pardon this, codger!

[Dennis R. Preston]

This characterization  of obscenity always amused me. Those who know
obscenities have a less paucal vocabulary by exactly those many words.

Example:

person #1 knows "turd" and "stool" = 2 words
person #2 knows only "stool" = 1 word

Winner (i.e., bigger vacabulary), person #1

dInIs (now into math)

PS: Even the speaker who knows only "turd" is tied with the one who knows
only "stool."

>Would you characterize those who are seemingly unable to express themselves
>without obscenities as either deliberately offensive or merely suffering
>from an exteme paucity of vocabulary?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <RonButters at AOL.COM>
>To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 1:14 PM
>Subject: pardon this, codger!
>
>
>> Dennis Preston writes:
>>
>> << [1]. "Offensiveness" is also in both brains,
>> sender and receiver. ... [2]. we also should probably try to avoid items
>> which will offend others, and  [3]. I assume, and I think rightfully, that
>> those who belong to classes which may be offended are the ones who get to
>say
>> whether items are
>> offensvie or not (just like American Poles get to say how to pronounce
>their
>> names, and speakers of Polish like me who think we know better can go sit
>on
>> it).>>
>>
>> Concerning [1], I'd like to make the distinction that dictionaries make:
>> "offensive" is only in the mind of the hearer, while "disparaging" is in
>the
>> mind of the speaker as well. You can find something offensive that I do
>not
>> intend to be offensive. But if something I say is "disparaging," I
>intended
>> the offense.
>>
>> Concerning [2], since when do grammarians concern themselves with "should"
>in
>> this absolute imperative sense? Is it our business to pass moral judgment
>on
>> language use? "Should" we also not split infinitives? Nah! Speakers
>certainly
>> "should" try not to use terms that others will find offensive--except when
>> they decide that they want to BE offensive (i.e., unless they chose to say
>> disparaging things). As Dennis knows (because he has studied discourse
>> analysis and conversational interaction), most people most of the time in
>> fact DO go to great lengths to avoid giving conversational offense. That
>is,
>> we normally DO "try to avoid items which will offend others"--that is
>normal
>> linguistic behavior. But what we "should" do is outside the scope of
>> linguistics.
>>
>> Concerning [3], it just ain't that simple. Whether, say, "Hoosier" or
>> "cornhusker" is taken as offensive depends a lot on context: who is doing
>the
>> talking, what are the circumstances, and who is deciding whether something
>is
>> offensive or not? Even the worst ethnic slur in America (the "N" word) can
>be
>> uttered without giving offense. Some homosexuals are offended by "queer,"
>> some are offended if one doesn't use it. Some "Hispanics" don't like that
>> term, some don't like "Latino." I seriously doubt that many people are
>> offended if a Polish name is not pronounced to their liking--though they
>may
>> be annoyed.
>>
>> --Ron Butters [a faggot who will be grumpy if Dennis does not pronounce my
>> surname Boo-TEHRZ from now on]