"Bloody"

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbloody.html

I believe Oxford to be wrong on this, unbelievable as that is. During the reign of Elizabeth I (Shakespeare) it was common to taunt Catholics by using the phrase “By our Lady” when expressing an opinion of almost type and on other occasions. Like many other expressions, this quickly became shortened to “Bloody”, as in “Bloody Hell!” It remains in extremely poor taste because of the blasphemy, not because of any relation to spilling blood. Relate it to “Zounds”, also used at that time and a short form of “God’s Wounds”. The latter is more easily discerned as the word “zounds” occurs in no other usage than as expletive, while “bloody” bloody well does (couldn’t resist). Or a closer relation is available in “'s Blood” [God’s Blood], also referring to the wounds of Christ on the cross and again arising at about the same time and used by good ol’ Bill S.

2

Hmmm, seems Oxford says"There is no ground for the notion that ‘bloody’, offensive as … it is now to polite ears, contains any profane allusion or has connection with the oath ’ ‘s blood!’, referring to the blood of Jesus."

Not derived from “'s Blood”, agreed, but not profane? “…possibly refers to ‘bloods’ (aristocratic rowdies) of the late 17th-early 18th centuries … ‘bloody drunk’ arising from ‘drunk as a blood’”’?

Sorry, not terribly believable in light of “Drunk as a Lord” or “Sober as a Judge”. More so as “By our Lady, the man was drunken as I’ve ever seen!” adding an oath as emphasis.

3

I have altered the name of the thread.

4

http://www.word-detective.com/111097.html#bloody - says “bloody” is probably not derived from “By our Lady”, but also cuts up Oxford -

What is truly odd about upper-class Britons’ “bloody” squeamishness is that until about 1750, “bloody” was considered a acceptable if somewhat unpleasant word, often used as an intensifier in everyday conversation. The emergence of violent gangs of aristocratic thugs known as “bloods” (probably from “blood thirsty”) in the 18th century may have been the impetus for the public banishment of “bloody” from polite speech, but in any case the exile lasted for more than 200 years and is only now easing.

This demonstrates Oxford is wrong, the word was in vogue before the gangs. But it does not do away with the Elizabethan explanation.

Is it more likely that one is a “Bloody Idiot!” for having a stained shirt, or “By Our Lady, he is a very fool!”? And its use as derived would have been fine during the 17th century, I doubt that Elizabeth (or her dad) would find objectionable a word mocking Catholic terminology/piety.

5

My father’s trademark phrase yelled at people who drive improperly

“Jesus’ nipple, lady! Use your blinkers!”

6

teqjack. I’m not sure that I fully understand your thesis.

You are of the opinion that bloody probably comes from a shortening of by our Lady. I disagree.

You said

OED never said that the word wasn’t in vogue before the gangs. Rather, they said

You also said

OED meant that the term wasn’t considered profane in its pre-1750 usage. You can contend that it was profane, but only if you can prove it came from By our Lady.

I’m not very literate about your assertion that

You are probably correct but can you give a few cites?

So, the phrase By our Lady was OK to say? It wasn’t profane? I’m confused. If it wasn’t profane to say the full phrase, why would it be profane to say a hypothetically shortened version(bloody)?

7

samclem, I truly regret not being able to give a cite for Elizabethan usage. I am paraphrasing from what I remember of a book by a somewhat off-beat historian who documented things not usually included in formal histories, such as that her court dress styles included bosom-baring gowns even though portraits show a style that covered more than the Victorians. Wish I did remember more, I’d like to read it again. The closest thing I have to a cite is apocryphal, a gent from another site reminisced that his father had an English history that claimed sailors used “bloody” derived from “By our Lady” before England had ever considered splitting from Rome.

As to being profane or not, if you stub your toe on the way to the bathroom at night and exclaim “Damn it!” you have uttered a profanity - but it is quite socially acceptable in today’s US while it would have gotten you into considerable trouble in earlier times. Perhaps this is because we recognize the intent is not profanity, only a more literate way of syaing “Ow!”. Yet technically it remains profanity by calling upon God “in vain”, or out of vanity.

And yee, “By our Lady” was (and is) acceptable, in much the same way, as adding emphasis to an assertion. From this site’s paraphrase of Oxford -

On the other hand, the use as adverb dates back to 1650s: as an intensive, meaning, “very” or “and no mistake”.

This is exactly how the phrase is used, as well as the “word”. And is why I agree with Oxford that it does not derive from “'s Blood”, which is not so used, but disagree that it cannot be derived from “By our Lady”. And Oxford’s assertion that it is a reference to the “Bloods” or the blood of battle is an even further stretch. It may have become distasteful as the Bloods ran rampant, but I can’t see it becoming a “naughty” word because of them, I feel there must be more - and again, Elizabeth’s troubles with her cousin Mary fits better as Anglican-Catholic troubles were passionate, and yes bloody, to a far greater extent than hatred of the Bloods. The Bloods were a local pimple compared to the open wound of the national (indeed, international) religious and political problem. And conflating the use of “it was a bloody battle” with “He’s a bloody idiot” seems ludicrous to me. Try “It was a sanguinary battle”, which works (if badly) and “He’s a sanguinary fool” which is almost meaningless.

Can I prove any of this? Nope, no more than can the Oxford. It is my opinion vs their opinion. Do they have greater expertise? Yes indeed, but I disagree nonetheless: after all, Einstein tried to stop even the idea of Quantum Mechanics, so expertise does not grant infallibility.

8

Well, I was the staff member who associated the profane use of “bloody” with “menstrual” in Victorian times. I have no cite, alas, it was one of those things that stuck in my head from somewhere.

And please note that the OED doesn’t say that it’s NOT derived from “by our Lady” nor from “'s Blood”, it just says there’s no evidence supporting such claims. “By our Lady” seems far-fetched to me; I can see “By our Lady” being condensed into a new word, like “Bladey” or “Bie-dy”, but “bloody” was already an existing word.

9

Bloody silly posting mechanism. I deliberately logged on before coming here so I could post without losing everything I’d entered, but that does not seem to be enough… Smart enough to put in my name, but I guess I need password too. AND being logged on already. Or something.

Anyhow. I do very vaguely recall “Bleddy” being used in an English novel as part of a dialect. Doyle? Christie?

All of the derivations are suspect, with great gaping holes. Had the OED used “By [y]our Lady” as a sample, uncertain, progenitor I wouldn’t have been bothered. But to go so far away as “'s Bloody” and “the Bloods”, neither of which fit the usage, struck me as silly. “By the Lady” at least fits the usage as intensifier, as would “'pon my oath” though I certainly do not offer that as forerunner of “Bloody”.

Your recall of Victorian sensibilities seems better suited, just rather late on the scene. At least it fits the use of the word, and would explain the distaste for said use.

As to assigning new meaning to an old word, it’s done often enough: think of Rhyming Slang, or just glance at some other word derivations. In fact, it is one of the things mentioned in the paraphrase from the OED, eg “gauche”, through a somewhat torturous path, has come to mean “wrong-footed”: neither the original “gauche”, nor “le Main Gauche”, is inept.

Indeed, the OED paraphrase gives this as a possible derivation by assigning to an already in-bad-taste word a new meaning associated with a lawless gang. But the OED’s attempt to say that it may already have been objectionable in reference to “bloody butcher” or “bloody battle” and the ubiquitous lower classes of society is simply ludicrous. Even Victorians used “bloody slaughter” - and in newspapers, as reference Rorke’s Drift (and possibly the Six Hundred, but maybe not). But the asterisks come out in force when quoting (the defendant was heard to remark on “That B*****Y Judge” as he was led off) and it will not appear in that context otherwise, while unobjectionable in other contexts (when the victim’s bloody shirt was introduced in eveidence).

10

teqjack . While you are certainly entitled to your opinions, you appear to have less to back you up than does the OED.

You offer such things as

Strike one.

Strike two.

Strike three.

“Bloody” wasn’t a profane word in the 17th century or before according to cites from the OED.

I’m sure you mean well, but offering information off of the top of your head without cites just doesn’t cut it.

11

It’s true about the topless Elizabethan fashions, though. (It’s not talked about much, but it’s not controversial; the record is plain.)

12

samclem, please note I have two points:
1 I agree with OED that there is no known evidence as to where capital-B (vs small-b) “Bloody” came from including variants of “By [y]our Lady”
2 I think the OED’s examples of possible progenitors were poorly chosen from the field, to the point of being ludicrous Come to today’s sensibilities, C K Dexter Haven’s Victorian menstrual pads fit even better than my irreligious example or the OED’s.
Well, OK, three - it’s fun

“Strike one.” No cites. True, but neither does tha paraphrase of OED in the article.

“Strike two.” Actually, a repeat of 1 - no source shown. But as I pointed out, that source had itself no citeable source and was not in any way authoritative. If you want to look for it, feel free, I’ll send the roll of sixty or so blogs I read - it’s in comments somewhere, the only reason I even remembered it was it was only a few days ago. And even if you find the book itself, I have no doubt its evidence is apocryphal anyway or it and its sources would have long ago settled the derivation question.

“Strike three. ‘Bloody’ wasn’t a profane word in the 17th century or before according to cites from the OED.”
Not exactly: “They add, 'There is no ground for the notion that ‘bloody’, offensive as … it is now to polite ears, contains any profane allusion…”, but neither is there evidence that it does NOT contain a profane reference. No-one KNOWS where it came from, there is no evidence EITHER WAY. Sorry for the caps, but I want to ephasizse some how - and my toothache (two teeth pulled, and it still hurts) is driving me up the wall, too.

Profane:
1 Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2 Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3 Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4 Vulgar; coarse.
5 To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
6 To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.

Five of six (number 3) ain’t a bad match. Limiting it to rhe first and fifh, once again OED says “no evidence” - except they say it was in use for a hundred years before the first reason they use for it being objectionable, and then say maybe it was objectionable for reasons that have existed since the word was first used in the sense of sanguinary, and offer no other reason for it being “naughty”. I suspect the author of that bit in the OED knew “'s Blood” was an easy target to show a lack of connection to proposed derivations and thought that a sufficient example without dragging all the others - and I pretty much agree with that approach, I just think it was a bad choice, TOO easy a target. As to the reference to the Bloods, oh come now. Do we here in the US dislike the word “cripple” because of the “Crips” gang, or "bloody’ because of the “Bloods” gang? Did we a hundred years ago? Will we in two hundred years?

13

What I find interesting is that “bloody” is a bad word in British English but not in American English. Does this indicate that it was not a profanity when America was originally colonized by the English, but became so later on? Or did Americans stop using it for another reason?

14

Stella*Fantasia: Perhaps so. Read on, with CKDH

C K Dexter Haven, your Victorian is moving ahead in the pack! See “4” and “CKDH” note

samclem, cites? here are a few, and if you look them up you’ll find that at least one refers to the OED as out of date. Still nothing more than opinions, but you wanted more than mine, so -

‘etymology bloody’ —> http://www.geocities.com/etymonline/b4etym.htm
Bloody (O.E. blodig) has been a British intens. swear word since at
least 1676 (Partridge reports that it was “respectable” before c.1750;
Weekley relates it to the purely intensive use of the cognate
Du. bloed, Ger. blut). [note use of quotation marks - Teqjack]
—>
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxbloody.html BEST*
2 “by our Lady” (an invocation of the Virgin Mary). There was
an interjection “byrlady”, attested since 1570 and frequently
used by Shakespeare, which did mean “by our Lady”. But
this was an interjection, not an adverb, although a citation
from Jonathan Swift (“it grows by’r Lady cold”) shows a possible
intermediate use. The transition from “byrlady” to “bloody” is
phonetically implausible. [but not impossible - teqjack]
4 blood with reference either to menstruation or to “the bloody
flux”, an old term for dysentery. “Ingenious, but […] much too
restricted”, says Partridge.
[in re not offensive - + and … (“It was bloody hot walking to-day”,
Swift, 1711; “bloody passionate”, Samuel Richardson, 1742) that show
that “up to about 1750 it was inoffensive”. + How so? Because the
superior classes used it? Or because it was already so common, and
several generations of use [and lack of Catholics to be offended] had
blunted it? - Teqjack]
And more to CKDH - + A Merriam-Webster etymologist (in e-mail
to me) … added: “‘Bloody’ in 19th-century England – like ‘fucking’
and other so-called intensifiers – functioned principally as a marker
of speech register signaling group or class membership. In a society
in which speech register was strongly
associated with economic class, and class distinctions were
extraordinarily significant, it is not too hard to see why ‘bloody’
became so taboo for Victorians. I’m not sure any other explanation
need be sought. The taboo on ‘bloody’ as well as a lot of other
constraints in Britain declined in force with the social upheavals
initiated by World War I.”
—>
http://www.takeourword.com/arc_logi.html
[Another entry in the field - Teqjck] As far as bloody being used as
a chiefly British expletive, that dates from the 17th century. There
is not a widely accepted explanation for its origin. One suggests that
the word is a contraction of by our Lady, our Lady being Mary, the
mother of God;
another explanation is that the word became an `intensive,’ as
linguists call such words, by way of the nickname for Mary I of
England, Bloody Mary.

15

Stella. I think the reason is simply that it wasn’t used in in US English. Probably because it went out of style in England by the mid-1700’s. While it would seem that the term wasn’t a “bad word” when the first English colonists came to the US, it doesn’t appear to be a common word in the pre-1750 US listings(which would be far less than the English printed sources).

16

A) You have provided no cite whatever for your initial claim that RC’s were taunted with variants on “by our Lady”. My own knowledge of Elizabethan language doesn’t back it up at all.

B) The “word-detective” cite does not “cut up Oxford”. In fact, I don’t see any evidence that its author read anything but the OED entry.

C) The gangs of “bloods” at least provide a reason for the word to shift, which no alternative does. (“Blood” meaning “roisterer” is older than Shakespeare, but “the bloods” were later.)

D) Why should “s’blood” (which, by the way, lacks the -y) become one of the most obscene words in Britain when the parallel “s’wounds” became a mere signature of quaintness? (Elizabethan scholars note: no pun intended.)

E) There is no reason to think the “bluddily learned” quote is relevant. Not because of the “-ly”, but because the overwhelming probability is that “bluddily” is meant literally.