h a l f b a k e r yGood ideas at the time.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Curse words are some of the funniest words in the English (or any other) language. It's fine if an author wants to abbreviate a long string of profanities to a bunch of %'s and #'s, but I'd still like to know what words are actually being spoken.
I propose that a Standardized Curse Symbolism (SCS)
be developed; in which it is dictated that (I can't list the English translations here without damaging the family appropriateness of this site), e.g.
#!@ means _______
%$^ means _______
%$# means _______
etc.
There would also be a lot of "null" strings, so that you could safely extend a small expletive into a row of at least 6 or 7 punctuation marks without making the language any more filthy than it already was.
Thank you.
[link]
|
| |
Consider. Why do authors use masked curses in the form of symbolic notation? I believe, (a) to indicate that cursing is being performed, but (b) without revealing the nature of this cursing, and so (c) avoiding reducing the literary level of their work to the profane. |
|
| |
Identifying curses with particular symbols removes the element of ambiguity; that is to say, the symbols cease being representative of general cursing and in fact become specific curses; that is, they carry meaning, rather than indicating merely mood. Which is the end the author was avoiding by using the symbolic notation. |
|
| |
Summed up very nicely [Wicker808]. |
|
| |
"I can't list the English translations here without damaging the family appropriateness of this site" |
|
| |
If you're going to curse, curse. None of this $#!^ shit. |
|
| |
Per Wicker, once you have a one-to-one correspondence between curses and symbol strings, you destroy the whole point of using them (symbols). Symbols allow people to indicate swearing without specifying the swear words, a useful literary trick when you are writing for a large cross-section, and is primarily used in comics, where the tender ears of children MUST be taken into account. Witness their very witty use in the Asterix cartoons. |
|
| |
Asterix (or the authors thereof) extends this usage with little pictograms of skulls, thunderclouds, shaking fists etc. and is a classic example of how something potentially offensive can be expressed in a comical manner. |
|
| |
kwailo, that sounds like the Old Duffer from The Fast Show. |
|
| |
In the comic art lettering world, these symbols of cursing are often called maledicta and, when used alone without other words, maledicta balloons. |
|
| |
If each maledictum (thank you, bris - I live and learn) denoted a specific swear, you could chain them together to form the most beautifully vitriolic %ing invective. |
|
| |
They have an aural equivalent too
- as in Monty Python's "You can't
play this song on the radio" |
|
| |
//but I'd still like to know what words are actually being spoken// |
|
| |
Obligatory George Carlin “7 Dirty Words...” |
|
| |
$#1+, P155, FUCK, c~n+, C0ck$~ck3R, m0+#3rF~ck3R, and +1+$. (7 punctuation marks it is) |
|
| |
Tits is a dirty word?! Rude in some contexts, maybe, but it's not in the same league as those others. Well, maybe piss. |
|
| |
//where the tender ears of children MUST be taken into account.// I know of at least one 2 year old who has told the family pet to "fucking rap it" so it seems that DrCurry's opinion is not universally held. |
|
| |
On the off topic subject of Asterix, foreigners (i.e. non-Gauls) have their swearing represented by the same symbols drawn in a slightly different manner, which is a neat underlining of the universality of swearywords (which went right over my 10 year old head the first time I read the books). |
|
| |
You write astoundingly well for a 10 year old. |
|
| |
Well, that's just my mental age. |
|
| |
Anyone else ever have the pleasure of teaching VMS fork processing? It’s very hard to explain a ‘fork queue’ and the ‘mother forker’ without laughing. |
|
| |
What's this, [phundug]? Are you implying that we should watch our language? Well, that's ridiculous. We don't fucking swear! |
|
| |
All joking aside, I've noticed that many Halfbakers cuss like sailors, and enjoy it. And have you looked at the sex ideas lately? |
|
| |
Family appropriate? Hah. I laugh. |
|
| |
Wait.. I think I got off track...ok, yes, the idea is good. I want to know what's being said. Croissant. |
|
| |
But wait again. The reason the word is censored is because the *publisher* (not the author, in all likelyhood) censored it, and you're supposed to get the word from context. Isn't this just an alternative to context? Is it better? I mean, on the one hand, it could help with clarity; on the other, it could expose little kids who read thriller novels to dangerously dirty words! But if they know the code, they know the words anyway. Hell, most kids do know 'em! |
|
| |
Fuck it all! Down with censorship! |
|
| |
// Family appropriate? Hah. I laugh. // |
|
| |
That's right: So far, I still consider this site to be family appropriate...for my family, anyway :) |
|
| |
Also, 2 words, gentlemen: Null Strings. Only a fraction of the !$@#%@#'s (e.g. maybe just those starting with a "!") will really mean something. If the writer really meant to indicate just general obscenities, he can use any of the other formats. But when a writer specifically means "What the !@#$@#%@!@# are you talking about", but only writes "What the !@#$@#%@!@# are you talking about", I feel disenfranchised and aggravated. |
|
| |
I get annoyed when people miss
out the question mark at the ends
of questions too. |
|
| |