Page 1 of 4

British slang

Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:50 am
by Palewriter
We were checking out commercials on some other thread. Here's a peachy one, but I thought it belonged on THIS thread instead.

-- PW

Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:27 am
by Perry
Good one! And bullocks sounds so much better than 'oh cr-p!".

Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:36 am
by azhdragon
Good one! And bullocks sounds so much better than 'oh cr-p!".

here's the ad I mentioned in the other thread. and here's the parody it spawned:


and yes, both were played on regular free-to-air tv, uncensored.

Azh.

Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:49 pm
by Bailey

in this if the guys didn't subscribe to the erroneous ideas of Tim [the toolman] Tayler i.e. "MORE POWER", then they might not have felt they needed to say bugger, I prefer less objectionable terms, but "to each his own", said the old lady who kissed the cow.







mark bogger Bailey

British slang

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:36 pm
by Jackie
Good one! And bullocks sounds so much better than 'oh cr-p!".
Little girl is saying "Bollocks" :lol: She looks to be about the same age as my grand-daughter. Just got a mental picture of my sons face if his little girl came out with that. :lol:

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:12 pm
by Stargzer
Good one! And bullocks sounds so much better than 'oh cr-p!".


here's the ad I mentioned in the other thread. and here's the parody it spawned:



and yes, both were played on regular free-to-air tv, uncensored.

Azh.
I liked them both, particularly the dogs' reactions. I don't think anyone can say "buggahh" quite like an Australian. :D

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:22 pm
by azhdragon
[they might not have felt they needed to say bugger, I prefer less objectionable terms, but "to each his own", said the old lady who kissed the cow.
My point being, of course, that to an average Aussie, "bugger" is not an objectionable term. It's a mild epithet, much like "crap" or "sh*t" or "bollocks" or whatever a similarly mild term might be. There is absolutely no sexual connotation in it at all when it's used in this way.

I do try to moderate it to "bother" when I'm Over There, however. I know that the cultural imperatives are necessarily different.

Azh
(Veni, vidi, venti)

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:15 pm
by Ferrus
I think the issue here is that 'bugger' still retains some of it's original denotation, viz, someone who commits 'buggery', that is sodomy. An example of the use of bugger in this way would be the putative quip of Churchill when he saw the plain wife-to-be of a Labour M.P Thomas Driberg - notorious for being a closet homosexual, the marriage was a cover - 'Buggers can't be choosers'.

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:54 pm
by Perry
I almost reacted that this quip is "too good for words". But then words is what this site is all about. Thanks for that hilarious bit of history.

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:25 pm
by Bailey
So, then we've established that "bugger", not booger or bagger, is only acceptable in Australia, not in the US or UK. oh and by the way how does bollocks not have a sexual connotation?

mark glad-that's-cleared-up Bailey

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:37 am
by Palewriter
So, then we've established that "bugger", not booger or bagger, is only acceptable in Australia, not in the US or UK. oh and by the way how does bollocks not have a sexual connotation?

mark glad-that's-cleared-up Bailey

The whole point of swearing is the "shock and awe" effect. In more religious times, most expletives were somewhat blasphemous in nature (swounds, bloody, Christ Almighty, etc).

In more recent, secular society, when references to the Virgin Mary or God's Wounds don't actually cause ripples of horror, we must search for other taboos. Sex is the current area of preference. Thus the dreaded F-word and the even-more-shocking C-word. Just to name a few.

But in a culture where pretty much anything goes, it's difficult to find words that elicit the required frisson. Although here in the Bible Belt, words like "goddamned" can still conjure up an appropriate tut-tut or frown.

My personal view is that swearing today requires more creativity than in olden days. I won't give examples here, but there are still ample opportunities to garner the desired wince from time to time.

All this notwithstanding, if I accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer tomorrow, I'll still say "bugger", even though I don't happen to live in Australia. :-)

-- PW

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:26 am
by Ferrus
The present climate sees racist terms, the N word especially, as the most unmentionable.

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:39 am
by Bailey
But, Ferrus, I can't see myself say oh figger if I hit my thumb, I especially wouldn't since I live in a mixed neighborhood. I think PW is right, we want to shock, not necessarily offend.

Still I say Bugger is not acceptable here, but so what, who cares what I say, but Bugger does not come readily to my lips, while some others do. It might be interesting to delve deeper into this whole topic.

mark profane?-expletive? Bailey

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:00 pm
by skinem
Cursing is, as with all language, using words that change in their meaning and, with cursing, shock value over time. The term "that sucks" was a horribly vulgar term when I was a teen. Today, it is generally accepted as meaning "that stinks", which, once upon a time was a euphimism for something else.
I read an paper some time ago (I'm sorry, I cannot remember the author or title) that asserted the growing use of profanity and it being accepted as part of society today actually robbed those terms of their power. I agree with that. I can still remember the first curse word I heard on prime time television, the show and the actor ("damn", Gunsmoke and Anthony Zerbe). We even talked about it in school the next day. Today, much harsher terms don't cause most people to raise an eyebrow.

Bugger isn't my word of choice either...different culture.
The father of a friend of mine invented words rather than actually cursing. One sounded worse than the real thing...dadshimit!! Great for the hammer/thumb scenario.

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:18 pm
by gailr
But, Ferrus, I can't see myself say oh figger if I hit my thumb, I especially wouldn't since I live in a mixed neighborhood. I think PW is right, we want to shock, not necessarily offend.

Still I say Bugger is not acceptable here, but so what, who cares what I say, but Bugger does not come readily to my lips, while some others do. It might be interesting to delve deeper into this whole topic.

mark profane?-expletive? Bailey
I think Bailey has something here. There are words it would never occur to me to use; regardless of the provocation. There are others which, once uttered, remain in a state of constant readiness for uncensored deployment. Even then, I do have some control (e.g.: an activity suggestion offered to a Very Bad Driver never appears when speaking with a Very Bad Executive). :oops:

Upon reflection, my kneejerk curse words tend to be those that would offend/threaten my personal sensibilities. (Others derive from universal experiences and are rendered--benign.) Racial slurs, challenges to legitimacy, or questions of virility don't affect my sense of myself. Perhaps not feeling personally affected by a word or phrase somewhat 'innoculates' against using it?

Not in all cases for all people; some seem to derive satisfaction from hitting others where it will hurt the most. Even there...I submit an extremely ignorant and bigoted bro-in-law (now, mercifully, a bro-out-law) who was afraid of the people and concepts he turned into curses.

I like the attempts to radically change what PW described as 'ripples of horror' by creating one's own terms--especially with humor. Example: the Pagan who adopted, "Satan take my bicycle!" for those hammer-hitting-thumb moments in life.

-gailr