Is the language becoming debased?

Great Debates
1

[Long intro]I realize that language changes, and I’m not an old fuddy-duddy insisting on the use of “whom.” I’ve long resigned myself to “data” being used with a singular verb. But, it seems to me (pretty obvious) that the primary purpose of language is to communicate – even with people with whom you vehemently disagree. My question is about the level of civility, and the growing use of words that used to be considered hideously obscene and would never have been used in polite conversation.

Of course, back in the Victorian Era, you could insult someone by calling them a “person” (meaning not a gentleman or lady.) And “damn” and “hell” used to be considered dreadful words that a nice person wouldn’t use. Clark Gable saying, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn” was a shocker in 1939.

As each level of hostility and crudeness becomes more acceptable in broader reaches of society, folks keep looking for a way to have that “ultimate” expression of contempt, thus pushing the boundaries further out. So, by the 1960s, when “damn” and “hell” were reasonably commonplace, “fuck” and “shit” were the terms used for more extreme situations (although never in polite society.)

So: have “fuck” and “shit” lost their sting as well? With the overwhelming use of electronic communications -– email, text-messaging, message boards replacing phone calls and face-to-face meetings – I see much more misunderstanding in communication. A few years ago, a friend told me in email to “Fuck off” which she had intended as a gentle kidding, but which I took as a serious insult and responded in kind. It was almost the end of a friendship. If we had been face to face, the “fuck off” would have been said in a light tone of voice and with a smile, and I would have had a better clue how to read it. Or she would have seen from my face that I was taken aback, and would have said, “Whoa, it’s a joke.” Email doesn’t allow us to see body language or tone of voice.

Yes, there’s currently a bit of a to-do over the use of strong terms on the SDMB. And I’m confused. Do people really say “Fuck off” or “Fuck off and die” to mean “go away and leave me alone”? If your child comes to pester you about something, do you say “Fuck off”? If an over-eager sales clerk asks if they can help you when you don’t want help, do you say “Eat shit and die”? If an employee comes to you with a stupid question at an inopportune time, do you tell them to “Go fuck yourself”? [/long intro]

So, finally, I get to my question for debate: language certainly changes over time, but is this kind of language truly common now? And if so, what do you say to someone when you really are angry and want to express extreme annoyance?

2

Of course it’s debased if you’re gonna use such terms in GD :eek: :slight_smile:

3

I believe it always was… in English. Some poeple, however, keep trying to impose Latin into English. Data perfectly fits the “vague amount” words pattern, which are normally singular in English.

However, I too share your misapprhension over losing access to really vile curse words. How shall I express my wrath when Fuck is not sufficient?

4

You’ll find a way. Do you seriously think that, what with several millenia of constantly evolving communicative taboos, linguistic and extralinguistic, now is finally the time when the human race loses the ability to express vehemence?

5

If I understand correctly, “piss” and “shit” were, in the nineteenth century and earlier, not especially appalling words. At that time, bodily effluence was not nearly as taboo as it was in mid-twentieth century, nor as taboo as religious words were at the time; thus saying “goddamn” was much worse than saying “shit.”

I suspect that currently bodily functions are becoming less taboo, and with this transition, the profane words lose their sting. At the same time, social inequality and contempt for classes of the Other is becoming increasingly taboo. Racial and ethnic and sexual epithets, never acceptable in polite company, are becoming increasingly unacceptable even in raucous company. And even terms like “mentally retarded” are considered taboo terms in some circles; I myself have been scolded for calling someone a spaz on a messageboard.

Steven Pinker, in The Stuff of Thought, outlines several classes of profane words that appear in different languages. From memory, they consist of:
-Religious words (damn, hell, Christ)
-Bodily functions and effluvia (fuck, piss, shit)
-Sickness and injury (bloody, God’s Wounds/Zounds, spaz)
-Epithets of the Other (Spic, faggot, white trash, bitch)

There may be other categories, but I don’t remember them. In any case, I think we’re moving away from taboo bodily functions and into taboo Epithets of the Other. I’d be very surprised if we’re losing the ability to shock with language; that ability is crucial to human communication.

Daniel

6

Do you honestly believe the human race only recently started swearing?

7

Um, no. I don’t. Wasn’t that the point of my post?

8

I share Indistinguishable’s confusion. He was suggesting that we’ve always sworn, and we’re not gonna stop now.

9

Well, with the OP complaining about recent changes in the language, and you referencing recent changes in language - ah, to hell with it. I need to get some rest.

10

It’ll only become debased if people persist in putting d’s at the end of words in which they don’t belong. :smiley:

11

The matter of more cursing is of less concern to me (being the potty mouth that I am) than the fact that we are, with email and IM and twitter and all the toe-curling shortcuts, hurtling towards Orwell’s “newspeak”, which is a far more disturbing kind of debasement.

(But of course there’s things I just love to death, like “embiggen” - cracks me up.)

12

From what I understand, the phrase “Fuck off” has a far less harsher meaning in the UK than it does in American English.

13

I’ve read (probably on the Dope) that “light meat” and “dark meat” in reference to chicken was made up so that people wouldn’t have to say “breast”.

But anyways, ultimately if someone wants to say something hurtful to another person, they’ll use whatever the terminology of the day is to achieve that. If they want to speak properly, they’ll use proper terminology. If they want to sound cool, they’ll use hip terminology.

If someone’s trying to be an ass, they’ll always be able to achieve it regardless of what the forbidden words are. Even when there are no forbidden words, they’ll still be able to achieve it. Expanding or shrinking the list of words doesn’t change anything. If you want people to be nice to one another, you need to make them value honest, caring living. That’ll probably happen about the same time as crime and homelessness end. You’re better to worry about those.

14

Aside from the fact I think your fear is just unfounded, I don’t think - with all due respect - you understand what “Newspeak” was. It wasn’t merely a simplification of language.

15

I think what threw begbert2 (and me) was Indistinguishable’s “several millennia” timeframe:

AFAIK, the human species is considered to have had spoken language as its primary means of communication for about the past 100,000 years. It seems very unlikely that “communicative taboos” would be only “several millennia” old (although it’s true that documentary evidence of cusswords extends back no farther than that).

Anyway, I see from Indistinguishable’s more recent post that he seems to have meant “many many” rather than “several”, so I think we’re actually all in agreement.

About the history of swearing part, anyway. I doubt anyone here would agree with my personal position on the use of verbal obscenities, namely, Never Under Any Circumstances Except in Deliberate Furious Invective. If the increasing incidence of verbal obscenities is in fact debasing the language (and although I personally don’t like them much, I probably wouldn’t defend that position), I’m not contributing to it.

I’m the one who says “Ouch! How provoking!” when I smash my thumb with a hammer—even when nobody else can hear me. When I start actually articulating four-letter words in audible speech, RUN.

16

Ah. This is exactly right; poor wording on my part. Sorry about the confusion.

17

I tell my cats to fuck off. I have a terrible mouth when it comes to swearing. Some I know do not. When I hear them swear, it means something. When you hear me say “god bless America” you know you better steer clear. Yeah, I have somehow managed to do a complete inversion, substituting swears with “gosh,” “god bless america,” and “gee whiz.”

18

I’ve sometimes wondered if people who save swearing for real anger, thinking that it’s the only way to express such strong emotion, are sadly limited in their vocabulary; it’s those of us who swear casually who know that real anger requires more than a fuck or a goddammit to express eloquently :). (Then of course I remember that eloquence can’t be measured by so crude a stick).

Daniel

19

It seems to me it’s all about inflection, and as stupid as it sounds emoticons become more necessary as text becomes shorter. In the past a long letter would have set the necessary tone for the joke or sarcastic remark to follow, you simply cant do something like that with a 10 key pad.

It doesn’t debase the language to type ‘LOL’ as language is simply trasference of information, lets not make this a ‘why don’t people learn latin anymore’ thing. I really don’t consider cursive a lost art.

All that said though, I still appreciate and sympathize with the longing for poetry in composition.

20

Verbing weirds language.

[Re: the title.]