The individual words of "aw shoot", do appear in the dictionary. We haven't created a new word, we have created a different phrase as a substitution for some word.
The terms "aw" and "shoot" have not always appeared in dictionaries. They have been added because they have come into common use. The term "shoot" has existed earlier, but was not initially used to soften a vulgar exclamation. When a single word has two wholly separate meanings, that word is effectively two words. In the case of "shoot," the word can mean "to fire, to send forth a projectile," or it can be a substitute for a vulgarity. That is effectively two different words, one of which was a newly created word. And we do this all of the time in language.
H_l is a new artifact.
And so was "Aw" at some point in its history. Indeed so were "A" and "w." It was just a matter of time before they took on meaning and common use, both verbal and written.
I recall seeing %^$%^$ [or something similar] in comics as a young child. It's been in usage for at least 4 decades.
Dear me. You are treating "%^$%^$" and "*&$_@" as the same word when it is very clear they are not! The reason you said here "[or something similar]" is because "%^$%^$" is yet an intentionally vague symbol for some intentionally vague exclamation. It is not ever deliberately used as "%^$%^$" and not at all as a direct substitution for a word as "H**l obviously is for "Hell".
Were "%^$%^$" to ever receive specific widespread treatment as a valid symbol over time, it is going to acquire common use and enter the dictionary. The word "SQL" once did not exist and when it came into existence was referred to it as "S", "Q" "L". Now it has become "sequel," having now entered many dictionaries as such. The symbol "~" was once not valid (in that it had no general meaning), but was created for a purpose and has now become known as "tilde."
It is most valid to create new symbols if new meanings are needed, especially if those new meanings aim to soften or otherwise alter the meaning of existing words, such as "H**l does to "Hell."
"Vast" numbers of words come into being because we have decided a new word needs to replace an inappropriate word? I would say that's hyperbole and unsupportable.
Dear me. This is most frustrating. If you will revisit the dang point you will clearly see it was that often words are deemed inappropriate and so new words are crafted that are better tuned to the circumstances, not that they are replaced. Amidst our new information age, yes, vast numbers of words have been created because existing words did not communicate the emerging technologies. Existing words, for whatever reason, were deemed inappropriate and so new words were created. If a person thinks the word "Hell" is inappropriate for a given social context and yet wishes to communicate the word "Hell" in some softer way, it is valid - most valid, and no word-nazi can offer any valid reason to stop her.
[Substituting "H**l" for "hell" is done, but it's pure assertion that it's completely valid]. I don't think I could turn to any section in Fowler's and find it to be valid. I certainly can't claim validity based on it's appearance in a dictionary. Sometimes words that are not "validly" used eventually come into valid use.
Hehe. Well, if we had to wait for your dictionaries to get with the program before we used words, we'd all be sounding like dang King James I and staring at "bytes", "modems", "radar" and a vast number of other concepts and technologies while not knowing what the h_ll to call them. Thank G_d the worl' don' be workin' dat way.
In the same sense, h**l may be commonly used but that does not make it "completely valid". There are a number of variants, h__l; he_l; h**l that perhaps preclude any one to be commonly used, let alone completely valid. I'll contend that any one of those variants is in rare usage compared to the word hell.
What we have here is a difference in opinion over what validates a word. You appear to think words are validated once they enter Fowler's or some other "authoritative" book. That's dang whacked in my opinion, but hey! Dass jes me. I think a word is valid the moment it efficiently communicates meaning regardless of whether it is in the dang dictionary.
Usage has a role in "validity". I might say that 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.
Hehe. Why it ain't? Because somebody sehs it ain't? Dass dang funny maaan. The fact is, context does matter and in context of a public forum of this nature wherein a person senses a need to soften the word hell, it is "completely valid" for her to employ "h_ll" to do so. You actually got her meaning and you even sensed her sensitivity to the word "hell" without her having to do anything more. That is what I call dang efficient communication and it is valid because it works.
I issue the criticism [of the use of "h_ll" instead of "hell"], precisely because it does communicate the exact same word with the same intent within it's context.
Consider thinking it through. If using "h_ll" communicated the "exact same word" as "hell," you know what you would have done? You would not have issued the criticism. But clearly the "exact same" word was not communicated and that is what got your attention. Something else was included with the word "h_ll" that would not have been included with "hell". That "something else" is likely a sensitivity to the word "hell" that you think is unwarranted. That sensitivity was communicated to you along with the word "hell" with wondrous efficiency.
I wholly disagree. If, I should write...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.
Of course we have yet another fallacy here. The word "racial" is not a vulgarity and so to display sensitvity to the word is inefficient. Very little is changed in this instance only because the word itself is relatively benign. But watch dis. I am going to give three insults. All three will certainly be offensive. But you tell me which is less offensive and why:
"You are an N word!"
"You are a n_ger!"
"You are a nigger!"
These are three quite different statements, possessing dissimilar logical values, though they communicate the same words and essential insult. Why are they different? They are different because some of the words for "nigger" contain additional meaning. It is for this reason that use of the word "h_l" as opposed to "hell" is valid.
Taught implies an active role, learned would be a better choice of words. I doubt that as a general rule that children are told by their parents Don't use "shit", use "sheeeeet" or "aw shooot" People learn passively based on reactions.
Whatever. You were taught it by example, however you learned it.
Really? When did the phrase of "aw shoot" first arise? Was it before or after the word "shit". Did the phrase "Aw shoot" come into being during archery matches in the 17th century.
Yeah, prolly 'round dat time.
It appears to me that words in the dictionary have both a written use and a spoken use. With minor exceptions being abbreviations. The word "h**l" has no spoken usage. For the same reason, no variation of %^$%^$ has ever found it's way into any dictionary even after at least 4 decades of common usage. It's not pronouncable on it's own.
Neither is "~" but very many symbols acquire names and are employed in common use. Words are just symbols. "A" does not innately say "AYE." We just made it say that. "@$#%^$" could say any dang thing we want it to say, just like we made "~" say "tilde." It generally takes time and increased specific use.
The word "%^$%^$" has not been in use for 4 decades as you claim. Very many words like "%^$%^$" and "$^##$" and ")*(&$%" and "@$#%^$" have been in use for 4 decades, and they have been in use to communicate intentionally vague emotional meaning. They are all different and intentionally vague. So they have not received the pressure and use you claim.
Only because you fail to grasp the entirety of the point. The point goes well beyond mere elasticity or usage of the word. "Hell" is frequently used within literature, as is with no attempt to soften it. It's a word frequently used by persons thought to be of high moral principles and having an above average level of decorum. The point illustrates that the word "hell" as a stand alone word has no inherent offensive quality.
Look. You had previously said: "And of all words to pick to soften, the word 'hell'. Would you walk into a book store and not say you're looking for Dante's Hell. If you listen to a sermon in church are you offended or do your ears hurt if the pastor/minister/priest says hell'."
This is fallacious and clearly so. It fails to recognize the elasticity of the word "hell." When someone says "You smell like hell!" the word "hell" takes on a vulgar meaning, intended for insult. When a minister uses the word, he is referring to eschatology - an actual place on which he wishes to somehow educate us. The words are really quite different. It is because of the former meaning that one might wish to soften the word, not because of the latter meaning. Yet you confused the two meanings in your criticism of the person who softened the word. It is clearly fallacious.
If I made a sign up with the single word "Hell" and stuck it on my front lawn, I might expect reactions of puzzlement, perhaps laughter, but I would not [or have any reason] to expect someone would be offended.
DANG! That is because the word "hell" is elastic! You would not get a rise outta folks because the word is just standing out there and folks won't know which meaning of "hell" you are trying to communicate. But should you say "Avoid HELL, come to Christ!" you have specified the meaning and will offend some because of it. Should you on the other hand put on your sign "YOU LOOK LIKE HELL!" you have specified another meaning are going to offend others, likely an entirely different group of folks.
On the other hand if I selected a single word which was a racial slur and put it on a sign on my front lawn, I have a pretty good basis for expecting persons to be offended, even though I could construct a sentence with it that was not offensive, e.g., [Insert racial slur] is a racial slur and offends me.
(Lawd o murci! Somebody hep me!) That is because the racial slur is NOT elastic. It has a specific meaning packed into it.
I can pick any one of three phrases. G* t* hell; Go to h**l; or Go to hell.. There is no substantive difference on the meaning or the intent.
There are indeed differences here, though they are obscured because you are fallaciously choosing to soften words that are not vulgarities. (see comments on this somewhere above)
You've convinced me that my criticisms are sound and supportable. Not something I firmly believed before this dialogue started.
Then you are too easily convinced. |
