Re: OT: Slang, curses and vulgarities

Tristan McLeay wrote, quoting myself:

> > I'd say "damn < shit < bloody < fuck < cunt". I'm assuming (except in
> > the case of "cunt") that the target of the swearing is an inanimate
> > object and not another person, since this is usually the case.
>
> I'm inclined to say that 'shit' is worse than bloody, even though
> 'shit' isn't particularly bad. If the government can use it, it can't
> be a swearword. (The Transport Accident Commission has a slogan
> reminding us that if you drink then drive, you're a bloody idiot.
Still? That slogan was current over a decade ago here, but not now.

The order of "shit" and "bloody" depends on context somewhat, I think.
That's why I specified that I was assuming an inanimate object as the
target, rather than a person.

> > There is, IME, a small minority of young Australians for whom "shit"
> > seems to mean "stuff" without even being intrinsically derogatory -
> > and many more Australians, young and old, for whom this usage is most
> > galling.
>
> I wouldn't say it was particularly limited to particularly 'young
> Australians', and I've never heard anyone describe it as 'most galling'
> (or, in fact, anything other than colloquial). Perhaps I automatically
> don't use it when someone who might find it 'galling' is amongst my
> audience.
I was thinking of a specific incident when I wrote that.

Some years ago I worked on a team project for a university topic, and
one of the other team members routinely used the word "shit" without
any derogatory connotations whatsoever, to mean simply "stuff". It got
on my nerves, because he honestly didn't seem to realise that if you
describe something as shit then you're saying it's unpleasant and
objectionable.

Adrian.

Reply