Using/Mentioning Obscene Words

[Gerald Walton]

You are entirely right, of course; there is a big difference between
using and mentioning. I should have said "mention" or something like
"talk about."
Gerald

If I were talking about the use of At 02:36 PM 2/22/2009, Mark Mandel wrote:
>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender:      American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Poster:      Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
>Subject:     Re: Dyslexia and English Orthography was "surprise"
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Larry wrote, replying to Gerald Walton [full context below]:
>
> > Or would these all be acceptable to cite because invoking them
> would involve not *using* but *mentioning* obscene words?
>
>I think so. He and Scot(?) both DID say "use", and all your examples
>are mentions. The difference, of course, is enormous. In explaining it
>to non-linguists in the context of taboo words, I've successfully used
>the analogy of a forensic chemist who WORKS WITH poisons and toxins
>all the time, but never USES them on himself or others.
>
>   forensic chemistry : work with :: linguistics : mention
>
>m a m
>
>On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu> wrote:
> >
> > At 5:11 PM -0600 2/21/09, Gerald Walton wrote [quoting Scot LaFaive??]:
> > > > So I'm wondering why so many academics enjoy using obscene or
> scatalogical
> > >> terms in these "scholarly" postings. I'm wondering if those
> who ply their
> > >> trade in classrooms & libraries feel like they need to demonstrate that
> > >> they are really pretty edgy.
> > >
> > >I had a forty-year career in university teaching and administration.
> > >I didn't use obscenity in the classroom or elsewhere simply because,
> > >unlike Scot, I never felt that I needed to use obscene words as
> > >"exactly the word[s] necessary for a given thought." I, however, am
> > >not bothered in the least if others use it. I agree that "we are all
> > >mature enough to handle the occasional
> > >obscenity." In my view, far fewer obscene or scatalogical words are
> > >used in classrooms and libraries than are used in other parts of
> our world.
> > >Gerald
> >
> > Doesn't it depend on what you're teaching?  I teach a class in words
> > and word-formation, and would find it extremely difficult discussing
> > infixing without going into the rules for "fuckin" insertion, which
> > have been described extensively in the professional literature (cf.
> > McCawley on where you can shove infixes) and constitute a superb
> > illustration of tacit rule-learning (given that our parents and
> > teachers never taught us that while "Massa-fuckin-chusetts" is
> > well-formed, we should never say "Connecti-fuckin-cut", because of
> > the metrical constraints we'd be violating). Nor am I prepared to
> > eliminate "FUCK" ('for unlawful carnal knowledge', 'fornication under
> > consent of the king', etc. etc.) from the inventory of faux acronyms
> > when I'm discussing the byways of etymythology just because of the
> > obscenity involved. Or when you're talking about the dialect
> > interference between British and U.S. English, should we avoid
> > mentioning "pissed" ('angry' vs. 'drunk') along with "knocked up"?
> > And should I eliminate discussing the loss of "cock" and "ass" from
> > American English in favor of "rooster" and "donkey" as instance of
> > taboo avoidance, following Bloomfield (1933)? Or maybe just not
> > mention taboo avoidance as a factor in lexical change? Or would
> > these all be acceptable to cite because invoking them would involve
> > not *using* but *mentioning* obscene words?
> >
> > LH
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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