To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (325876 ) 12/5/2002 6:39:48 AM From: jttmab Read Replies (1) | Respond to The comparison is quite apt. "Aw shoot" doesn't appear in all dictionaries. Indeed it doesn't appear in mine, and if it appears in yours it does so only because of common use. The words "aw shoot" are substitutes for a harsher set of words. It has now come into its own. And that is why it is found in your dictionary. It came into its own precisely for the same reason words like H_l , or %^$%^$ are coming into theirs. Indeed, and that is how vast numbers of words come into being. They are deemed inappropriate and so new words are crafted that are better tuned to the circumstances. It is quite valid to say "heck" as opposed to "hell" if the person doing the communicating deems her message will be better received and if in fact her message is better received. It is completely valid for me to say "he told me to go to h_ll!" as opposed to "he told me to go to hell!" Ya caint do that. , which is invalid in the sense that it is improper English. On the other hand, if I write a novel and write Jeb said to Joshua, "Ya caint do that". It has a literary validity. But to say that the phrase "Ya caint do that" is a completely valid way of communicating is not correct.It does not communicate exactly the same word, else you would not have issued the criticism. There is obviously some difference here, perhaps albeit a subtle one. jttmab: If I were to use, *&()(&(£! as a substitute for a word, that's different as well. While it does not appear in a dictionary, it indicates that there is some word or words that I might like to use, but are not appropriate. But you can't tell in any way which word[s] were inappropriate....Pilch: This is quite irrelevant. It does not matter whether the hostile word is clearly and overtly suggested or more thouroughly veiled. The fact of relevance here is antipathy and sensibility. We are allowed to communicate degrees of antipathy and sensibility however we wish, and it is quite appropriate and not a bit hypocritical that we do so. You are a [insert racial slur] and you are offended; I fully expect that you would be equally offended if I write You are a [insert rac**l slur] . The intent and words selected are quite obvious."Aw Shoot!" is only less harsh to you because you have been taught to accept it as less harsh- because indeed it is, just as is "h**l" instead of "hell." Don't use "shit", use "sheeeeet" or "aw shooot" People learn passively based on reactions.Someone began the practice of saying "aw shoot!" long ago and no doubt it was a lot harsher than it is currently. I submit to you that should people increasingly use "h**l" instead of hell, the word would be treated similarly and it would eventually enter the dictionary. This is a fallacy of course. It shows the elasticity of the word "hell." In one case the word is something of a vulgarity, and in another the word is used eschatologically to refer to an actual place. We ought not confuse the two terms, though they appear to be the same. [Insert racial slur] is a racial slur and offends me. G* t* hell; Go to h**l; or Go to hell. . There is no substantive difference on the meaning or the intent.I think your criticisms are flawed.
