So we’ve all heard this phrase one time or another. Now, who is Pete and what was his sake?
It’s a minced oath… a milder, supposedly less sinful way of cursing to express anger or other strong emotion.
Instead of “Oh, for God’s/Christ’s sake!”, … Saint Peter’s less divine name is substituted.
My late aunt, who was a Mercy nun, had her own version of minced oath. It was always a bit of a delayed-action minced oath, however… she’d say,
“Oh, Jesus!… Mary and Joseph!”
:rolleyes:
… thereby managing to take the entire names of the entire Holy Family in vain.
Welcome to the SDMB, wycliffegordon!
Check this out.
:rolleyes:
… thereby managing to take the names of the entire Holy Family in vain.
… or, “the names of the whole Holy Family”…
… or, “the name of each member of the Holy Family”…
I’m a little confused on this “name in vain” thing. I had the impression that the sin came in asking the deity for something inappropriate. Saying, “God damn it,” when your shin finds the coffee table, or “Jesus f-ing Christ,” in times of exasperation, are unlikely prayers. However, saying just the name could be short for “God, have mercy,” or “Jesus, give me strength,” or “Lord, forgive my anger.”
Do I have it wrong? My Sunday School classes never spent much time on the “in vain vs. out of vain” issue.
AskNott, it depends. Some people regard even saying “God” or writing it out as a sin. Others interpret that particular commandment as you have stated.
Actually, I believe the original expression was “Oh, for pity’s sake.” (And I’ve seen it written that way, though I can’t produce a cite.)
I disagree with the minced oath explanation on this one.
I believe the expression has just been modified over time by being misheard, in much the same way that “spirit and image” became “spitting image” or "“You’ve got another think coming” became “You’ve got another thing coming.”
nah, it’s “for Peats sake” cos if you annoy me to the point I’d need to use it, you’re gonna be discovered in the years to come buried in a peat bog with a garrot around your neck.
Except, there is pretty good evidence that the original phrase was NOT “spirit and image.”
Read my posts in http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=110151&highlight=spitting+image
And, * for pity’s sake* is cited from 1593. I think that For Pete’s sake is a 20th century euphemism, probably American. I doubt that people used it as a Mondegreen.
I think it just avoids the fer Christ’s sake! type of blasphemy. My relatives in Southern Virginia in the 1930’s and 40’s were Southern Baptists. But some of them might say "Well, I swanny " to avoid saying “I swear.” But my grandmother always chewed them out anyway. She knew they were just avoiding a blasphemy.
Aren’t we talking about ST. Peter here? The guy who governs the pearly gates of heaven.
From what I was always taught it ment to stop doing what your doing or ol’ ST. Pete might not let you in or if not that you might have an untimely meeting with Pete himself. (Meaning you’ll die before your time.)
I don’t know what Mondegreen means. Explain please.
I agree that “for Pete’s sake” is used to avoid blasphemy. I just don’t agree that it was originally a reference to St. Peter. I believe it derives from “for pity’s sake,” which, as you point out, is quite an old phrase. I note that “for pity’s sake,” pronounced with an Appalachian accent, sounds a lot like “for Pete’s sake.” I don’t know if the latter phrase is Appalachian in origin, though. (What is the earliest written record of the phrase, I wonder?)
As I said earlier, I have no cites. Just guesswork, based on my awareness of the old “for pity’s sake” phrasing.
(Interesting cite on “spitting image,” by the way. Doesn’t detract from my underlying point, though. The think–>thing transformation is a well-documented example of a phrase being altered by being misheard.)
A “mis-hearing” of a lyric or something similar. See http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990811
We both agree that St. Pete doesn’t enter into the discussion at hand.
We both agree that it probably is derived from “for pity’s sake.” We diverge when you think that someone mis-heard “pity’s” and came up with “Pete.”
Pete’s sake appears only in the early 20th Century. Funny how no one mis-heard that in 300-400 years.
We agree, again. The 'think—>thing" mishearing I agree with. I only disagree with your “pity’s—>Pete’s” conjecture.