"smack": a recent acroetymythonym

[Jonathan Lighter]

Ask a stupid question....

JL

Wilson Gray <wilson.gray at RCN.COM> wrote:
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: Wilson Gray
Subject: Re: "smack": a recent acroetymythonym
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jul 17, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: Jonathan Lighter
> Subject: Re: "smack": a recent acroetymythonym
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> Most of the "terms of address" Doug itemizes are known to have existed
> during the Civil War. Were they as widely used then ? If so, history
> leaps to life in a way unforeseen by our textbook writers.
>
> If not, what has changed in the heart of man ?
>

Why not consult the one who knows: The Shadow?

-Wilson

> (Actually, this is a pretty interesting question, if you ask me. Too
> bad we don't know more about bad language in the Civil War.)
>
> JL
>
> "Douglas G. Wilson" wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: "Douglas G. Wilson"
> Subject: Re: "smack": a recent acroetymythonym
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>> < SMACK :
>> in compliance with Congressional mandates prohibiting abusive
>> language, this epithet was adopted to represent all derogatory,
>> obscene,
>> or profane terms deemed inappropriate for reviling military
>> servicemembers, being a Humpty Dumpty redefinition; see ATTITUDE
>> ADJUSTMENT, CALL ON THE CARPET, TALK TRASH, GODDAM. [Swearing is
>> either
>> juvenile or crass, but MIL-PERS admire talent and respect skill, so
>> creative vulgarity and uncommon scurrility is often appreciated. ....
>>
>> But that, naturally, isn't the point of this message. Though "dumb
>> smack"
>> goes back several decades in civilian speech, the military's crack
>> acroetymythonymers have decided that, like any etymologically
>> intriguing
>> monosyllable, "smack" has to be an acronym for something - but what
>> ? Various sites offer
>>
>> Soldier Minus Ability Coordination [and] Knowledge
>>
>> Soldier Minus Aptitude Character and Knowledge
>>
>> Soldier Minus Ability Character and Knowledge
>>
>> Soldier Minus Any Coordination or Knowledge
>>
>> Soldier Minus All Competence and Knowledge
>>
>> Or mix 'n' match ! Be your own acroetymythonymer !
>
> In this case my casual woolgathering suggests that there might be a
> real
> acronym-etymology ... of course nothing like any of the above.
>
> Note above: "... adopted to represent all derogatory, obscene, or
> profane
> terms ...": that says "represent", not "replace" ... just a
> coincidental
> slip of the typing-fingers?
>
> If one is not permitted some of the usual modes of address, viz.,
> "son-of-a-*****", "motherf*****", "assh***", and "cocks*****", he can
> replace all four with an acronym (with the "k" as an orthographic
> prosthesis) and use it freely ... and if some prissy person asks what
> it
> means he can select from the above 'mythical' expansions.
>
> -- Doug Wilson
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com