accusative cursing

[Jonathan Lighter]

Not surprisingly, Charlie is correct to point out that in today's world Americans at least  apply the terms "curse" and "curse- (_or_ cuss-) word" "indiscriminantly to scatological, sexual, or any other indecorous language," though I believe it has to be pretty seriously "indecorous" to make the grade.  This fact of usage is not well communicated by the OED entries.

  In the '50s, "ass" (not the equine) was a "curse-word."  As a group, the New Yorkers I knew divided usage between "curse" and "cuss." (The phonemic difference was usually clear, BTW.)  "Profanity" and "profane" were similarly applied.

  A comic recollection.  In junior high I had a copy of Churchill's _The Gathering Storm_.  I mentioned,  to my friend, not altogether innoocently,"There's a chapter called 'The Rape of Czechoslovakia.'"

  Ever the provocateur, he ran yelling to my grandmother, "Jon is using profound language !"
  Sic.

  A simpler time.

  JL




  Charles Doyle <cdoyle at UGA.EDU> wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: Charles Doyle
Subject: Re: accusative cursing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm glad Jonathan's self is comfortable with non-reflexive/non-intensive "himself." But back to ACCUSATIVE CURSING:

I don't understand why there's an "issue" here; most of the OED's historical examples of transitive "curse" have human (or anthropomorphic) objects (was Job supposed to "curse AT God and die" or "curse God OUT and die"??). I don't find anything odd about simply CURSING a person!

Likewise for "cuss," which the OED rightly regards as a separate lexeme from "curse" (all of OED's tokens for "cuss" are more than a century old). "Cuss" retains no trace or vestige of the post-vocalic "r." I believe, in fact, that the word "curse" falls under a sort of self-referential taboo, which "cuss" manages to avoid.

I would use the word "curse" or the word "cuss" (or "cuss word" or "curse word") only in reference to blasphemy, usually in dwindled forms not to be understood very literally. My students, however, as well as younger children, apply the terms indiscriminantly to scatological, sexual, or any other indecorous language.

--Charlie
___________________________________________________________

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 14:24:04 -0700
>From: Jonathan Lighter
>Subject: Re: accusative cursing
>
>Of course I was aware of the controversy surrounding this usage even as I wrote it. Could I care less?
>
> But seriously: the pedantic ones remind me of when I was laboring through Cicero and Vergil in the original tongue: I sort of understood, but the diabolus was in the details. If they haven't simply committed to memory another of those easy to remember negative rules, the objectors have mastered syntax but not translation.
>
> "Myself," in the present context, is less assertive-sounding than the monosyllabic "me." Describing myself as a "well-read chap" is enough conceit for one clause.
>
> Like objections to ending a sentence with a "preposition," the attempted ban upon "myself" is one which I will not put up with.
>
> JL

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org



---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40?  Find a flick in no time
 with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org