NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/wordsl/49247

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.8 KB | 72 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!CCWF.CC.UTEXAS.EDU!AMADEUS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:41:20 -0600
Sender:       English Language Discussion Group <[e-mail]>
From:         Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Curses Soiled Again (was Re: Deep beliefs)
Comments: To: English Language Discussion Group <[e-mail]>
Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list WORDS-L <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 58

On Mon, 21 Dec 1992, Peter Montgomery wrote:

> Explain to me then, why so many people find the use of Christ and
> Jesus Christ so effective as swear words, rather than Hitler, or Stalin,
> or Pontius Pilate. Funny I don't hear anyone taking the name of Moses
> or Mohammed, or Allah or Buddha in vain.

You've answered your own question, you have.  *Swear* words.  As in take
an oath by.  As in perhaps what was once an oath in earnest has been
denigrated by constant use.  As in perhaps a shouted "Jesus, Mary and
Joseph!" isn't the profanity you think it is, but rather an earnest
appeal by someone to those powers (usually to keep from rending someone
limb from limb).

Swear words, oaths and curses are not the same thing as "dirty words" (I
won't even call them profanities, because to me a profanity has to do with
the inappropriateness of the oath...more later).  "Shit" is not the same
as "damn", because where "damn" is almost invariably short for "God damn
[insert object here]", "shit" is most likely not short for "May the Gods
shit upon you" (although it would be amusing if I were proven wrong).

Of course, I just used the dirty word "shit" to pronounce a curse.  But
the word in and of itself is not a curse word, or an oath, or a swear
word.  I mean, if you swear by shit, I feel sorry for you.

There are people who swear by those other deities you mentioned, no doubt.
But come on.  This is Europe and America.  Christendom.  You know. So of
course the term most heard by people is going to have a Christian basis.
(Frankly, I think most children simply learn it phonetically.  "Gee-zus!"
There are too many people who say "Gee" and "Geez" for that not to be the
case.)

I'm trying to get out of the habit myself, but find myself presented with
a bit of a problem.  To say "[By the] Goddess!" instead of "God!" is not
only stilted at present, but it tends to sound like a bad fantasy novel.
And the more prevalent examples of pagan oaths in the language ("By Jove!"
"Zounds!" and so on) make me think I should have a monocle.  "Ye gods!"
doesn't work either, because I keep waiting for someone to say "Great honk!"

To me, where saying "Jesus!" becomes a profanity is when you have
absolutely no reason to be calling upon that personage and that which He
represents, yet you do know full well what you're saying and are not
simply enunciating phonetics you've heard all your life.  *That* is taking
the Lord's name in vain as far as I'm concerned.

But getting back to your other point, where you ask why people aren't
using the names of such folk as Pontius Pilate (I don't really consider
him company for the other two; I actually kind of feel sorry for the poor
slob), Hitler and Stalin.  Ask yourself -- do you really want people
invoking the aid of such people?  Do you really want people looking to
them for spiritual support in times of stress, inadvertently or not?

I rather think that all of a sudden, the oath "Jesus Christ!" out of
someone's mouth might not sound so bad.

-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains."  -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
[e-mail]--------------The University of Texas @Austin---