Page 1 of 1

Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:25 am
by jordonj
Heard about this in an e-mail at work...


Certain types of manure used to be transported (as everything was back then) by ship ... well in dry form it weighs a lot less, but once water (at sea) hit it, it not only became heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, and one of the by products is methane gas . . . and as the stuff was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could (and did) happen, methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern . . . BOOOOM! Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was discovered what was happening. After that the bundles of manure where always stamped with the term S.H.I.T on them which meant to the sailors to "Ship High In Transit". In other words high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the hold would not touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane.


Of course, the real orgin is something like this:

[quote]The word shit entered modern English language derived from the Old English nouns scite and the Middle Low German schite, both meaning "dung," and the Old English noun scitte, meaning "diarrhea." Our most treasured cuss word has been with us a long time, showing up in written works both as a noun and as a verb as far back as the 14th century.

Scite can trace its roots back to the proto-Germanic root skit-, which brought us the German scheisse, Dutch schijten, Swedish skita, and Danish skide. Skit- comes from the Indo-European root skheid- for "split, divide, separate," thus shit is distantly related to schism and schist. (If you're wondering what a verb root for the act of separating one thing from another would have to do with excrement, it was in the sense of the body's eliminating its waste

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:42 am
by Hagar
I wonder which one most people believe. ::)

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:21 pm
by GeForce
Haven't seen that for ages ;D ;D

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:33 pm
by TacitBlue
Somewhat interesting. I've alway heard that the "F-word" was actually an abreviation of "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" but I don't know how true that is. Also, I read an article on Howstuffworks.com about swear words the other day, and appearently they come from a different part of the brain than regular language. People who lose the ability to speak through brain injury often retain the the ability to cuss. That would be why people with Tourette syndrome  shout curse words instead of just randome words.

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:37 pm
by Hagar
[quote]Somewhat interesting. I've alway heard that the "F-word" was actually an abreviation of

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:55 pm
by TacitBlue
Thanks for the link, it's a good read. ;D

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:08 pm
by Hagar
Thanks for the link, it's a good read. ;D

Glad to oblige old chap. I'm in one of my awkward moods & I'm fed with saying 'you're welcome'. ::) :P :D

I rather like the disclaimer on that article. ;)
Please Note:

This entry discusses the etymology and application of a selection of words that, to varying degrees, can be considered vulgar or offensive. As a necessity, this entails the use of said words, and it is strongly advised that, should you find such words distressing or inappropriate, you do not read on beyond this point.
For the rest of you, there now follows an informative and hopefully educational entry on a potentially controversial topic - bad language...

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:09 am
by H
The majority of the words/terms described in the linked article are used in every version (jest, insult, descriptive...) in the United States. Again, you often have to decipher the syntax as well as work around unfamiliar accents. It can be a little more difficult when read since one doesn't see an accompanying grin or frown.
I think we sometimes have similar problems here; hopefully, not often. 8)

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:12 am
by Hagar
I think we sometimes have similar problems here; hopefully, not often. 8)

Possibly more often than most people realise. It's all too easy to misread somene's comments, especially if their English is not too hot. That article points out some of the problems that arise because of the different meanings of commonly used British & American everyday expressions. Although I take great care to express myself clearly I've been misunderstood many times over the years & have also misinterpreted other people's perfectly innocent remarks. I suspect this is the reason some leave here never to return.

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:01 am
by H
Although I take great care to express myself clearly I've been misunderstood many times over the years & have also misinterpreted other people's perfectly innocent remarks.
Even you and I have some problems in that area (and I will admit that my mode of thinking isn't always so natural to locals; we're each who we are). We try to remain a little more levelheaded and counter-explain, if necessary.
I suspect this is the reason some leave here never to return.
I fear so, quite sadly.

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:50 am
by Moach
i got something in the mail also about this, but concerning the F-word

it said that back in feudal ages the peasants were only allowed to fornicate if they had an explicit permission of the king.... so when a man and a woman decided to become pregnant, they had to go to the king, and the king would give them his approval... he also ordered a sign to be posted on the door of the peasants house... it said: "Fornication Under Consent of the King" or abbreviated: F.U.C.K.

well, that's the story i heard read

cheers

Moach

Re: Linguistical orgins

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:02 am
by Hagar
i got something in the mail also about this, but concerning the F-word

it said that back in feudal ages the peasants were only allowed to fornicate if they had an explicit permission of the king.... so when a man and a woman decided to become pregnant, they had to go to the king, and the king would give them his approval... he also ordered a sign to be posted on the door of the peasants house... it said: "Fornication Under Consent of the King" or abbreviated: F.U.C.K.

well, that's the story i heard read

cheers

Moach

Hi Moach. This & many other theories are mentioned in the article from the link in my previous reply, which is an extemely interesting read. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A753527
The truth is that the origin of many of these words is obscure & nobody knows for certain.
These, however, would appear to be acronyms intentionally spelling out an existing word rather than new creations themselves.