better after the vocal volley?
I don't know if better really describes it, although the venting was useful in that context. It certainly served as a succinct expression of my feelings about my own stupidity in running into the side of a building head first. It's not as though they put the thing up while I was down in the hole, after all. It also served to draw the attention (and concern) of the pretty Peace Corps volunteer whose house (and latrine) it was. That served a useful purpose in and of itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2008 12:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024