4 ms·
> people who used to say swearing was a sign of a poor vocabulary -such utter nonsense. Well, it's plausible. There are only a few common swear words, so if a
by randallsquared 14y ago
> people who used to say swearing was a sign of a poor vocabulary -such utter nonsense.
Well, it's plausible. There are only a few common swear words, so if a person uses those many more times than other people, and if they aren't actually talking a lot more, they must be using fewer other words, potentially replacing hundreds of descriptive adjectives and adverbs with the same five or seven words.
I suppose Stephen Fry hasn't noticed, but many people who use several swear words in every sentence actually don't seem to have a large working vocabulary, and even if they technically know a more precise word for what they mean, they have to think a bit to find it, as though non-swearing was a peculiar dialect.
Using swear words for emphasis doesn't seem correlated in this way, to me.
- Swizec 14y agoOh poppycock! You need to watch more british TV, or just talk to more brits. Few swear words, don't make me laugh. Those guys can make "sandals" into a swear word.[1] Let me refer you to this 5 minute clip of A Bit of Fry and Laurie. It features a particularly colourful use of swear words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVkckG6zw6I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVkckG6zw6I [1] of course not that only brits are good at this, but it seems to me that americans are just particularly bad at it and they tend to cast a poor light on the English language's flexibility. It's rather sad really.
- randallsquared 14y agoWhen people object to swearing, I don't think it's the use of emphasis that they're objecting to. Nor is it that an exclamation is being made (if it is, as in "Oh poppycock!", above). Rather, it's the implied debasement of something private or sacred. This enhances the emphasis, but it's the method rather than the goal that offends those who are offended by swearing. As such, making up words to use as emphasis words doesn't actually offend, which is largely what makes the bit you link to funny, as far as I can tell, and it's why "darn" and "dang" are much less offensive even to those who would censor swearing.
- Avshalom 14y agoBecause I'm disagreeing with you above I just wanted to explicitly state that I agree with this. Particularly the second paragraph. Profanity needs cultural weight not just a certain tone of voice. In English at least. Can't speak with any authority on other linguistic cultures.
- D9u 14y agoThere's an old Irish pastime of insulting someone to their face without resorting to blatant profanity, and if you've ever heard it you might reconsider your position.
- Avshalom 14y ago>I suppose Stephen Fry hasn't noticed, but many people who use several swear words in every sentence actually don't seem to have a large working vocabulary. What Fry noticed is that many people use several swear words in every sentence period full stop <blink>.</blink> He's claiming it's orthogonal to working vocabulary size.
- randallsquared 14y agoI addressed that in the previous sentence: if it's orthogonal to working vocabulary size, then it must be positively correlated with verbosity. That could be true, but I can't tell from personal experience.
- Avshalom 14y agoOnly if vocabulary size already has some specific correlation with verbosity but it's easy to use many words or very few words regardless of vocab size. Something can be "truly fucking staggeringly-ass colossal" or it can be "fucking tall". Something can just as easily be "fucking colossal" or "god damn motherfucking-ass tall". Yeah if you're the sort that "truly staggeringly colossal" comes naturally to you'd see a difference in emphasis, but they're equivalent to Joe Shitpack.
- Swizec 14y agoAh, but some things are "amazing" while other things are "amazeballs".