Don't Swear

One more thing for now (I realize that it will appear to some readers as the first thing): Wayne Grudem's comments on the language Christians should use, written in response to John Piper's explanation of and apology for his use of rude words at a conference for college students.

Comments

[Stuart Koehl]

There's a difference between obscenity and profanity. Some people don't seem to know the difference or how to appreciate a good, direct Anglo-Saxon word when a mealy-mouthed euphemism might suffice.

[Steve Nicoloso]

No shit... "Ass"... "Ass"!?!?!????? He's apologizing for saying: "Ass". Might "arse" have been more apropos? We are blessed by the English language with a rich spectrum of terms by which to connote the posterior region, each with its own peculiar connotation and recommended use. None is to be rejected a prior simply because it might offend (mostly feigned) bourgeois sensibilities.

[Stuart Koehl]

Ass, properly used, would be a synonym for fool, a silly or ignorant person. Arse, on the other hand, is a good English word for buttucks, where God does indeed kick us from time to time.

[Stuart Koehl]

Which, I just remembered, brings me to one of those annoying things about the New American Bible--its feigned bourgeois sensitivity to the word "ass". Thus, Jesus does not ride into Jerusalem on the colt of an ass, but rather on a young donkey. Next thing you know, the Romans will not be breaking his legs, but rather his "limbs" in good Victorian fashion. Pass the fig leaves, please.

[GL]

I am reminded of the story of President Truman offending some women visiting the White House when he told them about putting manure on the grounds of the Rose Garden. When one of the ladies complained to Bess, she replied that she had not idea how long it took her to get him to use the word manure.

I am also reminded of Mark Twain's revision of the old rule, "When angry count to ten. When very angry, swear."

(I am a Missouri farm boy, thus my sources.)

[Steve Nicoloso]

Another Twain quote:

Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.

[Bill Gnade]

I am fascinated by this subject, but I have no idea why.

Mr. Grudem's concerns and observations are surely valid and compelling, and Mr. Piper's contrition is convincing. But I think Mr. Grudem misses the point, namely, that Mr. Piper has made a confession. This is not about the impropriety of certain sounds emanating from the human mouth. Rather, this is about a man who has opened up his heart: Mr. Piper is convinced that his motives for speaking a certain way were fleshly and vain. In that, I find Mr. Piper incredibly insightful into the oft-obscure actions of the human soul. He sees the "why" behind his actions, and it is refreshing to hear not simply the candor (anyone can be candid) but the honest accuracy.

I wonder if God cares about any of this. Jesus' "brood of vipers" and "whited sepulchers" are fairly strong stuff, though not particularly bawdy; and St. Paul's hope for the mutilation of the genitalia of Judaizers is at least, if not prurient, somewhat R-rated.

I have long struggled over the whole idea of using the Lord's name in vain (Mr. Grudem rings this alarm). When I see something horrible, like the rape of a woman or a child, my screaming out "God damn it!" is hardly in vain, because I mean it: I am praying that God damns rape (and all sorts of things). Nor is it at all profane, for I intend to honor God's majestic judgment and His loathing of sin. But I have heard people praise God in utterly careless ways; I have heard "Praise Jesus" pronounced in the most vapid and thoughtless manner. Is this using God's name in vain? Is this carelessness -- even in the throes of worship and adoration -- profane? One wonders.

But I am grateful for the words of Messrs. Grudem and Piper. The former reminds me of the purity of all the things that made me fall in love with the gospel's promise; the latter informs my soul, and cautions me to take stock of my heart with its many hidden urgings.

Peace.

BG

[Ethan Cordray]

While I certainly agree with Stuart, Steve, GL and the like, I think there's certainly something to be said for one of Piper's points:

>>On the one hand, I don't like fanning the flames of those who think it is hip and cool to swear for Jesus. That, it seems to me, is immature.<<

I have seen that done (most memorably by Bono at Wheaton College, to thunderous applause), and I think it ought to be avoided. The sinfulness of cussing (not "swearing", which is a terrible misnomer) is a matter of conscience and intent, not of the words themselves, but that doesn't mean it can't still be sinful an awful lot of the time.

[Gintas]

To connect this with the "Reading Aloud" post earlier, read Aesop's fables to your children. You get to say ass often, so have your explanations ready.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>On the one hand, I don't like fanning the flames of those who think it is hip and cool to swear for Jesus. That, it seems to me, is immature.<<<

Swearing, in my mind, is taking the Lord's name in vain. To name something or someone is to invoke it, and when we use the name of the Lord in a mindless or disrespectful way, we invoke his presence. Now, this is a little like the boy who cried wolf, except that the Lord will always show up for you. However, at the end of the line, He might be a little ticked that you wasted so much of his time.

That said, profanity as a time and place. Gratuitous use dulls the effect, coarsens the speech. Precisely applied at the right time, it can be like an armor-piercing bomb that cuts through the cant and posturing, focuses the mind and makes everyone sit up and listen. Therein lies the problem--to be truly effective, profanity has to be used creatively, and the people who use it the most just don't have the brains to pull it off.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I have seen that done (most memorably by Bono at Wheaton College, to thunderous applause)<<<

Bono got his commupance at a concert in Dublin, when, in the midst of a set, he stopped playing and stood silently until the hall was quiet. Then he began rhythmically to clap his hands once every two or three seconds. After a while, he pompously declaimed, "Every time a clap my hands, a child in Africa dies". At which point, some cheeky bloke in the audience cried out, "Then fookin' stop doin' it, mate!"

[Little Gidding]

As pronouncing God's name invokes him, so pronouncing the words of body parts and functions invokes those things--makes them present and vivid in the conversation, presents them on a platter, as it were, to those in the conversation. Most of the time, that would be inappropriate. It would be like exposing yourself to your fellow conversationalists. Avoiding that is not just "bourgeois."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As pronouncing God's name invokes him, so pronouncing the words of body parts and functions invokes those things--makes them present and vivid in the conversation, presents them on a platter, as it were, to those in the conversation. Most of the time, that would be inappropriate.<<<

Most of the time.

[Marc V]

"That said, profanity as a time and place. Gratuitous use dulls the effect, coarsens the speech. Precisely applied at the right time, it can be like an armor-piercing bomb that cuts through the cant and posturing, focuses the mind and makes everyone sit up and listen. Therein lies the problem--to be truly effective, profanity has to be used creatively, and the people who use it the most just don't have the brains to pull it off."

Reading this comment from Stuart Koehl reminds me of the struggle I am having with the application of "discipline" to posterior regions of certain misbehaving children. We have three foster kids at home, and because of other parents not being able to judiciously apply the rod when appropriate in years past, I have to work under the DSS edict of no spanking-hitting-popping. There are times when a spanking is truly needed, but I'm stuck with giving time-outs and "reasoning" with them.

[Joe Long]

I heard a wonderful and effective short sermon from an infantry sergeant years ago, as Sunday morning and an opportunity to take an hour or two off from the strenous pace - OR, go to chapel - approached.

"Let me tell you, when you're out in some (colorfully accented) hole in the (emphasized emphatically) dirt, and some (lineage impaired, sexually indiscreet individual) is trying to blow off your (improbably employed in a sexual manner) head, you're going to want to TALK to Somebody. And it would help to know him ahead of time, which is why every last one of you is going to (oxymoronically accursed) chapel this morning!"

Somehow it just doesn't come across properly the way I've typed it. Some of that NCO's words were wrong, but others were effective emphasis and indeed simple concessions to the vernacular -you don't actually score points with Anglo-Saxons by speaking Norman.

In any case - I hope to make my children gentleman and ladies, who never give offense - unintentionally. There are times to be ferociously rude; among the benefits of daily restraint is the increased shock effect at the proper "improper" moment.

[Tony Esolen]

Joe,

That (questionably conceived) sergeant was one (indubitably) eloquent man!

One of my favorite stage directions -- right up there with Shakespeare's notorious "Exit, pursued by a bear" -- comes up at the beginning of the late medieval Castle of Perseverance, a morality play evidently produced and performed by a troupe of traveling actors. One of the demons, I think the one performing the role of Sathanas, is instructed to enter the stage "with firecrackers in his arse." Ah, those medievals! They had two advantages over us: they knew that devils were real, and dangerous, and terrifically cunning, and they knew that devils are stupid anyhow.

I prefer "arse" to "ass" as the word for the backside, because there's no confusion with any equine beast, and because there's absolutely no sexual innuendo involved, at least not in American English. It was the word the local Irish boys used when I was a kid. You have to call it something, and it does seem incongruous that you wouldn't name what you would sometimes kick.

In the same vein: I think we can divide Bible translations into two groups: "P-ssers" and "Nonp-ssers." (I use the hyphen lest the filters kick in.) In most translations of Kings nowadays, we lose the marvelous phrase "them that p-ss against the wall" -- it's just "males" or "men". To quote Shakespeare again, "O dainty duck, O dear!"

[Gene Godbold]

My boys love those bits where Nabal has riled David to within an inch of (Nabal's) life precisely for David's description of whose going to die.

[Gene Godbold]

Sorry, who's

[Gene Godbold]

Closing italics

[GL]

Tony,

Your reference to the old translations which use "pisseth against the wall" made we wonder two things, how do more recent translations render this and which is more literal. To that end, I visited Crosswalk.com's bible site at http://bible.crosswalk.com/. I discovered the following:

The Hebrew word translated as "pisseth" is transliterated as "Shathan" and means "to urinate"or " "one who urinates (used as a designation of a male)." The Hebrew word translated as "wall" is transliterated as "Qiyr" and means wall. Thus, it appears that the KJV is a very literal translation.

I then looked at modern translations which are held out as being literal.

The New American Standard translates the phrase as "male person." In the Strong's number system for the NAS, it show that male is a translation of "Shathan" and shows the same meaning as is shown for the Strong number system for the KJV (i.e., "to urinate" or "one who urinates (used as a designation of a male)." The ASV renders the same Hebrew phrase as "man-child."

The RSV and ESV translate the phrase as "male."

The Christian Standard Bible translates the phrase as "males."

The more obscure Third Millennium Bible (which is really just an update of the KJV and not a new translation) renders it "him that urinates against the wall."

And the Douay-Rheims translates as does the KJV.

My question for you is why do you think even self-proclaimed literal translation resort to dynamic equivalency in this case. Do they think modern readers are too stupid to understand the meaning of the literal translation or do they blush at translating the phrase as the Holy Spirit inspired the author to express it?

Frankly, I am a little disappointed. The ESV does not refrain from using "whore" in the Shema and other places, but apparently "pisses" or even "urinates" is too coarse. I would prefer a more literal translation. Let those who are too prissy to read an English translation of what the author actually wrote find an expurgated children's bible.

[Firinnteine]

I admit to bourgeois sensitivity. I like the fact that Charles Dickens can effectively communicate swearing without his characters actually doing so in writing. Further, I think the use of words like "expurgated" in Heinlein's Starship Troopers in place of actual profanities are MORE effective than the one occasion in the book where he actually uses a swear word. (My personal favorite: "Shucks and other comments.")

Strong language appropriately applied, I'm all for. Crudity, frequently (in my observation) proceeding from an inadequate capacity for clear communication, rather less so. And no, I don't think there's anything particularly "manly" about swearing for its own sake.

If it gives offense, don't use it. Unless, of course, you intend to give offense. In which case, just make sure the Holy Spirit intends the same thing. :-)

[James A. Altena]

Dear GL,

Even the 1885 RV, which was supposed to be even more literal than the KJV (and which I think is generally superior to the KJV in the OT), disappointingly resorts to "every male member of the tribe" as a euphemism for "him that pisseth against the wall." Victorian sensibilities on the topic apparently run long and deep. I once read an article by a minister who had a parishioner that became outraged when he referred to the Virgin Mary as being "pregnant," she apparently thinking "with child" to be a polite euphemism.

Of course, even the original Hebrew has its own euphemisms -- "feet" for genitals, and placing a hand "under his father's loin" to take an oath actually menaing to grasp his genitals. And some Rabbinical exegesis holds that Ham "saw the nakedness" of his father Noah is actually a euphemism for an act of incestuous sodomy -- which would certainly explain Noah's curse upon awakening from his drunken slumber.

[Gene Godbold]

Thanks GL and James for that cataloging,
I hadn't realized the euphemism about "under his father's loin" until I read Frederich Beuchner's fictional take on the patriarchs (which I heartily recommend).

[St. Worm]

Ah, sheesh. If saying "ass" was Piper's biggest vice, then I envy the man. I use vulgar language, not a lot or excessively, but enough to make my 4th grade Baptist Sunday School teacher blush. I'm an Anglican, so maybe we don't camp out too much on this like other Christians, but my general rule is: give no unnecessary offense to the weak, but mow over the Pharisees (I think that was Luther's rule too). But seriously, "ass"? Piper might have to rethink to whom he markets his conference. I get a little nervous around marble-hewn piety.

[JB]

Let's all keep in mind Piper's main point - namely, that he was apologizing not so much for the words themselves but for his impure motives. The point is not whether the "Victorian" sensibilities of those offended are disingenuous or hypocritical, but whether his words unnecessarily caused offense and failed to "minister grace unto the hearers" (Eph. 4:29). Whether such words can effectively minister grace depends largely upon the particular hearers of those words, and thus it is hard for us who weren't there to judge fairly.

I happened to be at this conference (though I did not attend that particular breakout session), and I suspect that a only a small minority were actually offended by what Piper said (and not necessarily because those folks are Pharisaical, either). The words in question were said before a fraction of the 24,000 or so students actually in attendance and didn't seem to generate much controversy, though Piper did leave more than a few college students guffawing over what he said and, no doubt, thinking him "cooler" because he said it. This, I think, was not his intent - hence the apology.

[Bruce C. Meyer]

Blasphemy is generally nonoffensive to us, but damnable by God. Profanity is either/or blasphemous or obscene. Obscenity is much more about customs and manners, consideration of others' feelings, especially around sex and bodily functions. We Christians ought to know that sex and bodily functions are good in themselves, but ought to be kept ob-scene, out of the view, away from others' line of sight.

"Omig-d" is pretty close to provoking the judgment of God, a lot like "G-d damn." "Damn" is merely impolite.

The way I understand the term 'ass' in American English, it's a homonym for donkey and a fool (whose head is up his donkey). I didn't know the term 'arse' until lately, which I took to be a euphemism.

I really am unhappy with submitting to demands for politeness, because they turn into giving up my freedom in Christ for someone else's love of legalism. St. Paul instructs us to *sometimes* avoid giving offense, and *other times* resisting the legalist to his face.
My balance right now is to be polite around women and children and Evangelicals, and to use the right word and right image when before God and man, otherwise.

[GL]

I once read an article by a minister who had a parishioner that became outraged when he referred to the Virgin Mary as being "pregnant," she apparently thinking "with child" to be a polite euphemism.

While my wife was pregnant with our youngest daughter, our oldest daughter spoke of her mother being pregnant in front of my mother-in-law. My mother-in-law did not like her use of that term on bit and let my wife know it. Apparently, my wife's grandmother (who had seven children) had been pretty emphatic that the use of the term pregnant was inappropriate. I don't recall the description my mother-in-law preferred, but it was much less direct than even "with child."

Before we get too critical of these past euphemisms, we should recall that one benefit of it was that they lived in much less coarse times than we do. If my choice was either/or, I guess I would take "male" over "pisseth against the wall" if it meant that I could take my children to a baseball game without their being introduced to the Anglo-Saxon words for feces and intercourse, not to mention frequent reference to our Lord's name in vain. As my previous entries indicate, however, I believe a middle ground is best.

[GL]

My balance right now is to be polite around women and children and Evangelicals, and to use the right word and right image when before God and man, otherwise.

I think that is a very good balance to strike, and one I also strive to maintain. When with men, I sometimes uses words which I would not use in front of my mother or children, when I believe the word used best conveys the meaning intended -- if you know what I mean.

I never use the Lord's name in vain and from past discussions here, believe I wall in a larger collection of uses of His name than others believe necessary. I have heard uses of the word God in G-rated movies that offend me and transgress my understanding of the prohibition in Scripture. Obviously, in this instances I am perhaps the prissy one.

[Tony Esolen]

Sorting out my thoughts here:

All blasphemy, all the time, is to be abominated. We will be less likely to turn Jesus' name into a slur if we adopt the habit, which we Catholics were taught when I was a boy, of bowing the head slightly when we spoke the name of Jesus, or when someone addressing us spoke the name of Jesus. The practice has Scriptural warrant ...

Obscenity in general is to be abominated. By "obscene" I mean what the ancients understood it to mean, only applied more consistently to sex than they applied it: you do not show on stage, on the scaenus, what should never be viewed openly, because it is too degrading to the human person, or because it involves the revelation of what ought to be holy and private. The only exception to such a rule might be for certain limited purposes in a literary work (Chaucer meets the test, but modern porno-popcorn doesn't).

Coarseness or vulgarity is, in itself, not sinful, and in fact we can commit the sin of pride by pretending that we are too high and mighty to hear certain words; and we can commit the sin of uncharity by using certain words among those who would find them scandalous. The drill sergeant had damned well not speak like a lady; and the man addressing the PTA had damned well not speak like a drill sergeant.

As for "him that pisseth against the wall," the translation should be faithful, period. It's what the text says. It's coarse, sure. So is cutting off a couple hundred foreskins of the Philistines and throwing them in a heap before the king. But the euphemistic "thigh" of Genesis ought to be retained, because that's what the text says (and what it means should be clarified in a note). The same idea shows up in the Latin word testis, "witness" -- swearing by the family jewels.

Now THAT'S a different category too -- the comical and coarse pseudo-euphemism -- "family jewels"! About the only thing a poor father could bequeath to his sons!

[Gene Godbold]

Oh, that's excellent: testis = witness; it brings so much together for me. Thank you, Prof Esolen.

I don't want to sound weird, but your post also clarifies what I think the Holy Spirit has been showing me about how I communicate with my boys. For the older ones, I'll sometimes use crudities (in the absence of their mother) to make my point. And I sometimes fretted about this, but after reflection, didn't feel the need to desist.

[Ethan Cordray]

Okay, we're finding consensus, so to stir the pot a little: what about hell, heaven, and the devil? Is "hell" blasphemy? And do references to the devil consititute blasphemy against heavenly beings?

[Bill R]

"My balance right now is to be polite around women and children and Evangelicals,..."

Oh, my. I suppose I should be offended. But I'm not sure! ;-)

"The same idea shows up in the Latin word testis, "witness" -- swearing by the family jewels."

Well now, we lawyers have a dilemma--can the ladies give testi-mony?

"Okay, we're finding consensus, so to stir the pot a little: what about hell, heaven, and the devil? "

"But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath,..."

James 5:12 (ESV)

Note: "above all." How should we presume that we can get around this?

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Well now, we lawyers have a dilemma--can the ladies give testi-mony?<<

I believe the Roman answer was, "no." After all, how would you punish them for perjury? :D

>>Note: "above all." How should we presume that we can get around this?<<

Well, I'm not sure how saying "oh, hell" or "good heavens" is swearing, exactly. It's using it as an interjection. That's why I mentioned earlier that I think "swearing" is a bit of a misnomer. But is it blasphemy?

Bruce, you can feel free to be polite around filthy-mouthed old me, if you like. Remember, Evangelicalism made a lot of converts in the wild west.

[Bill R]

"Well, I'm not sure how saying "oh, hell" or "good heavens" is swearing, exactly."

Perhaps not, Ethan. But one thing is certain: the NT authors believed that language has power. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can REALLY hurt me!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>So is cutting off a couple hundred foreskins of the Philistines and throwing them in a heap before the king. <<<

So David was not a mercenary after all. He received no salary, but only took tips.

[Ethan Cordray]

I'm gonna save that one, Stuart.

[Bill R]

"But is it blasphemy?"

The root meaning of blasphemy is to speak evilly or impiously. Heaven is used in Scripture as a euphemism for God, so the improper use of "Heaven" may be impious. You can't be impious regarding the Devil or Hell, of course, but the casual consignment of those who merely annoy us to the Devil or to Hell must be regarded as evil, at least by those of us who regard both as metaphysical realities.

[Seth R.]

Hope you'll forgive me for quoting a Christian author who has been getting some attention lately:

"But Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words or things; and their language was actually more degraded and filthy than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a closer rendering, though models are easy to find. Much the same sort of talk can still be heard among the orc-minded; dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt, too long removed from good to retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of those to whom only the squalid sounds strong."

J.R.R. Tolkein
Return of the King, Appendix F: On Translation, pg. 1108

[Bobby Winters]

>>>So David was not a mercenary after all. He received no salary, but only took tips.<<<<

SNORT!

[Bill R]

"So David was not a mercenary after all. He received no salary, but only took tips."

Or (ahem...) snips.

[Judy Warner]

"Heaven is used in Scripture as a euphemism for God, so the improper use of "Heaven" may be impious."

Heavens to Betsy, do you really mean that?

[GL]

So David was not a mercenary after all. He received no salary, but only took tips.

Stuart,

You are one sick puppy. That's one of the things I like about you! ;-)

[Bill R]

"Heavens to Betsy, do you really mean that?" - Judy Warner

Stuart, am I right or not?

[Stuart Koehl]

I like Charles II's favorite exclamation, "Odd's teeth!"

[Bill R]

"Stuart, am I right or not?"

>>I like Charles II's favorite exclamation, "Odd's teeth!"<<

I'll take that as a "yes." ;-)

[Judy Warner]

Seriously, all the little old ladies exclaiming "Heavens to Betsy" were committing blasphemy?

[I Wonder...]

Can one commit blasphemy unintentionally?

[Tony Esolen]

One time I was teasing one of my Italian cousins, in Calabria, about his generally loose affiliation with the Church -- he was insisting that he had great respect for it, even affection, and wanted, also teasingly, to know why I thought he was a little less than devout.

"Well," I said, "you curse a lot."

"No!" he said -- "I never do that. When I say 'your father $%^$%s &^%&^sm\,' or 'your sister would be a whore if she were better looking,' that is not a curse. That's an insult. It might be only a joke, or it might be horrible, but it's not a curse. But if I say 'Va all'inferno!'" -- and here his voice dropped almost to a whisper -- "THAT is a curse, that is a terrible sin, and that you will never hear me say."

He was right, of course.

[Bill R]

"Seriously, all the little old ladies exclaiming "Heavens to Betsy" were committing blasphemy?"

No, that's not swearing. But something on the order of "I swear by Heaven" would appear to be. See my quote from James 5:12, above.

[Bill R]

"Can one commit blasphemy unintentionally?"

Give me an example of what you mean.

[I Wonder...]

I mean, if you didn't know it was blasphemy (like, little old women exclaiming "Heavens to Betsy!" who probably weren't aware that--according to you--it is considered blasphemous), would it be accounted unto you as sin?

[GL]

The commonly used phrases (all over TV and even G-rated movies) that I consider blasphemous are, for example:

Oh, my G-d!
Jeez!

One you hear from the Brits that bothers me is "By Jove." In that case, you are swearing by the ancient Roman god, Jupiter (i.e., swearing by a false god).

At least on the first two, I think you are using the Lord's name in vain whether you know that or not. The latter is a little more iffy to me, but as I noted earlier, I fence in large area in my personal life in this regard.

I have heard the late Adrian Rogers preach against the euphemisms which are used as in lieu of profanity, such as Dad gummit! and Gosh durn! That seems to me to take the restrictions a little to far, but perhaps he had a point.

Sh-t is coarse and crude, but not profane or obscene. I do recall, however, a time when a friend of mine and I were unloading hay into a barn, under the direction of my father (who was a devout Christian and a very clean living man -- but no innocent, he was a combat veteran (NCO) of the Pacific theatre in WWII where, I am sure, he heard, and perhaps used, a lot of rough language -- he was not a Christian at that time). My friend hurt himself and yelled out, "Sh-t!" My father looked at him and said, "You just had something in your mouth which I wouldn't want in my hands."

[James A. Altena]

How many folks know that the British "Zounds!" is short for "By God's wounds!" (Mathcing the common British adjectives "bloody" and "bleedin'".) Does Tony or anyone else know why the British have this peculiar focus on Christ's wounds in their profanity?

I frankly can't see "Heavens to Betsy" as being blasphemous or a form of swearing. Even if Heaven is something used as a euphemism for God, that does not make every use of it such.

[James A. Altena]

"There's a difference between obscenity and profanity. Some people don't seem to know the difference or how to appreciate a good, direct Anglo-Saxon word when a mealy-mouthed euphemism might suffice." (Stuart)

Though sometimes a clever euphemism can be equally effective in its own way. An elderly lady friend of mine, instead of using the crude phrase "f-ck-ng b-st-rd", calls someone a "fornicatin' s-and-so", which makes her point, does not compromise her dignity, and gets a smile from those present as well. Another favorite of mine is the reference to a certain type of jerk as "an equine posterior orifice" -- a circumlocution that effectively gets attention.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How many folks know that the British "Zounds!" is short for "By God's wounds!" (Mathcing the common British adjectives "bloody" and "bleedin'".) Does Tony or anyone else know why the British have this peculiar focus on Christ's wounds in their profanity?<<<

Charles II's "Odd's teeth!" was in fact a circulocution of "God's blood!" I have no idea where or why they developed this fixation, though it is obviously of medieval origin.

[Judy Warner]

In Vermont people swear "Jesum Crow" as a euphemism for Jesus Christ. I haven't heard that anywhere else.

[Tony Esolen]

"Gosh" is an example of what linguists call a taboo deformation. If you say "wolf" in the woods, one is likely to show up, so you say "lwp" (instead of original IE "wlp" -- or maybe it's the other way around), and that's why "wolf" in Latin is lupus, Greek lycos, but OE wulf (= Latin vulpus, fox).

Other deformations:

Gosh
goshdarn
darn
goldarn
shoot
shucks
jeepers creepers
jiminy crickets

On the body parts: I don't know why the English had the penchant for that, but it shows up already (with clear symbolic significance, too) in Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale. They tear apart the body of Christ on the cross, and are pretty shocking, if you think of it (Italians do the same, but the swear words have not been elided into a single new "word"). Here are a few:

Zooks! Gadzooks! (God's hooks, i.e., the spikes)
Od's bodkins! (God's nails; the spikes)
'Sblood! (God's blood)

We human beings do think up the stupidest ways of damning our souls....

[Cyrano/rox]

This horrifies me: "My balance right now is to be polite around women and children and Evangelicals, and to use the right word and right image when before God and man, otherwise."

So, to men of other faith, this person intends impoliteness, and to the others, falsity. If he means it, I would care little for his courtesy. Nor need women take him seriously; he has not seen that they are a quite normal moiety of 'man'.

For those who believe men may be damned for words of which they do not know the meaning, I can only say that you are imputing cruelty and stupidity to God, a sin for which I cannot now remember the technical title. The body of Christ is not torn by such trivialities - you have been trapped by your metaphor. Working oneself into a froth about the unwilled sins of others is, frankly, ridiculous.

But I don't come in with gloom; remember that the Church intercedes for us all, and all may be saved, excepting perhaps me, the first of sinners.

[Bill R]

"I mean, if you didn't know it was blasphemy (like, little old women exclaiming "Heavens to Betsy!" who probably weren't aware that--according to you--it is considered blasphemous), would it be accounted unto you as sin?"

Immediately before your comment, I stated that I didn't consider "Heavens to Betsy" or the like to be swearing, but perhaps you missed that. Generally I don't think there are "unintentional blasphemies," for this appears to be a type of sin for which intention is an element. Who knows what our words sound like in all foreign tongues? When I was a student in Europe, we Americans always used to double up when German-speaking people would say, "Ich fahrt," which of course simply means "I drive (or travel)," but not, alas, to an English-speakers' ears! But no one thought the Germans were being crude.

[Judy Warner]

Nor need women take him seriously; he has not seen that they are a quite normal moiety of 'man'.

Sorry, but I take men who are polite to me quite seriously.

[Tony Esolen]

Gracious, Rox, tossing around the insults, without the honesty to admit that that is what you are doing!

The people who invented those horrible oaths were in fact doing horrible things. I know a couple of them in Italian that I will not repeat even in writing. My comment was not meant to damn anybody, but to note how heedlessly wicked we human beings so often are.

You're a woman, I suppose? And you want me, as a man, to speak in front of men just as I would speak in front of women -- or, conversely, to speak in front of women as I would speak in front of men. Why -- because it happens to fit with somebody's abstract theory about how the linguistic world ought to work? I have heard plenty of men deliver volleys of unprintables that take the form of insults, but that are not insults, and that the men they are addressing understand are not insults. No woman would call another woman "you fat bastard" -- and if she did, she certainly wouldn't intend it as a mark of affection. Plenty of men do that. I have written at the top of a student's paper -- a student I liked a good deal -- "Patrick, your prose is a corpse twitching by the side of a highway." He showed it to all his friends as a mark of personal esteem, which it was. Women do not bond with one another by pretending to push linguistic limits; men do. I do not see how it is charitable in you to insist that sailors talk like ladies at a tea party. Me, I don't swear like a sailor, and I do think that in most circumstances it isn't called for. But if you expect even this easygoing college professor to extend his linguistic pinky, and do it when he's chatting about money or football or politics or rock climbing with a group of men, forget it.

[Beth]

"your prose is a corpse twitching by the side of a highway."

Oh, my goodness! Do I have to be a male prof and say this only to a male student? Can I please, please, use this glorious description?! I have so many examples of twitching corpses lying to the left of my computer even as I type . . .

Of course, one of my male colleagues did call a female student's essay "slipshod and inaccurate" and 10 years later she still tells of her breakdown over it . . . Though they get along just fine now, it took a few weeks for her to get over it. Had he called it a twitching corpse, she still might not be speaking to him . . . :)

[Tony Esolen]

Beth,

Heaps of twitching corpses! LOL!

Hmm -- how about this? Road Kill Day -- the day when you turn papers back, or when you call the class in for conferences about what they've just written --

Hmm -- or, maybe, you could mark the papers according to how much blood has been spilled and how many mangled limbs there are strewn about. So: One Vulture (not awful, though still in critical shape, and we'd better call the ambulance); Two Vultures (somehow still distinguishable as living English, but not for long); Three Vultures (barely a twitch of life; mainly a mess); Four Vultures (mangled English everywhere, utterly dismembered); Five Vultures (mangled something or other everywhere, though whether it was English or French or some other language known neither to angel nor man, is impossible to tell).

Conversations in the hall:

"What did you get on your paper?"
"Three vultures. How about you?"
"I got a couple of vultures and some crows. What about you, Bob?"
"I can't tell. It looks like a whole mess of black feathers, with a big tire track through them."
"I think that's an F, Bob."
"I HOPE it's an F."

[Beth]

Tony, I LOVE it! I had to print this out and share it around the English offices! No telling what will happen next essay-grading cycle . . . !

Beth

[Bill R]

"Hmm -- how about this? Road Kill Day -- the day when you turn papers back, or when you call the class in for conferences about what they've just written --"

I'm sending this to my daughter, a high school English teacher.

Thanks, Tony. (Or do you prefer to be incognito?)

[Beth]

Wow. I am being overly influenced by student essays. Please forgive three exclamation marks in three sentences . . . I shall go meditate on noun phrases now and try to calm down.

[James A. Altena]

In my former days of adjunct college teaching of history courses, I had to pray that I would even have one student per class who qualified as being marginally literate. The "prose" often did not resemble dismembered limbs of a corpse, let alone anything whole enough to be twitching.

[Ethan Cordray]

One semester of TA'ing for a "Writing Effective Prose" class taught me the same. My mental energy was divided 50/50 between contemplating the futility of trying to teach that to college freshmen and feeling relief that I hadn't had to take it myself. AP credit was a tremdous gift.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>One semester of TA'ing for a "Writing Effective Prose" class taught me the same. <<<

One semester as TA for Ed Luttwak's "Introduction to Military Analysis" class back in '78-79 showed me how bad undergraduate student writing could be. My experience with doctoral candidates at SAIS showed me it only gets worse.

[Beth]

Stuart, I sometimes worry about teaching my students to write well, because if they do go on to graduate school, what I have taught will very likely not be valued; they will instead be praised for obscure, convoluted, impossible prose.

Sadly, the academic journals in my own discipline are the most awful. It takes me hours to understand an article, only to discover that it was either simple patent nonsense or simple common sense, either of which could have been said clearly -- but without the veneer of "erudition" supplied by the impossible syntax and vocabulary. (I rarely read them anymore, only to prove that I'm "keeping up with the discipline" when asked.)

Sigh.

[Ethan Cordray]

And so, by simple steps, a post about profanity becomes a thread about academic prose. How exquisitely appropriate!

[Bill R]

"And so, by simple steps, a post about profanity becomes a thread about academic prose."

Why? Did you think they were so different? ;-)

[Beth]

My students certainly appear to use plenty of profanity while preparing their academinc prose . . . :)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Sadly, the academic journals in my own discipline are the most awful. It takes me hours to understand an article, only to discover that it was either simple patent nonsense or simple common sense, either of which could have been said clearly -- but without the veneer of "erudition" supplied by the impossible syntax and vocabulary. (I rarely read them anymore, only to prove that I'm "keeping up with the discipline" when asked.)<<<

On the bright side, the jargon is so obtuse that not once, but several times, professors have submitted spoof articles to peer-reviewed journals and had them accepted. One, as I remember, claimed to prove that gravity is a social construct.

[James A. Altena]

And there's always the cesspool of academic moral turpitude -- "queer theory" in literature, "queer history", etc.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And there's always the cesspool of academic moral turpitude -- "queer theory" in literature, "queer history", etc.<<<

I once lost my AOL account over my (correct) use of the term "queer theory" in the course of a discussion of the degradation of history. Apparently there are some queers who don't know that they have a theory.

[peterspence]

>>>Apparently there are some queers who don't know that they have a theory.<<<

Stuart,

I think half the reason I read this blog is for your jokes.

Thanks a million!

[luthien]

Dr. Esolen, thank you so very much for the vulture system! When I start teaching high school French and Latin, which seems to be thoroughly inevitable (unless some nice university wants to give me a full fellowship for an MLS or a doctorate in Medieval literature), I'll be sorely tempted to use it. The undergraduate's inability to write English tends to bleed into his foreign language studies; I doubt I'll ever be able to forget the student in my French 202 class several years ago who, apparently not realizing that "stole" is the past tense of "to steal," looked up "stole" in the dictionary, found the word meaning "a stole," and wrote in his essay that his friend "mink stole" his bicycle.

[James A. Altena]

That matches my "college" student who wrote in an exam that "King Louis XIV sat on his thrown."