View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kiri

Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Latvia/Italy
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:49 am Post subject: Swearing in different languages |
|
|
Hello everyone!
I'm writing this story about a guy who is supposed to swear quite a lot, and, since Latvian isn't really a good language for swearing, I'm considering my options.
So, my question is, which are the best languages to swear in?
Also, do you swear in your conlangs on everyday basis?
And finally, if the admins permit, show some of your favourite swears!
Personally, growing up in Latvia, I hear a lot of Russian, and an owerwhelming deal of curses and swears. Russian is juicy enough to swear, but usually the inventory is quite narrow, sometimes even down to three or four words that you hear over and over again - it's getting quite old.
Another language, I think is good for swearing - German. No offence, but all the damn lang sounds like a series of curses!
I think French is an interesting choice. You know what they say - sh** sounds better in French!
What do you think? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tolkien_Freak

Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 1231 Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of my friends who speaks Hungarian says you can curse in Hungarian for a minute straight without ever reusing a word.
My conlangs don't have swear words... yet. (They probably won't for a while, I've got far more important words that still don't exist.)
And I don't really care for swearing, that much. I try to avoid much worse than 'crap' (or 「くそ」 for Japanese) as much as I can. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
3po
Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tolkien_Freak wrote: | I try to avoid much worse than 'crap' (or 「くそ」 for Japanese) as much as I can. |
do you think it's important that ~90% of people will automatically make the euphemistic connection to "shit"? _________________ I-I |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tolkien_Freak

Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 1231 Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In my experience most people don't even think twice. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
3po
Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tolkien_Freak wrote: | In my experience most people don't even think twice. |
do you know this because you ask them? _________________ I-I |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eldin raigmore Admin

Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IME frickatives, dreckatives, and theo-imprecatives are never interpreted as having actual semantic meaning related to the actual words they contain, except by the people who object to their use. Their users, and their less-offended listeners, just assume they are emotional interjections or ejaculations, of the same semantic class as "Ouch!" or "Yuck!" or "Yay!". _________________ "We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tolkien_Freak

Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 1231 Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
eldin raigmore wrote: | IME frickatives, dreckatives, and theo-imprecatives are never interpreted as having actual semantic meaning related to the actual words they contain, except by the people who object to their use. Their users, and their less-offended listeners, just assume they are emotional interjections or ejaculations, of the same semantic class as "Ouch!" or "Yuck!" or "Yay!". |
WHS. I assume if a large number of people connected the meanings, I would be reprimanded far more frequently than I am. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
3po
Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tolkien_Freak wrote: | WHS. I assume if a large number of people connected the meanings, I would be reprimanded far more frequently than I am. |
oh, so, because they do not vocalize their interpretations to you then those interpretations do not exist...wow _________________ I-I |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eldin raigmore Admin

Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
3po wrote: | Tolkien_Freak wrote: | ... if a large number of people connected the meanings, I would be reprimanded far more frequently than I am. | oh, so, because they do not vocalize their interpretations to you then those interpretations do not exist...wow | No, not that they don't exist -- almost all listeners are probably capable of providing "the interpretation". Just that that's not how the listeners are in fact interpreting it. The listeners' interpretation is ordinarily the listeners' best guess as to the speakers' meaning; and they usually guess (usually correctly) that the speaker doesn't mean much except to show emotion (in particular doesn't mean anything having to do with copulation or feces or God). _________________ "We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
3po
Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
riiiight... _________________ I-I |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eldin raigmore Admin

Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
3po wrote: | do you think it's important that ~90% of people will automatically make the euphemistic connection to "shit"? | I think that's wrong. >90% of the time, <10% of listeners are likely to think of actual feces or actual defecation when they hear "crap" or "shit" or "horseshit" or "bullshit" or "chickenshit" used as a "swear word". _________________ "We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
3po
Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eldin raigmore wrote: | I think that's wrong. |
sure, why not
Quote: | A few ants short of a picnic
A few beers short of a six-pack
A few bricks short of a pile
A few bricks short of a wall
A few cards short of a deck
A few clowns short of a circus |
i bet no one is thinking about the word 'stupid' after reading those... _________________ I-I |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
yssida

Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 253 Location: sa jaan lang
|
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would opine that the best languages in which to cuss are those which emphasize caste and social relationships, which are found in Javanese and Japanese, and to some extent probably Chinese. This is so you could play around with different registers quite a bit and will give you different shades of meaning; and you can even make it as explicit or as implicit as you want. _________________ kasabot ka ani? aw di tingali ka bisaya mao na
my freewebs site |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kiri

Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Latvia/Italy
|
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
3po wrote: |
i bet no one is thinking about the word 'stupid' after reading those... |
I don't know, what you were betting on, but you just lost it
Anyway, it is an offtopic of all sorts, and, if you'd be so kind, please stop it (everyone, I mean)
Another question - on a conlangin aspect, what makes a good curse-word?
Would it be some special kinds of sounds? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tolkien_Freak

Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 1231 Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mostly curse-words are derived either from topics that are left unmentioned in polite society, or from swearing by something the culture in question considers sacred. It's less the sound of the word that gives a curse its force, but the meaning behind it (even if the actual meaning has been lost for quite some time). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kiri

Joined: 13 Jun 2009 Posts: 471 Location: Latvia/Italy
|
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
But isn't there anything to do with sound? AFAICR all the Latvian people to whom I've talked about this agree that our language is not really suitable for swearing, because it doesn't have "juicy" curse words. The thing is we have Russian at our side to compare with - and Russian is juicy by all means.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tolkien_Freak

Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 1231 Location: in front of my computer. always.
|
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure sound does really help. I know that 'damn' often sounds weaker than it ought to to me, especially when really Californian speakers pronounce it as /djEm/. It just doesn't sound like a curse word.
Ultimately, though, meaning is the driving factor (at least in creating curse words). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eldin raigmore Admin

Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kiri wrote: | Anyway, it is an offtopic of all sorts, and, if you'd be so kind, please stop it (everyone, I mean) | OK. Sorry.
Kiri wrote: | Another question - on a conlanging aspect, what makes a good curse-word?
Would it be some special kinds of sounds? | The sounds people make to express pain tend to be diphthongs -- [Aw] or [Oj] or [aj] etc. -- so why shoudn't there be a correlation between sounds and curses?
(Please note: all of the following is just guesses on my part. I've done no research.)
Going by English, "good" curse-words seem to have a very fortis stop in them somewhere, and also a lengthenable (and/or fortis) fricative (often actually lengthened or geminated); often (usually?) both are voice-less. E.g. [S:It] <sshhitt> and [f:Vk] <ffuckk> and [h:ek] <hheck>. The curse-words tend to be monosyllabic. The vowels tend to be overshort usually; when someone who is cursing deliberately lengthens the vowel it is marked. E.g. [SI:t] <shiiit> and [fV:k] <fuuuck> and [he:k] <hheck> (though "heck" is mild enough that it usually doesn't lengthen the vowel nor geminate either connsonant).
German's <Teufel> sort of fits, except for having two syllables.
French's <merde> is monosyllabic, has a lengthenable consonant at one syllable margin, and has a stop at the other. It's possible to geminate the sonorant onset [ m] or to lengthen the vowel or to make the coda stop [d ] be fortis; and I bet one or more of those things is done frequently. So a "lengthenable consonant" could be any continuant, and doesn't have to be a fricative.
<espèce>'s stressed syllable <-pèce> fits the pattern I mentioned for English, though I think it's probably less common for the vowel to be lengthened or the fricative(s) to be geminated; or, at least, not to the same degree as a curse-word that can stand alone ("espèce" is always part of an "espèce de ..." phrase.)
So maybe one syllable-margin could be a cluster, like in [SmVk] or [spIt].
I think a good curse-word should be one that's easily emphasized; that already sounds a bit emphatic as-is; and that begins with a sound you'd normally make even non-linguistically, just to respond to the emotion you're feeling at that time. That's why [S:S:It] is such a good curse-word.
-------------
This brings up a question; Are there other emotional situations in which certain sounds tend cross-linguistically to be the ones uttered?
For instance, a non-linguistic expression of surprise seems to be [hV] or [hVh] or [hV:] or [hV:h] or some variant, for some vowel V (not necessarily Z-SAMPA's [V ]), in more than one language.
-------------
Does any of that help?
I hope so. _________________ "We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|