Watched an old Foyle’s War episode tonight. Set in England during World War II. A man (possibly military) refers to an grossly incompetent British Army Officer:
“He has no idea what he’s doing. He’s a complete B.F.”
(That’s what it sounds like he says, and is what the subtitles show.)
Does anybody know what “B.F.” might have been short for?
I’m guessing ‘bloody fool’.
OED agrees with you.
It helps an American to be aware that the word “bloody” in such context is grossly improper/impolite/“trashy” therefore an “officer and gentleman” certainly might hesitate to use it.
I’d be surprised that an officer would be reluctant to swear in such a relatively mild form, although clearly it would depend on who was present of course ( “not in front of the ladies” for eg ). I’d need to see the context. Perhaps the producers didn’t want to swear on prime time TV.
Thank you!!
Who was his audience? Not you–the characters listening.
When Shaw had an actress use “bloody” in Pygmalion, it was quite shocking. That was 1914; by the second war, the word was still rather rude…
Britain, WW2, hospital:
A very badly injured man (civilian scientist, about 30) angrily denouncing his supervisor (Army Officer, whose arrogance and reckless incompetence has caused one innocent civilian death and is endangering many more); his listener is a middle-aged high-ranking Police detective, very proper, genteel and soft-spoken. Under normal circumstances the speaker would probably be the same, but given the context of the storyline, the character wouldn’t be in any mood to mince words. I’m assuming “bloody fool” was sanitized to “B.F.” for broadcast (BBC TV).
.
No, “bloody” would barely raise an eyebrow in a children’s programme, these days. People really did used to talk like that in those days – some of them, anyway.
And Foyle’s War was made for ITV, not the BBC.
How did “bloody” get to be such a bad word? Is it the last survivor of the Elizabethan Christ-references, “God’s blood”, “God’s wounds” (Zounds!), “God’s hooks” (Gadzooks!) etc. or is it a reference to menstrual blood?
Both have been suggested, but my understanding is that there’s no evidence for either.
It seems always to have been an almost meaningless intensifier that started out as being fashionable among the upper classes, and then became very popular with the working class, whereupon polite society dropped it like a hot turd. It wasn’t what it meant that made it taboo, it was that it was “vulgar” in the literal sense of being “common”.
Ignorance fought.
Earlier threads on the British use of “bloody”:
Actually, I don’t think saying “BF” would necessarily indicate self-censorship; particularly in this period context. It was kind of an “in” expression at the time: you could think of it as similar to a poster on this forum writing “I call BS” or “I guess you’re SOL” – neither of which indicates a general reluctance to type the word shit, so far as I can tell.
“Bloody fool” is mild. Not the sort of thing that I’d expect an angry soldier to self censor and not the sort of thing that has had any trouble airing on British television for a long time. “Bloody fucker” on the other hand…
I’ve seen some BBC shows with language that would make a teenager blush.
Interesting point.
But not on prime time. In Eastenders (long running BBC soap) the characters would never say even ‘bloody’ no matter how mild we now perceive it.
Well there’s also the show’s audience. It’s not a fly on the wall documentary.
Bloody might not be the sort of would one would use in front of the family, but I doubt grown men would necessarily shy away from it in that era.