It would be nice to believe your theory about Americans and their faith in the magic of words. But here in Canada, we have movies and plays on our national tv, the CBC, where we have liberated the word 'fuck.'

It sounds silly to hear the US substitutes in movies, like 'freaking' for 'fucking' and 'darn' for 'damn' especially movies of combat situations. Canada is not in awe of these words and yet we have fine literature and we love poetry.

Just a thought.

It's also an interesting experience from the other (linguistic) side, watching the France 2 news at 7 mostly relying on the subtitles but knowing some of the curse words nonetheless which don't show up in the subtitles.  But I can recall one case where a colourful usage was noted by the anchor; it was Amelie Maursesmo playing to a Montreal crowd following a tennis victory by saying "J'ai crissement bien joué", which I got the impression was viewed in Paris as something that only Quebeckers would say.  So maybe every country has some expressions that they'd like to think they're too polite to use.

[blog self-reference with more detail about the above]

Yeah, I'm surprised to hear that "degueulasse" is actually counted as an obscenity.

>Of course, I’m aware that grown-up Americans do use bad words in private. But, correct me if I am wrong, I have the feeling that these words are signs of familiarity, even sometimes of…affection. Only to a close friend can you admit, “Oh, I' m fucking tired.” And the more prohibited the word, the closer the friendship seems to be.<

I like it, though?  Would somebody please type a phonentic pronunciation so that I can oddly incorporate it into my regular speech for my own amusement, and hopefully, the amusement of my friends?

I have noticed that commentors to blogs like this one and the Washington Monthly use a lot of curses in writing. I am far from being a prude and am quite lberal on social issues. But I do find it a bit off putting and think it undermines arguements. If someone says that same thing but writies "fucking" in the middle of one (especially in all capitals) and not the other, the piece without the curse sounds more rational and convincing. I enjoy a good curse and do think it can add meaning around friends. However in a public settng, and especially in writing, I think it add little value.

Thanks for the insight. 

So, when writing about politics here, I try to keep my language clean. For example, I don't write "dick" but "d*ck." This way, the following is perfectly acceptable even on this highly respected site:  F*CK  D*CK CHENEY !!

I've never understood this.  There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that when you wrote "f*ck" in the above exclamation, you've used it in place of "fuck".  But what's the point?  How is using "f*ck" in place of "fuck" more "clean", when you've conveyed precisely the same meaning?

I'd be curious to hear if anyone is aware of this phenomenon (changing the visual representation of vulgar words without changing the meaning) occuring outside of American English.

I don't know the answer either. But I wonder (mere speculation) whether  it may have something to do with the magic of words that Pascal was referring to.  The *** killing the magic?

Libération, the topic on which I'd most like to see you comment is the press focus, the popular interest, that the French displayed regarding the the fate <span class="art-chapo">of Florence Aubenas.</span&gt

<span class="art-chapo">I don't get French television on my cable, but I can listen to RFI and other French networks and radio stations, and they and--especially--the French newspapers were relentless in keeping the Aubenas story alive. There genuinely seemed to be a popular, independent effort (public demonstrations at key dates, posters, etc.) to keep Aubenas' captivity continually in view. And, interestingly, there was an effort to see that her Iraqi driver and translator, Hussein Hannoun, was remembered, too. </span&gt

<span class="art-chapo">Frankly, the only spectacle to which I can personally liken it, as an American, is the way our people followed the captivity of our diplomats in Tehran after the Iranian revolution. (But, there was an itching for revenge, then. Perhaps better is the way we waited for the return of our Vietnam POWs.) In any case, this story was utterly uncovered here in the states, and I'd like to hear you hold forth on why, perhaps, and why it seemed to absorb French attention so thoroughly and what, if any, you think it did to affect French opinion about Iraq.</span&gt

I really don't think you can compare swear words across languages. As tempting as it is to do so it doesn't make sense to me - curses only have a certain meaning or intensity within the context of a given language (I was in France the last 2 years and I thought about this issue a lot.)



As a previous post said above about "d

  and there is no semicolon

I am amazed that people actually complain if you choose to post in all bold.  This happened to me at one site full of trolls, and I prefer to type in bold because as I am typing the comment it is much easier to read.  I don't have to lean over and strain my eyes at the computer so much hour after hour.

    Also about the word "fuck" in particular.  I once wrote a poem -- that's unconsciously probably what inspired me to put a poem in my posting, when poetry was mentioned, although that was one I had tried to translate, with epanouiller and cancans, etc
(Ici tombe ....)
But I wrote another linguistically relevant poem called "The Fuck Culture" when I lived in International House, Berkeley about 20 years ago this year.  (Epitaph was written four years earlier).
The poem went through a number of languages and their words for fuck and what else they meant besides sex -- eppe benin (?)
the Greek was like riding a horse, at least for the ancient Greeks.  In french, sauter (to jump) baiser (to kiss) etc.  In Dutch it was something that meant kneading bread (I've forgotten the poem and don't know where it is among my papers).  In the language of the Incas, it was like finding a lost
object (almost like retrouver in French); in German, bumsen means to roll around; in Russian, to have contempt for someone, and in Italian, with a domestic metaphor, like the Arabic, to sweep, scopare, while in Arabic it is to stitch.  In high or literary Arabic it connotes unity.  In biblical Hebrew, to know, and in Hindic, it connotes stealing.  In Spanish, cogere, to catch, and in Chinese there are two: bpei (the politer term, like mixing spices in cuisine or colors in a painting, an aesthetic notion), and in street Chinese dil, meaning something closer to the English "fuck".  Japanese and Farsi both use the verb "to do" like "to do it".

  Note that the English "fuck" and "screw" connote to exploit, to take advantage of, and "fuck" connotes to destroy or wreck something, to do someone in (as in "Fuck You").
At any rate, the differences in attitudes about sex are embedded in the languages themselves, to some degree

cloudy...

We usually do agree but I not on this point.  Were there practices like bundling occuring in 17th century New England?  Absolutely!!!  But these societal practices were not endorsed by the tenets of the Puritan religion.  While some of their practices were in conflict with the official laws.  The religious beliefs of the Puritans reflected intolerence.  From the wearing of letters, like "A" for adultery and "I" for incest.  And all their civil laws were drawn from the Bible.


<h3 align="center">The Legacy of Puritanism</h3&gtToday, the major designs of the Puritan social system are nothing more than museum pieces capable of titillating the minds of the historically curious. What, if any, was the legacy of New England Puritanism to American society in general and to the American family in particular? In a nation made up of successive waves of immigrants, there is some advantage in having been an early arrival in the land. There is always the possibility that the culture of the early arrivals will become established and will gain prestige, and that the culture of the later arrivals will be expected to modify in the direction of the established culture. This is in part the story of the American experience. Aspects of Puritan life that remained were a spirit of religion and a rigid moralistic pattern of personal life.  Puritanism also "protected" early American society from some of the more democratic social aspects of the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation. Furthermore, Puritanism drew sharp lines around the family and in a sense strengthened it, as opposed to the reform influences in Europe that tended to unsettle it. Theoretically, both the Renaissance and the Reformation exalted personality at the expense of the social systems, including the family. These reform movements called for a self-reliant man always conscious of his rights, not always conscious of his duties. Since the first wave of reform to strike the American shore was Puritan, for better or worse some of the impact of the more personalistic tendencies of the reform movements in Europe were modified or at least postponed.
Another of the lasting effects of Puritanism is to be found in the penal codes of the United States and in many of the states. These made a negative impression on some European visitors, Gustave de Beaumont, for instance, and have been an exasperation to American social reformers.  Beaumont, visiting America in 1831-32 wrote, "This austerity appears not only in daily habits but in laws as well. ... Puritanism, dominant in New England, influences nearly all the states of the Union: thus, the penal code punishes with imprisonment any intimacy between unmarried men and women.



For the full article...
http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/martinson/family/FamilyInSociety
.html

I didn't suggest that the Puritans (and of course I mean in practice) were exactly libertines.  They were not, by and large, the root of the practices Mencken was attacking in the 1920s.  After all, in Jefferson's day, states hardly influenced by Massachusetts, like Virginia, had pretty awful laws too.  Homosexuality was a capital offense in the 18th century America, and Jefferson sought to mitigate it to "mere" castration.  (Now THAT's what I call a real civil libertarian -- I understand that Jefferson was trying to do the best he could to improve the politics of his day and age; however, even in this sphere, there is material for criticism). 

   At any rate, I would be interested in your opinions of that particular essay, and you can put them as comments to any posting on my blog (I guess that substitutes for intra-site messaging or email).

Day-goo-LAHSS.

   You wonder if the "fear of bad words" and "love of poetry" are correlated? In America? 
   The rigidity of American response to the vulgar vernacular may be rooted in the Puritanical influence in early America, but I think that it is more so in today's media. Today's media is being influenced greatly by what I would call a period of religious revivalism. We are in the midst of a serious revival of religion in America, thanks in part to the empowering of the Evangelicals by President Bush. This empowerment has strengthened the many in 'middle America' who do not identify, or want their children to identify, with what can be seen on MTV, HBO, etc. Most of the programming on these channels are constantly pushing the envelope. As a response, Janet Jackson's tit( excuse moi, breast) was just the incident needed by these Dobsonites to cry bloody murder.
   The American psyche is so twisted in ways it would be hard to explain in one comment on one thread. Why do we choose violence on tv as kosher as opposed to a woman's breast? The truth is, words can be magical when people who prefer Creationism over Evolution choose to make them ( just as they choose to believe in something and someone they have never seen and cannot scientifically prove existed). If you have a country with a majority of people that claim some sort of faith in a higher power, then f*ck, sh#t, and any other word they choose can generate as powerful a response (not necessarily on the same end of the spectrum) as words important to their faith in. 
   As for poetry, outside of the classroom, I applaud anyone that reads it. I know very few people who write, or read poetry anymore. I think poetry is dying in America because in the age of high-speed internet, digital cable movies-on-demand, poetry is obsolete. Obsolete because it is an expression that requires contemplation or organization of one's thoughts. 
And that would simply take too much time away from TPMCafe.com.

Thanks Pascal - and welcome to the Cafe!  Great first post.  I love how a cross-cultural post on swearing fits right in on this totally political website. Language, how we perceive it, how it changes from culture to culture and person to person - if that's not political, I don't know what is.

I agree in part with your thesis that cursing and poetry in the US are both manifestations of our collective belief in the power of words.  I don't know enough history to comment on the Puritan connection, but I will say that protestant - particularly fundamentalist - christians in this country certainly are glued to this whole power of the (literal) word thing. 

As a poetry lover - I must say that really good poetry seems to me the very antithesis of that kind of "magical thinking".  I've always felt that great poetry gives me a transcendent experience that moves well beyond words, whereas the sort of rigid belief in (man-made) words often practiced by fundamentalists (modern Puritans?) is all about shutting down, not opening up. 

Here are two favorite poems by way of example:

 I used to want buyers for my words
Now I wish someone would buy me away from words.
I've made a lot of charmingly profound images,
scenes with Abraham, and Abraham's father, Azar,
who was also famous for icons.
I'm so tired of what I've been doing.
Then one image without form came,
and I quit.
Look for someone else to tend the shop.
I'm out of the image-making business.
Finally I know the freedom
of madness.
A random image arrives.  I scream
"Get out!"  It disintegrates.
Only love.
Only the holder the flag fits into,
and wind.  No flag.

-Rumi (trans. Coleman Barks)

~~~~

I never looked for glory,
or to leave my song
as a human memory.
I love the subtle worlds,
elegant and delicate
like soap bubbles.
I like to see them painted
in sun and scarlet grain,
soar below the blue sky,
quiver suddenly and break.

-Antonio Machado (trans. Willis Barnstone) 

As an American living in France for the last five years,and as a mother watching her mouth around her 3-year-old, I have definitely noticed the language of French children (and learned a few choice words from them). Merde is everywhere, at every age. I agree with posters who have pointed to US prudishness, which extends to the display of the body as well. But, I also hear complaints about the phenomenon from elderly French and those many French language purists one finds here. They argue that the French language is going to hell in many ways and popular obscenity is just one small facet of the general degradation of la belle langue. I guess I figured these complaints are typical of every age, but as you don't seem to fit into one of these categories, maybe there is more to it.

As to the ubiquity of poetry in the US, I can't speak to the lack of such in France, but I have always been impressed with the interest and pleasure in, as well as knowledge of, art, music and literature shown by all levels of French society. What americans might consider high culture is considered common culture. And endless conversation of the same is a big part of cafe culture.

It's true that poetry is everywhere in America these days. It's called hip hop. My impression is that it's everywhere in France too, grace a MC Solaa and his descendents. :)

I guess cursing must really be less taboo in France, because in several years of living in a Francophone West African country and befriending numerous French folk, I never realized that "degeuelasse" was in any way off-color. I thought it just meant "gross".

There may be a continental/Anglo-Saxon divide going on with this one. I'm pretty sure the Germans are also quicker to use "scheisse" than we are to use the...ahem...corresponding word. And the Dutch (my wife included) use American swear words as if they were mild slang; they're constantly using "shit" and "fucking" in casual conversation. I think they don't realize how strong those words are in English. I believe there's a generational divide as well, of course; my mother in law insists on all kinds of weird euphemisms for our 3-year-old's defecation. "Poop" is too low-class and suggestive for her; she prefers "make a pile". Which is actually too suggestive for me...

But part of this also has to do with the mixed roots of the English language. In French and Dutch, the excretion-word used as an imprecation is also the simple neutral word for waste. "Schijt" in Dutch is somewhere between "manure" and "crap"; it's pretty much a neutral descriptive term. It can be used as a curse, but it's very mild. Same with the French "merde" and "chier", as I understand it. In English, however, with our history of Latinized/Francofied high language and Germanic low language, we're much more prone to euphemisms, and the Germanic terms acquire a really strong, low, filthy, corporal, sexual aura which they never had in the original Germanic tongues. This is much of the story behind the added shock-power of "fuck" and "shit". These roots are completely unobjectionable in Dutch: "fokken" means to breed, as with animals; "schijten" is a moderately forceful word for "defecate". And the word "kont" is approximately equivalent to "tuchus" - it refers to your bottom, not the female sex organs, and it's not even as strong as "ass". "Kut" does refer to the female sex organs, but even that word is just a moderately strong curse, maybe as strong as "fucking" - a "kut ding" is a "fucking thing", a "kutwijf" is a bitch...

For a good comparison: the Dutch word for trash is "vuilnis" - i.e. foulness. That's a good illustration of the way those Germanic roots become so much filthier, earthier, stronger and more objectionable in English than they were in the original. 

"gueule" when meaning an animal mouth, is perfectly correct. When  meaning "human face", it’s a profanity because god created human in his own image.
That's why degueuler= “to puke” and  degueulasse ("disgusting") are considered as bad language.

I think that should become a coined word in English.


The media coverage in the 2004 election was .... pukative.

THE PUKATIVITY OF THE US MEDIA

this matter was handled ... pukatively

"The British press has few qualms about the F word."

That's true for the broadsheets (and even extends to the C word in some cases) but not for the tabloids. With a hypocrisy that makes me want to vomit, The Sun regularly prints topless photos of women on page 3 and has a news agenda driven largely by kiss and tell stories of "three in a bed romps" and so on, but puts asterisks in the mildest of swearwords because it's a "family paper".

British TV is much more uniformly liberated about swearing. That Saving Private Ryan fiasco would never have happened in the UK. Here, the closest we've come was the kerfuffle when the BBC aired Jerry Springer - The Opera. And even then the complaints were about its supposed blasphemy, not its language, and they weren't upheld.

"I’ve been struck by how many of the people being interviewed uses words like “con” (asshole)"

Hmmm. Puts a slightly new, but always understood, meaning on the term "neo-con."

As an American living in France for the last five years

I was a tad taken aback when I first heard Mylene Farmer singing "Fuck them all." But then I'm also a tad taken aback when I see some of those ads for Les Galeries Lafayette in the metro.

I always had the impression that in Christian Europe the most shocking words, and therefore the most important to use euphemisms  for,  were religious references: e.g.,  darn, drat, doggone, gee whiz, gorblimey (God blind me) and the less familiar 'swounds and 'sblood.   I believe that French, at least, is similar: sacre bleue, for example.   And we haven't mentioned the fact that sex and elimination simply have lots and lots of euphemisms.

Or perhaps, there is less repression by "who you say you are" of "who you really are" in France?

First, you must be in a nice neighbourhood. Because, swearing happens a lot in America. It just doesn't on the national networks because it's fined and beeped.

Second, swearing is extremely parochial: I am myself delighted to see my British learned rude language pass a amusing in America. Translating is very difficult.

Amusingly even after years in America and the United Kingdom, I a Frenchman  will not feel the offensiveness of a word the same way as locals do. I would hardly be insulted if called a C#nt and it is one of the most terrible word in the English language.

Generally the Verb does not have the same weight between France and say America. It is flexible and non commitmental in France. Lies are not considered so disgraceful. A person can change her mind quite quickly. Argument is the key. In America what is said is more fatal. But things change.

Finally, when I hear a French person decry Puritans. I hear a deeply rooted religious intolerance toward protestants. Prejudice is high. The person focuses on the Sexual/Pleasure avoiding moral of the Puritans forgetting the Strong Law abiding streak.