To Walk Invisible

[Serial_Apologist]

.

I suspect people swore just as much in the old days as they do now.

I certainly did.

The first time I used the F-word, at age 12, I didn't even know what it meant! At age 12 I'm sure I would today.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

This reminds me of a couple of my Language tutorials in my first year at University (nearly forty years ago - numbers like this become frightening at this time of year!) when the origins of "Anglo-Saxon vocabulary" (many of them actually Viking in origin) were discussed. The word in question is recorded in writing a hundred years before the Brontes were around - and probably spoken long before that. The Victorians shied away from including such words in their scholarly and literary works (resulting in some quaintly risible descriptions of cursing from the "lower orders" in novels - and in genteel families they would probably not have been uttered (hence Browning's notorious misunderstanding of Nuns' clothing in Pippa Passes!) but the Brontes weren't in that social milieu. My question was a genuine one - I don't think there is definitive evidence that Emily would have spoken in such a way, but if there is, I'd love to see it. (My own thought was that, if such expressions were part of her conversation, might she have been more likely to use the word that rhymes - and is popularly associated with - "rigging" in that part of Yorkshire. Such was the level of discussion in those Tutorials!)

Is it important? Well - if accurate and true, then yes; and for two reasons. To represent the world of the sisters and save it from the genteel, cosy image that has accrued in the 160 years since the events depicted (one closer to the moral scandal that the books created for their first readers - who no doubt thought that the world was going to Heck in a handcart with morals as they were these days) - and, in particular from those harmless, inoffensive types who dress up as the sisters (even believing themselves to be their reincarnations) but who seem to have read the novels through minds more accustomed to Georgette Heyer. And to reassure those people today who think that the greater means of encountering such vocabulary today means that it is more frequently used than in the past, and that, therefore, the world today is going to Heck in a handcart.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The first time I used the F-word, at age 12, I didn't even know what it meant! At age 12 I'm sure I would today.

I was 9-ish - and I didn't know what it meant, either, or the effect it would have on the people who heard me. I was "given" the word by an older boy who suggested that I call it out to the school caretaker. The look of extreme distress shook me deeply - and I still remember the feeling of sorrow and guilt when I recall the way he was never as friendly to me after that. But there were other Primary Schools in the town where that vocabulary was an everyday feature.

[Dave2002]

Nice (I did try … out of interest)

Sorry ff.
I think someone (plus HMG plus the BBC) is now assuming that everyone has a TV, and if you don't .... and you don't want to buy a licence .... tough!

I guess you knew this already - it's been like that since September last year.

You have a few options - but I don't think I should spell them out!

[jean]

This reminds me of a couple of my Language tutorials in my first year at University (nearly forty years ago - numbers like this become frightening at this time of year!) when the origins of "Anglo-Saxon vocabulary" (many of them actually Viking in origin) were discussed. The word in question is recorded in writing a hundred years before the Brontes were around - and probably spoken long before that.

My only objection to its use here was that is I wasn't convinced it had yet become the all-purpose intensifier it is today - the OED's first citation for this use is 1893, though in spoken use it will have been earlier.

It's not surprising children aren't necessarily aware of its meaning when they first come across it. The use of sexual terms in this way tells us nothing about the intensity of real sexual feelings.

[Lat-Literal]

I could mention an episode involving Rufus Thomas's "Do The Funky Chicken" around 1970 but I have decided against it.

I am not sure that any of the posts above really get to grips with the issue.

For example, how many f words in an average edition of "Essential Classics" would there need to be for R3 to be considered further dumbing down?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

My only objection to its use here was that is I wasn't convinced it had yet become the all-purpose intensifier it is today - the OED's first citation for this use is 1893, though in spoken use it will have been earlier.

Yes - where and when it was used in that way would be interesting to know. For some years I did work as a Supply Teacher in Primary Schools, and the differences in playground - and classroom - vocabulary were ... remarkable. The real eye-opener was when I worked as a Bradford Council home tutor, with children who had been excluded from Primary schools for a variety of reasons. The casual, everyday vocabulary between kids, their friends, their parents, and their friends was ear-watering. But, I never in all that time heard "new" vocabulary - it was the same as what I'd heard lots of times, just very much more frequently - which makes me ponder if any such vocabulary can have been "invented" at any particular point in the 19th/20th Century.

It's not surprising children aren't necessarily aware of its meaning when they first come across it. The use of sexual terms in this way tells us nothing about the intensity of real sexual feelings.

I entirely agree. And the ferocity with which people use specifically female anatomical features as casual terms of abuse is telling - quite why, when they have featured in some of the happiest experiences of my life, is baffling to me. It is, of course, unthinking - just the conventional vocabulary of abuse.

[teamsaint]

This is a significant issue for me - one that is regarded as odd because it isn't based in religion.

1. I don't need to Google to know that its modern derivation is purely American, specifically American cinema circa 1970 (for which read at root American business and to a lesser extent American politics). 2. While it has become prevalent among middle class professionals - the aggressiveness of well heeled competition - it is heard less and less in daily life (ie "ordinary people" where politeness means almost everything to business). That is, certainly less than on British television though possibly more than on almost all American TV.

Note: If it was used by Gary Lineker on Match of The Day, it would be front page headlines, may would be expressing disapproval and he would probably get the sack.

3. Inconsistency - I never had a problem with it at all at football matches but there perversely it is increasingly condemned and can even lead to being sent out of a football ground. That seems utterly ridiculous to me. I cannot stand what it says about social illogicality across the board. 4. Scripts - There are entire generations who are sad that comedy writing (and popular music) are "rubbish" compared with those in their parents' day but intriguingly what they are blind to is the distinction between the two re excessive swearing. Take the latter out and there are more B+ or B scripts than is often perceived but I believe they are considered "D- lame" because of the general air all the unnecessary filler conveys.

Note:

If it was used by Gary Lineker on Match of the Day, it would be front page headlines, many of the least likely would be expressing disapproval and he would probably get the sack!

In our office, acceptability of use varies by situation. There is one meeting that I attend, where significant decisions are taken, and where I am often the only male, where the language ( and subject matter when conversation goes off topic)is really startlingly Anglo Saxon. And that is nothing to do with my contributions! The lead in this language acceptability level clearly comes from the senior managers. Out in the general offices, language used is far more ( though not completely)restrained.

Use of swear words has also crept into external business meetings in my experience, although again there is a lead required.

[Lat-Literal]

In our office, acceptability of use varies by situation. There is one meeting that I attend, where significant decisions are taken, and where I am often the only male, where the language ( and subject matter when conversation goes off topic)is really startlingly Anglo Saxon. And that is nothing to do with my contributions! The lead in this language acceptability level clearly comes from the senior managers. Out in the general offices, language used is far more ( though not completely)restrained.

Use of swear words has also crept into external business meetings in my experience, although again there is a lead required.

Yes - well that sort of proves my point.

We had a bunch of people - male Liverpudlians not that it matters - putting gas pipes under the road for a week - horrible work to do - their level of politeness was astonishing.
A bit like you would expect from clerks in the 1950s. A friend of mine who was a local authority accountant told me that the worst amount of swearing ever hurled in his direction was from a woman headmistress (the name for a manager of a private company with no teaching responsibilities). My equivalent was very memorable. It was from a Tory MP on the telephone one evening and entirely unwarranted. Initials D.A. I've just noticed the Lineker comment went in twice. That was a mistake on my part and not over-zealousness.

[jean]

...And the ferocity with which people use specifically female anatomical features as casual terms of abuse is telling - quite why, when they have featured in some of the happiest experiences of my life, is baffling to me. It is, of course, unthinking - just the conventional vocabulary of abuse...

Mostly unthinking, I agree, but with a degree of misogyny behind it I think.

The word really is 'Anglo-Saxon' and length of time between its first use (c.1230) and its emergence as an term of abuse for a man (1860) is even greater than in the case of fuck, though it was earlier used synecdochically (1664) for a 'woman as a source of sexual gratification'.

[teamsaint]

Mostly unthinking, I agree, but with a degree of misogyny behind it I think.

The word really is 'Anglo-Saxon' and length of time between its first use (c.1230) and its emergence as an term of abuse for a man (1860) is even greater than in the case of fuck, though it was earlier used synecdochically (1664) for a 'woman as a source of sexual gratification'.

There was some intense discussion about the C word and use at football matches down here recently. Although you'll hear it of course, it would be regarded as beyond limits in certain parts of the stadium. More interestingly, it was used in a song by fans, directed loudly and obviously at an ex Southampton player, and a lot of other fans were/are very unhappy about it.
I'd say I feel more uncomfortable with sung swear words,maybe as here is a greater element of premeditation .

In pop/rock music , use has become far more common than even during the punk days. I seldom hear use in pop music which in my opinion works on any level.

[Lat-Literal]

There was some intense discussion about the C word and use at football matches down here recently. Although you'll hear it of course, it would be regarded as beyond limits in certain parts of the stadium. More interestingly, it was used in a song by fans, directed loudly at an ex player, and a lot of other fans were/are very unhappy about it, for a number of reasons.
I'd say I feel more uncomfortable with sung swear words,maybe as here is a greater element of premeditation .

In pop/rock music , use has become far more common than even during the punk days. I seldom hear use in pop music which in my opinion works on any level.

I am more comfortable with the f word in communal singing of that kind because it is normally in the context of what could be described as humour. Given your workplace example which might imply excessive emotion, the reference to "unthinking" in jean's post which picks up on the casual element and the original television example which appears to be controversy for the sake of controversy (surely no one so many years after Tynan thinks they are crossing any boundaries and if they do then they are being very lame), we have a pen picture of 21st Century systemic "organisation" - quick to react hysterically, coudn't give a toss in other respects and highly prone to vanity projects. Contrast with WW1 - and to a lesser degree WW2 - when British (as distinct from American/Canadian) men were being killed left, right and centre in trenches and on battlefields with barely an "oh dear".

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/swearing-wwi.html

[jean]

There was some intense discussion about the C word and use at football matches down here recently. Although you'll hear it of course, it would be regarded as beyond limits in certain parts of the stadium. More interestingly, it was used in a song by fans, directed loudly and obviously at an ex Southampton player, and a lot of other fans were/are very unhappy about it.

Interesting. I hate hearing women use it, and I always upbraid them when I hear it. There were serious attempts among 1970s feminists to reclaim it, and use it proudly for what it ought to mean; but I think more recent attempts to combine that usage with retaining it as a powerful term of abuse are misguided. I'd always rather call a man a prick if I wanted to insult him.

When we were still largely Christian, religious terms were more shocking; I suspect the decline in religion goes hand in hand with the rise in sexual terms as insults instead. It always struck me that blasphemy is still truly shocking in Italy in a way it isn't here.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Much of the vocabulary has discarded the word origins - people will know the literal meaning of "bastard", but that isn't in mind when they most regularly use it as a term of abuse (or, indeed, endearment); and as Jeremy Hardy once said "When I hear the c word, I don't think of women's genitalia - what immediately occurs to me is Ian Duncan Smith". The (?less "offensive" as a swear word?) "slag", is an exception - it still carries assumptions about how women should behave with the "accusation" that they don't.

And, speaking of lost origins, there's the case of those who apologise for saying "Taking the piss" and then replace it with the far more offensive "Taking the Micky".

[jean]

...as Jeremy Hardy once said "When I hear the c word, I don't think of women's genitalia - what immediately occurs to me is Ian Duncan Smith"...

That does surprise me. But admirable as he may be in other ways, JH is not a woman.

Twat really has lost its original meaning at least since Browning, but it's live for me & I would never use it as an insult.

And, speaking of lost origins, there's the case of those who apologise for saying "Taking the piss" and then replace it with the far more offensive "Taking the Micky".

Don't know anything about that - what is the nature of the offence?