EXPANDING ON the theme of courtesy, N.W. writes:

I seem to recollect Faulkner once saying that a true gentleman treats every woman like a lady whether she is or not. Given the scarcity of ladies nowadays this is a tall order. On the contrary, many women I’ve dated have been offended when I’ve paid for dinner or held the door or walked on the traffic side of the walk. Hillary Clinton used to bawl out the Marine guards for holding the door for her. 

On the matter of colorful language, it really is a convoluted state of affairs these days. I went to a small, conservative (in the Burkean sense) Catholic liberal arts college, graduated ’06. Most of my class went to Mass regularly and was relatively conservative and most everybody in my class was rather free with their language, men and women alike. I never minded, the girls all carried themselves with a classy and vaguely scandalous sort of style, like a 1930s Hollywood actress, or Brett Ashley in “The Sun Also Rises.” Now, my sister’s class, ’08, had a higher density of sheltered homeschoolers in it and the girls were a bit more restrained in their language. My sister, however, was rather free in her use of certain words, most likely owing to my influence. I expect her attitude on the matter to change shortly, her daughter will turn one year old this September and I’m sure that my sister and her husband will be planning on providing her with a cultured and refined vocabulary. And I’ll probably be reprimanded at least once or twice a visit. 

My trouble is, I’ve never been offended by any one particular word; for me its always been the context and intonation which dictate whether one should take offense at a thing said. For instance, on one occassion my father and I were cleaning out an old shed when a large amount of bird droppings fell off a piece of furniture we were moving. My father said, “watch out I think you got bird doo-doo on your shirt.” I replied, “nah, I ain’t got $h!t on my shirt.” Now, this good natured response caused him some consternation, largely because my mother had been complaining about my choice of words. He said that God had given me a gift in my mastery of language and there was no reason, with my vocabulary, to have to resort to such vulgar words. 

I replied that it was precisely because of my love of language that I responded how I had. First, I was playing off the vulgar practice of using a curse word to describe just about anything (hot as ____, cold as ____, crazy as ____ , dumb as ____ etc.) except the word I used wasn’t a pointless malphemism, it really was what the word described. Second, the expressions “doo-doo” or “poop”, are both slow and cumbersome words with little or no percussive qualities. They clumsily interrupted the rhythm of the phrase. Lastly, the way word sat in the line was perfect, perfect alliteration and the two words were only one letter away from each other “$h!t” and “shirt”. All of these considerations ran through my head in about a second and I said, “Nah, there ain’t $h!t on my shirt.” 

Now, I must admit that my views concerning language, especially vulgar language, have changed since then. When I come across a group of middle school boys and girls dropping phrases that’d make a sailor blush I find it rather disturbing. However, as I said, a good deal of the time it’s not the word in and of itself that I find disturbing so much as the context of the word, whether it has any meaning at all within that context or is it just getting tossed out there for the hell of it. Lastly, is the word being used as part of a conscious effort to offend the listener or is it just one more word within the sentence? To tell you the truth, I’m far more offended by banality in language, it makes for such tedious conversations. 

There is a hard and definite percussive quality to certain words which provide a sense of weight and finality to a thing said. It provides a reference point within the rhythm of a sentence or phrase. It has its use within language. And it also has its place I suppose. As the good book says, if an action causes offense to a brother or sister, even if it is not expressly forbidden, one should refrain from engaging in it and causing scandal. Ah well. It is nice when one can be a conscientious gentleman and provide ladies withe the small courtesy of civil conversation when they’re about.

Laura writes:

Foul language eats away at the foundations of thought and reverence. The banality of the thin stockpile of curse words used today is tiresome and shows a poverty of imagination, but the meaning of these words is the worst thing about them. The meaning always permeates our thinking, no matter how unconscious we may be of its effects. They either elicit a vulgar or distracting image or they demean what is sacred.

Speaking of sound and leaving aside its offensive meaning, the ef word, which is everywhere, is too percussive. It overwhelms its surroundings; it’s like a rock thrown through a window.  

                                                         — Comments —

Larry B. writes:

I agree with N.W.

The intention behind a word is important, and whether or not the word is actually a curse depends in a large part on the intent. The common swear words of today, used ubiquitously by dull youths, attention seekers, and bad story-tellers, indicate a lack of imagination, like Laura said. The four-letter words seem to be used so commonly now they’ve lost almost their bite. This is a great shame, though not because people curse too often so much as they can’t actually think of anything erudite, appropriate, or accurate to say in many of their daily interactions.

I once heard a disappointed, perhaps disillusioned young man decrying over the phone “Well, fine then! F*ck the F*cking F*ckers!!!” I could only marvel as this one captivating word became almost every word in a sentence.

I’ve often wondered if saying ‘frickin’, ‘freaking’, or ‘friggin’ is really any better than the actual ‘f-word’. Using one word to deliberately take the place of another curse word does not disguise that one intended to curse. The intention is still there, albeit perhaps mellowed a bit out of consideration for anyone else who is around. I guess curse words just seem sort of arbitrary. Most of them are bastardizations of old-english or otherwise normal words. The F-word, as I understand, is a mild corruption of the subjunctive form of ‘frichen’, or ‘to strike’ in the German. That stuff about it being an acronym for ‘fornication under consent of the king’ is total nonsense.

I wonder though, since the traditional swear words are becoming more and more common, if new swears will emerge to take the place of taboo language, or if at the cost of greater eloquence people will actually stop swearing with the intent of swearing. Which would be better?

As a side note, I’ve noticed that politeness isn’t so depressingly far gone as many other good traditions. It’s a virtue that transcends every culture and every time (right up the present, of course) but everyone, and I mean everyone, still noticed when someone else is polite to them. Politeness means you are showing another persona small but foundational respect for them as a person, and it’s a strong hold against the rampant cynicism and impersonality of our society today. To reinforce with anecdote (since I know everyone is eager to hear), I work at a restaurant. It’s the sort of place where blue-collar, white-collar, and no-collar folks all frequent. When people get To-Go orders, I bag their food, ask if they want plastic-ware, napkins, condiments, fresh rolls and such, and make sure to end with a parting nicety. It’s the white-collar folks who respond the least often, presumably because they are used to nice treatment and expect it (rightly so, no mark against them). The Blue-collar folks are usually in a hurry and are a little too stressed still to pay much attention (again, rightly so). It’s the thuggish looking people. It’s those with dread-locks, sagging pants, lots of tattoos and sullen expressions, whom I most enjoy interacting with. They are always surprised and pleasantly responsive to politeness, as if there’s is a nascent recognition of its necessity and importance that they never learned or expected, but are glad to be reminded of.

Laura writes:

I disagree that intention is the main thing. Or, I should say, as long as one knows what the word means in its colloquial usage, then how could the intention be anything but to curse?

Where I live, there is still a lot of politeness in interactions between employees and customers in stores and restaurants. 

Lisa writes:

It is disturbing to me that crude words (“barnyard” in nature) bother many people more than blasphemous or filthy, degrading words that cheapen proper associations with functions of gender. That said, I will use an example from a friend who worked in an office where there was no dress code. “Anything (or nearly nothing) goes,” seemed to be the order of the day. He saw the harm in morale and work productivity, and decided to wear a suit and tie every day, smile, and say nothing else. The response of his coworkers was to dress better (more modestly and professionally) and act better, resulting in a more productive workplace with higher morale.

Even if I personally am fond of certain “language,” I refrain for reasons Laura has mentioned. Having grown up with a cussing and very angry grandfather, whose words are nearly always my immediate mental response to any given negative event, I hope to have spared my children this trained mental reaction later in their lives.

So far, the comments for relaxing with language have been from men, and those about restraint are from women. Since women are not better than men, might this just be an area of appropriateness? But I do respect the several men I know who do choose never to use words that are “questionable” to many today. They help me mind my mouth too.

Laura writes:

Most of curse in some way when, say, we’re within inches of being hit by an SUV or we’re moving the sofa and it ends up on our foot. Few of us are wholly pure.

If I had to choose one word that is the most offensive from the arsenal of verbal weaponry, it is Jeezus. I agree with Lisa. The blasphemous words are the worst.

N.W. writes:

In regards to blasephemy, I would argue that the greatest offense committed by most blashepmers today is a tiresome and stifling banality. They are freely using a word, excuse me, the Word, in an irreverent matter. Given the fact that most of them are agnostics or atheist or just don’t give a damn, the offense is far greater, hell won’t even take them. They freely toss about the Name whose gravitas dwarfs the universe and act like it don’t mean nothin’. At least Faust knew what he did, his actions drew thier boldness from his certain knowledge of God’s greatness; his mistake was in thinking he could exceed that greatness through negation, didn’t work out. The blasphemers of today, through their tiresome banality, will resurrect wasp stung and worm gnawed eternally chasing banners outside the gates of hell, the seventh circle would reject them.

I suppose most of my word choice finds its ground in Chaucer, John Skelton, and good old Falstaff (though recent activities have put me more in mind of Prince Hals coming of age.) Now, granted, no matter the paticular verb or noun employed, its generally not a good idea go about broadly discussing scatological and copulative matters in the presence of ladies (and children). So, I imagine we can all agree that boys will be boys, but they darn well better be polite boys when their mothers, wives, and sisters are about.

I do believe that a distinction does have to be drawn, though, between those words which are merely explicit, vulgar, and rude, and those words which are blasphemous. Blasphemy is an afront whose weight is considerably greater upon the soul than using the odd rude word. It is a manifestation of the souls indifference to the Creator and what He has made. Whenever I hear someone get ticked off at a task and say G–D-mn I always say “maybe He just did.” Ask and it shall be given unto you. 

Laura writes:

“The banality of the thin stockpile of curse words used today is tiresome and shows a poverty of imagination, but the meaning of these words is the worst thing about them. The meaning always permeates our thinking, no matter how unconscious we may be of its effects. They either elicit a vulgar or distracting image or they demean what is sacred.”

Now, in your critique above you place the meaning of a word as a thing which exists concretely bound within those letters, the word retains its meaning in a leatherbound vacuum, it is a thing stuck with a pin and neatly put in its place by the esteemable Mr. Johnson. This concept of language descends directly from Plato’s forms, where each and everything exists as a thing independent of the rest of creation. I have a tendency to let my mind fall into a Heraclitean fire and look at things as existing as part of a greater whole, each thing finds its definition in relation to those things around it. I suppose as Christians we are called to act with the clarity and perserverance of eternal diamonds, but at the same time we are dust and to dust we shall return. I’ll stop rambling now.

Laura writes:

The meaning of a word is not static and it changes, but at any given time it typically has a common, widely-understood sense and regardless of the swearer’s state of mind that meaning is conveyed to his listener.

Please follow and like us: