Daily random tidbit.

[Katya]

It's an important subject!

Or, at least, an interesting one.

Oh, absolutely. But it's also kind of hard to explain to the non-linguists why that sort of thing would stick in one's brain.

[wired]

I'm reading an article about swearing for a paper. It says that in English there are three basic categories of swears, one of which includes words that are related to religion (like "damn" or "hell"). I never realized it, but "bloody" is in that category, which makes sense.

What are the other two categories? (Scatology and sex?)

Would that omit "bitch" and "bastard" from swear words?

[wired]

Or, conversely, does the suggestion that "bitch" and "nigger" are so broadly offensive mean there is an emerging fourth category based on immutable characteristics?

[Digit]

Or, conversely, does the suggestion that "bitch" and "nigger" are so broadly offensive mean there is an emerging fourth category based on immutable characteristics?

The former is probably fine at the American Kennel Club Dog Show.

[wired]

Or, conversely, does the suggestion that "bitch" and "nigger" are so broadly offensive mean there is an emerging fourth category based on immutable characteristics?

The former is probably fine at the American Kennel Club Dog Show.

Right, as is "damn" at Hoover's and "ass" at a mule farm.

[Digit]

On the subject of context-determined foulness, I've heard that in the UK, the word "bloody" is actually pretty dirty if you say something like "get your bloody hands off of me," but I would assume that if someone's hands were covered with blood, there would be nothing wrong with saying "why are your hands so bloody?"

[mic0]

My first impression is that bitch, bastard, nigger, are categorically different from the religion/scatalogical/sex swears because these ones are referring to people just about all the time. Other words that would go along with them would be retard, gay, etc. So, maybe there are four categories! Or maybe they are different from the traditional swears. Not sure.

[Katya]

I'm reading an article about swearing for a paper. It says that in English there are three basic categories of swears, one of which includes words that are related to religion (like "damn" or "hell"). I never realized it, but "bloody" is in that category, which makes sense.

What are the other two categories? (Scatology and sex?)

Would that omit "bitch" and "bastard" from swear words?

It sounds like Mico's paper was talking about words that are expletives (in the linguistic sense), meaning that they are used to add emphasis, but they don't carry meaning on their own.

For example, there's no real difference in meaning between "Crap!" and "Darn!" (E.g., it's not as if the latter means that I've just hurt myself and the former means I've just heard bad news about someone else.) Which one I choose is largely my own choice, although different words can be more popular in certain regions, with certain age groups, or they can be culturally perceived as more or less offensive. These are the words that have their root in sex, scatology, or religion, according to Mico's paper.

Note that if you're using a word in a sense where it has an actual denotative meaning, it's no longer an expletive. (E.g., "God will damn the liars to hell.")

My first impression is that bitch, bastard, nigger, are categorically different from the religion/scatalogical/sex swears because these ones are referring to people just about all the time. Other words that would go along with them would be retard, gay, etc.

Right. These words have denotative value (however weak), so they're not expletives. They're still pejorative, but they're outside of the class of words referred to above.

Or maybe they are different from the traditional swears. Not sure.

So, if by "swear words," you mean "expletives," then those words are different. If you mean "words your mother wouldn't want you to say," then they're part of that larger class, but they have different syntactic (i.e., grammatical) properties than expletives do.

[Katya]

On the subject of context-determined foulness, I've heard that in the UK, the word "bloody" is actually pretty dirty if you say something like "get your bloody hands off of me," but I would assume that if someone's hands were covered with blood, there would be nothing wrong with saying "why are your hands so bloody?"

The first instance is an attributive adjective (which basically means it goes right next to the noun or noun phrase it's modifying). The second instance is a predicate adjective (which means that it's not part of the same noun phrase because it's separated by a copula, but it's still considered to refer to the earlier noun phrase).

The first instance could be interpreted either as a normal attributive adjective which is merely giving information about the noun phrase it modifies, or it could be interpreted as an expletive attributive, which serves to add emphasis to what the speaker is saying, but without adding meaning. I'm guessing that the expletive interpretation "wins" because of the emotional response it evokes (for speakers of British English, at least).

In the second instance, there's only one possible interpretation (the normal adjective interpretation), so the sentence isn't offensive.

For all you American English speakers, compare the following:

My damned neighbor won't leave me alone!
My neighbor is damned and won't leave me alone!

The second instance can only be interpreted as a literal religious judgment (we'll set aside how one earth one would actually know such a thing). The first instance could, theoretically, be interpreted the same way, but it's hard to read it that way because of the emotions triggered by the alternate interpretation.

[Tao]

I'm reading an article about swearing for a paper. It says that in English there are three basic categories of swears, one of which includes words that are related to religion (like "damn" or "hell"). I never realized it, but "bloody" is in that category, which makes sense.

I think that depends upon where you're getting your bloody etymology. I've read sources that would put it closer to the 'sex' category, but even then it'd likely weaken the clean 'three category' claim.

[mic0]

Katya, the article I read was really about taboo words in general, but yeah it mostly focused on expletives. I'm so glad you have defined the difference between expletives and general swearing, because I had a hard time explaining that.

Tao, I guess that is something that could be argued either way. Honestly, if I had never read that article or your comment I would have just assumed it was a violent reference.

[Digit]

Katya, the article I read was really about taboo words in general, but yeah it mostly focused on expletives. I'm so glad you have defined the difference between expletives and general swearing, because I had a hard time explaining that.

Tao, I guess that is something that could be argued either way. Honestly, if I had never read that article or your comment I would have just assumed it was a violent reference.

Not to tangent, but have you seen the TV show on the National Geographic channel called Taboo? Each show looks at fringe subcultures with a general theme throughout the show. One episode about people with different ideas of "fantasy lives" had a 29-year-old guy who loved to dress like a baby. He was a professional woodworker to earn his living, but at his home, he had an oversized crib (very oversized, he was at least 250 lbs.), an oversized high chair, bided his free time playing with legos on the floor, and his landlord, an older lady who loved being a motherly figure, would feed him out of a bottle. Talk about a weird perfect match!
if your curiosity is piqued

[mic0]

Apparently that show is on Netflix, so I may start watching it. That guy is very interesting!

[Emiliana]

I don't really have anything to add, but can I just say that how awesome this conversation about swearing is ... ?

[Dragon Lady]

I keep thinking it should belong in the swearing thread. Except, it's not the same swearing topic at all. So we have two swearing topics going on almost simultaneously. Huh.

[mic0]

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't sure where to post it and finally decided it was more of "random knowledge." Then the topic really ran away. Oops.

[Emiliana]

Quinoa is technically a fruit, not a grain.

[Fredjikrang]

Are you sure? I thought it was the seed of the fruit.

[Wisteria]

Okay. As someone who wrote her master's thesis on the family Chenopodium, of which quinoa is the most useful member, I can weigh in and say that Emiliana is pretty much right. It's a seed, but the reason it's not a grain is because grains by definition come from monocotyledenous plants, or grasslike plants. Think about plants like wheat, corn, and rice. They're all pretty grasslike. Quinoa grows on a broadleafed plant, so by definition it can't be a grain. It's often called a pseudograin.
Any other random plant questions? I haven't had much occasion to let that side of my education out to play recently

[Digit]

Interesting specific example by Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson talking to Fareed Zakaria about a way that space research helped advance another important industry. When the Hubble telescope first went up, the optics weren't right, and the images were fuzzy. While they were preparing to go up and swap out parts, they worked on algorithms to make use of the fuzzy images they were getting in the meantime. Those algorithms for improving fuzzy images were very useful to doctors trying to analyze breast cancer x-ray images with their eyes. If the Hubble telescope had had its optics right the first time, some women who don't even know or care what Hubble is might have died from breast cancer.