Talk:Euphemism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Euphemism as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Euphemisms for Death 3 Remove specific examples 4 Converse of euphemism 5 List of euphemisms 6 Isn't "sexual intercourse" a euphemism? 7 Examples 8 I don't think it means what you think it means 9 "Holiday season" a euphemism? 9.1 You missed the point entirely. 10 Berk 11 Queer as Folk quote and response to Berk 12 Orwell and "doublespeak" 13 Category needs to be added under Classification 14 Jerk 15 Use of "Americanism" 16 Is Urban a euphemism? 17 Doublespeak? 18 Is it "euphemism treadmill" or greater precision? 19 Doublespeak needs NPOV upgrade or truncation 20 I removed {unreferenced} tag from /* Euphemism Treadmill/* 21 Quebecois French slang religious euphemism 22 Is short bus a euphemism for retarded? 23 the Bright movement

[edit] Archives

/Archive1 — up to Jan 23, 2005

[edit] Euphemisms for Death

Am I missing something? I don't think terms like "croak" are euphemisms—in fact I'd say they're dysphemisms. One would sooner say "My beloved uncle died Thursday" than "My beloved uncle croaked Thursday. —Casey J. Morris 23:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

While I can definitely understand your point, the reason "croaked" is so offensive now is that the meaning of the euphemism is nigh-universally understood, and it's used in a slang sense which is regarded as disrespectful. The reason it's a euphemism is that it bypasses the painful reality of death with a crude but less-painful substitute. For some, it's more painful to face the reality of "died" than the crudeness of "croaked." Applejuicefool 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would propose that the word "deceased" isn't really a euphemism. I come across the word very frequently when referring to dead people in an official context. On the other hand, it is used as a noun ("the deceased") rather than a verb or adjective. 194.176.105.35 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove specific examples

This article needs major cleanup. Specificially, I propose removing all (or most) of the specific euphemisms, which could be relocated in a List of euphemisms. This article should just focus on the concept of euphemism, in my opinion; a reader need not eat 200 examples to get the idea. EventHorizon talk 07:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By all means: the sooner the better. A handful of examples are all that are necessary. Nohat 08:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd disagree. Example lists might be broken out of this were a lengthy article, but it's not, and there really aren't 200 examples here. This article is on my watchlist, and I periodically swing through and crop non-euphemisms and non-common euphemisms. I certainly don't want this to be more list than article, but I see no harm in having the lists too. Denni☯ 00:55, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

List of euphemisms: How do you like it? --Damian Yerrick 19:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the lists with the article. You may want to go through the article and patch up some of the holes you left (ie, you removed all the text for religious euphemisms, leaving a title hanging in mid-air. Denni☯ 22:22, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

I agree with [User:Denni|denni]; it seems unlikely to me that somebody would search for a list of euphemisms and not want to read this article, or vice-versa. The list and the article text should remain intact. I also agree if the list approached say, 200, then a separate list would be warranted. However as the article reads today, I feel it should remain "as is". Jerry lavoie 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Converse of euphemism

[ 11 May, 2005; Liberty ] Re: "The converse of a euphemism is a dyslogism." Is this really true? Isn't the opposite of a dyslogism a eulogism (eulogy)? Wouldn't the converse of 'euphemism' be a "dysphemism"? (or a phemism-eu?)
Unless this point can be defended, I'm going to remove this statement.
(It seems like the author might have some other reason for posting that there than just defining 'euphemism'.)
Even if defensible, does it belong at the top of the article? We already have the section that states "There are three antonyms of euphemism, dysphemism, cacophemism, and power word. The first can be either offensive or merely humorously deprecating with the second one generally used more often in the sense of something deliberately offensive. The last is used mainly in arguments to make one's point seem more correct than opponent's."

[ 26 Jun 2005; Liberty ] Removing "The converse of a euphemism is a dyslogism, literally 'bad-speech' or 'bad-reason (logic)'."
No one responded to my note, above, and this dubious claim is not directly relevant to the summary description of what a "euphemism" is.

• You are correct in stating that the opposite of "euphemism" is "dysphemism". A quick Google search verifies it. Denni☯ 16:20, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

[edit] List of euphemisms

List of euphemisms is linked 3 times in the article. Don't you think it's too much? DMTsurel 15:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. - Liberty 09:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed all but one link. In addition, I have put up a VfD for the list, because it is an ever-growing, unmaintainable, unsourced list, and therefore WP:NOT. One suggestion was to replace the list with encyclopedic, sourced, maintainable, specific articles, such as Archaic religious euphemisms in the English language, Common euphemisms for sexual intercourse in 20th century American English, Euphemisms for bodily functions in 18th century British English, etc. I enter this note here to inspire someone to tackle those topics. Robert A West 14:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a new wiki member, and very possibly don't know what I'm doing. However, I noted that the one remaining link chained to a deleted page. Reasoning that the link was rendered useless, I deleted. Feel free to chastise as needed. Hawleigh 03:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't "sexual intercourse" a euphemism?

The following item occurs in the list of common examples:

• making love to, playing with or sleeping with for having sexual intercourse with

But isn't "sexual intercourse" itself a euphemism for the original Anglo-Saxon "fuck"? I suspect it is, but I have no actual data to support this. Any linguists out there with some knowledge of the origin of this expression? I think this is also an example of the dysphemism treadmill, as "intercourse" by itself is almost never used outside the context of sex. But, that was not the original meaning of the word (isn't the original meaning something like "conversation"?). Anyway, I think it might be a particularly interesting example, as the sexual usage has become so entrenched (at least here in the US) that many people might not realize that the word had non-sexual origins. Gwimpey 06:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd have trouble calling "fuck" the original word for the term. People surely referred to sex, and even had euphemisms for it, long before the Anglo-Saxon language was around (note the Bible's wide array of euphemisms). Besides, English is such a polyglot language that it's hard to pin down an original word for something that universal. Be that as it may, intercourse is almost surely a recent, "sanitized" term for sex popularized so that newscasters and scientific works could talk about sex without seeming dirty. On the other hand, its allure (as clean) has made it increasingly common as the correct term for the act in dictionaries and whatnot; it may come to pass that "sexual intercourse" is seen as the real term and everything else as the euphemism. I think that "intercourse" originally meant "conversation", and "discourse" meant "one-sided talk", as in a lecture. - stillnotelf has a talk page 06:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm... forgive my ignorance, but what is " "?

As a non-native speaker, I must ask: how about the prevalent "congress", as listed in the Kama Sutra? Euphemism or not? Demf 15:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

"If this question is asked in Europe to someone not used to American habits the person who asks the question might actually end up at a place where there just only is a washbasin and not at a place equipped according to their needs."

I think this is questionable. I'm an American, and if someone asked me "where can I wash my hands" I wouldn't assume they're looking for a toilet, although that is the most likely place for someone to be able to wash their hands. --68.80.78.11 06:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC) no to FUCK it is to good

[edit] I don't think it means what you think it means

Bathroom was replace by rest room? I would venture that the term bathroom is much more common in American English usage for any type of toilet, and almost exclusive when referring to one in a home.

Agreed.. --71.225.229.151 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Holiday season" a euphemism?

[1] [the] [winter] holiday for Christmas (derived from the Christmas 'holiday season', which eventually became 'holiday season', which eventually became 'the holidays')

I don't think this fits.

One definition of euphemism is:

The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive. "“Euphemisms such as ‘slumber room’ . . . abound in the funeral business” (Jessica Mitford).

Another is:

the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also : the expression so substituted

The use of the phrase "holiday season" for "Christmas" may well be offensive to some Christians, but that does not make it a "euphemism." Few people see anything harsh, blunt, offensive, or unpleasant about Christmas. The "holiday season" is understood to include Christmas; it is not a verbal pretense that there is no Christmas. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You missed the point entirely.

"Merry Christmas!" as a greeting or farewell during the month of December is offensive to many people who don't share the belief that the Christmas um.. story.. really happened (to put it euphemistically). Substituting "Happy Holidays" or "holiday season" tends to offend those people less, while attempting to convey the same intentions or meaning. The fact that some Christians are offended by any attempt to not offend non-Christians does not invalidate "Happy Holidays" or "holiday season" as a euphemism. 69.181.66.75 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying tht some people are offended by the phrase "Merry Christmas". I'm sure some people are offended by the phrase "Today is Thursday", but that doesn't make "Today is a day of the week" a euphemism. A phrase can't be euphemized unless it actually IS offensive, notwithstanding the intolerant beliefs of a few kooks. Applejuicefool 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berk

This article says "berk is short for Berkshire Hunt". But the Berk article says, "it is a shortened version of Berkeley Hunt". This should be reconciled.

Incidentally, both explanations are slightly surprising, since I would pronounce the word "berk" to rhyme with "lurk", but when contained in "Berkshire" or "Berkeley" I would pronounce it to rhyme with "lark".

• I'd like to see a source for this assertion, because I have heard this explanation for 'berk' before. In my understanding 'berk' us used as an insult, which tends to validate this path or origin moreso than one leading to 'lurk' would be. The one explanation I read actually said it was Berk -> berkshire -> Birkshire Hunt and so on to the conclusion, but I don't have the source on hand at the moment.

[edit] Queer as Folk quote and response to Berk

Is it really necessary? I wonder if it's overkill.

Also, do most people pronounce "berk" to rhyme with "lark" or to rhyme with "lurk"? Do British rhyme it with "lark" or "lurk"?

It is entirely disgusting to use this quote, very inappropiate! Where are your standards?

Our standards include being an uncensored encyclopedia. An article that deals with the relevance of sexual euphemisms and dysphemisms has to include examples. --FOo 02:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the UK both "Berkshire" and "Berkeley" are pronounced Bark- in RP, but in some dialects far removed from those areas (such as Yorkshire) may be pronounced Burk-, or even Beark- in Scouse (Liverpool). "berk" the epithet is nevertheless pronounced "burk". It is originally a "Cockney", or Estuary English, usage, so the pronunciation might be expected to reflect London circumstances. This might imply that it's origin is "Berkeley Hunt", because Berkeley (Gloucs.) would have been outside the home patch of the typical working-class Londoner at the time the expression probably arose, and hence pronounced incorrectly; whereas Berkshire is very much closer - indeed, all the native Londoners I know pronounce it "Bark-shire". Of course, we still refer to trip to Newbury as "visiting rural Berks", but that's different. 219.79.59.77 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orwell and "doublespeak"

Contrary to popular opinion, the word "doublespeak" does _not_ occur in Orwell's "1984". The word he uses is "doublethink", the concept of holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously - the mental result of reading "doublespeak" literally, perhaps? I've removed the reference. Tevildo 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category needs to be added under Classification

What about the situation Bill Clinton found himself in when he came face to face with biographer, David Maraniss, who had basically trashed him. Clinton said "Nice Tie" which in the sophisticated business world means "fuck you". I didn't see where that euphemism fits into one of the existing categories.

[edit] Jerk

Can someone verify the origin of "jerk?" The article claims that 'jerk' "began as 'jerk-off' (itself a reference to masturbation), in reference to someone who was boorish or stupid."

According to http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010919, it is a shortened form of "jerkwater." This is also referenced at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=jerk, although the "jerk-off" reference is mentioned as a possible influencer. I submit that the article should be changed. Sloppyedwards 03:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "Americanism"

I don't believe that the use of the term Americanism in this article is meant to be pejorative. The phrases "unique to the U.S." or "of U.S. origin" would be more clear. Indeed, these are the only terms indicating a specific origin, which makes it seem unbalanced. --Macrowiz 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Urban a euphemism?

Over the years I've come to interpret the term urban as being a euphemism for African-American, for example, the term "urban audiences" in movies. Obviously blacks aren't the only ones who live in cities and urban areas, however, the term does tend to refer specifically to African-Americans. Should there be a mention of this in the article? Wikichange 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source for that information. Personally, I disagree; I think the use of "urban" in that context is actually an attempt to include people of the particular culture who may not be of African descent. Powers ^T 13:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Powers. While a few people might use "urban" as a code word for "African-American," I don't think this is the norm. "Urban" commonly refers to the type of society/personality typically generated by inner-city life. That's not a euphemisim, it's the meaning of the word. Applejuicefool 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• As to sourcing, is there a way to include material that's not precisely sourced but self-evident? Especially in Europe, every single black artist in a record store, regardless of genre tends to end up under 'urban music', at least when I was in Germany a few years ago. I'm not sure a study has ever been done, but I think it's likely that the information is verifiable if it's that widespread. I know of blogs, ect. that have talked about it, but they usually fail the reliability test for sourcing. 129.89.68.218 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doublespeak?

The section titled "Doublespeak" needs cleanup. The definition given is imprecise, the example is poorly representative, and no information is given about (what I'm assuming, can anyone correct me on this) this term's origin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.144.80 (talk • contribs) .

The following is given as an example of doublespeak.

"Proper examples of doublespeak included taking friendly fire as a euphemism for being unintentially attacked by one’s own troops."

This example doesn't make sense at all since "taking friendly fire" is much shorter than "being unintentially attacked by one's own troops." I'm removing that very poor example. D. F. Schmidt 18:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A euphemism doesn't have to be longer than the phrase it replaces. "Friendly fire" is a euphemism because it puts a less severe face on a tragic phenomenon. Powers ^T 14:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be a reasonable alternative to that euphemism then? How would you put such an event succinctly without euphemizing nor extremizing it? Friendly fire sounds about as bad as it can get (while keeping it reasonably short), in fact -- that, or the frequently-heard term fratricide in Army circles, anyways. But even then, I wouldn't consider friendly fire a euphemism for fratricide. Just another term, since fratricide probably isn't so widely understood.

Think of it this way. Other than in telling a story with a dramatic tone, you wouldn't say "We were getting attacked from our left flank unintentionally by our own guys," but "We took friendly fire from our left," or some such. D. F. Schmidt 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the meaning of "friendly fire" is immediately obvious. It seems like a contradiction to someone unfamiliar with it, if they're familiar with the phrase "under fire" meaning being shot at. If you're being shot at, calling it "friendly" seems a contradiction. However, after reading the Friendly fire article, the term appears to arise from the meaning of "friendly" as a direct antonym to "enemy" and thus the phrase as an antonym of "enemy fire". As such, perhaps it is a false euphemism -- it looks like a euphemism on the surface but it's actually a logical term for someone familiar with military terminology. Powers ^T 14:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Friendly fire is clearly a better example of jargon than of euphemism, since there is no other, more graphic term for it to replace. Using a term to replace a situation is not being euphemistic. While the word "fratricide" may be applicable, that word is simply too erudite for common use. As the poster in the next point suggests, the sentence should read "blue on blue incident as a euphemism for friendly fire".130.39.169.55 20:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• As to 'friendly fire' it's possibly a euphamism for the proper term: Fratricide, but there are even more clearly euphamistic phrases now in use, such as 'blue on blue incidents'. 129.89.68.218 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it "euphemism treadmill" or greater precision?

One example in the "euphemism treadmill" section,

Shell shock → battle fatigue → Operational exhaustion → Post-traumatic stress disorder

May be a "euphemism treadmill" but it is also an attempt to more precisely describe what is going on. Part of the problem is that you had people coming back with stress disorder who had never been shelled. So superior officers would say, "He can't have 'shell shock' because he was never near a shell," and think the soldier was malingering. So they widened it to "battle fatigue", but it also turned up in people who hadn't (recently) been in a battle, just subjected to high risk week after week until adrenaline exhaustion set in and they "went crazy" a little. Hence the newer term "Post-traumatic stress disorder". Which has the major disadvantage of being polysyllabic (my objection to "African-American") and hence sounding like psycho-babble, but at least doesn't exclude people who genuinely have the problem but never were subjected to shelling or actual live fighting.

Comments from other contributors?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.255.230 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with this thought pattern. I'm not sure what that does for anyone. D. F. Schmidt 03:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it greater precision to widen the definition? My opinion is that shock, fatigue and exhaustion are all much more recognizable, more meaningful and negative than simply disorder. In turn, this means that disorder is more neutral and thus euphemistic.--WPaulB 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doublespeak needs NPOV upgrade or truncation

The section presents doublespeak as distinct from other euphemisms based on its use in large organizations (reasonable claim I suppose); but then it goes on to distinguish jargon. The material in support of this distinction is all based on the intent of the speaker. There are no structural, societal, or linguistic arguments to support the distinction. This makes the distinction between doublespeak and jargon appear highly subjective, arbitrary, and uninformative. Moreover, it can be argued that jargon is also subject to speaker intent, and misuse. Better support for this distinction requires some attention to structural or linguistic reasons for making a distinction (e.g., 'jargon' tends to be codified, whereas doublespeak is more colloquial), or *anything* more compelling than "doublespeak is intended to confuse people, whereas jargon only confuses them accidentally".drefty.mac 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that "Doublespeak," inasmuch as it is related to "Doublethink" from Orwell's 1984, described the use of euphamisms that actually connote the exact opposite of the information they are being used to convey. Examples would be things like "pacification" for "military force," "funding cut" for "smaller-than-expected-funding increase", and "volunteered" for "compelled." --Pusher robot 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that "taking friendly fire" is not an example of doublespeak; it is actually an example of jargon, because "friendly" is a military jargon word for "ours or allied" and is used as a generic adjective in many other contexts; it's not trying to paint the shooting as loving and helpful. Fratricide is also not an exact synonym, because "friendly fire" is always accidental but fratricide may also be murder. --Pusher robot 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the "friendly fire" phrase be eliminated as an example of doublespeak. It's a poor example because it really doesn't obfuscate anything - it's meaning, while using jargon, is obvious. Pusher robot 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I removed {unreferenced} tag from /* Euphemism Treadmill/*

Did the person who added this tag actually read the article? Or was the article changed after the tag was added without removing the tag? The section clearly states its sources, and it has an inline reference. Jerry lavoie 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebecois French slang religious euphemism

Quebecois french slang, in my opinion, is more noted for its blasphemous curse words, not religious euphemisms. I've heard "the man upstairs" et al. many times in English, but never anything like that in French, and I really can't think of any religious euphemisms off-hand. Anyone care to give me a few examples? Until then, I'll remove that sentence; I suspect whoever added that misunderstood the meaning of euphemism. --jag123 04:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably. English is more noted for blasphemous minced oaths, although sacre (Quebecois French profanity) has much the same. That said, English has a number of non-cursing euphemisms for the devil and hell, such as old Nick and the other place. --FOo 09:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is short bus a euphemism for retarded?

It is more of a joke I think, and not really a euphemism. What do you think?--Filll 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is more of a dysphemism, as it is intentionally insulting. I removed it from the euphemism treadmill section. I think that whoever added it lacked understanding of either the implications of the term or of the definition of euphemism. --Fitzhugh 09:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Bright movement

Perhaps the Bright movement should be included as its purpose is (quoting the article) "to provide a positive-sounding umbrella term, bright, to describe various types of people who have a naturalistic worldview, without casting that worldview as a negative response to religion (as the terms atheist, infidel or non-believer may be seen as doing)." --Cory Kohn 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)