Talk:Euphemism

Archives

/Archive1 — up to Jan 23, 2005

"Pardon my French isn't a euphamism"

In use: "Fucking hell, this is a shambles, pardon my French". It's a mangled apology for swearing.

In your example, "French" is a euphemism for "vulgar language". "Pardon my French" is a phrase utilizing that euphemism. 122.49.168.102 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the article's rating on the Wikipedia Quality Scale...

This article is well written, and certainly deserves a higher rating. 58.174.49.225 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Official documents are probably more likely to include euphemisms than regular speech, especially if they are maintained by an elected body and recording something unpleasant.122.49.168.102 (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ish push! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.134.164 (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably consider 'passed away' a euphemism. Also, would 'pounded', 'banged', or 'nailed' be a dysphemism for 'fucked'?

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 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)

Isn't senior (as in senior citizen) an euphemism to "old or elderly"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.240.184 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I cropped the following example: "Let us not forget the most innocent sounding euphemism of them all, "sonderbehandlung", translated as "special treatment", and what that meant to European Jewery and others in the period 1940/45.". I think it's a fine example, but needs neutrality, elucidation, and a reference. Eleven even (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are euphemisms for menstruation under the heading "Sexual euphemisms", since all the other examples under this heading relate to sexual act, not the sexual organs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.67.45 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

This article claims that "euphemism" is the "opposite" of "minced oath" (and likewise the article for minced oath makes the same claim), yet it gives minced oaths as examples of euphemisms lower down. 198.145.97.68 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's standard medical terminology which today has no other meaning than itself. "Fuck" today has too many meanings to be considered a euphemism, and most importantly, a euphemism is a pleasant way of describing an action. Yes, intercourse itself could simply be a pleasant exchange of words, but with sexual attached, it's pretty obvious that words are not being exchanged. Sleeping with, playing with, making love to, could all have standard, non-offensive meanings.152.3.8.235 21:32, 7 August 2007 (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 " "?

It's a space. We use it in English to separate words. Our version of the interpunct, you might say. ✍ (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

I am Jewish. I do not celebrate Christmas. I wish that people would not wish me a Merry Christmas. I know that their intentions are good, and I do realize that most people in this part of the world do celebrate Christmas, but I don't, and I am bothered by the presumption that I do. Does that make me a "kook"? --Keeves 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So you'd rather be unhappy on December 25th? ✍ (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

• Except for Chambers, which only mentions Berkeley Hunt, dictionaries published in the UK (Collins, Conscise Oxford, full OED) mention "Berkeley Hunt or Berkshire Hunt". All agree that it's rhyming slang. The implication is that the "burk" pronunciation was at least a valid alternative to the "bark" one when the rhyming slang was invented. (I can't think of other rhyming slang which changes a vowel in the non-rhyming part.) Google searches show that there are actice organisations with similar names - Old Berkshire Hunt at http://www.oldberkshunt.co.uk/ and Berkeley Hunt at http://www.berkeleyhunt.co.uk/ I saw no mention of the rhyming slang on their sites, though the Berkshire one mentions the inevitable nickname "Old Berks". PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

That's sarcasm, not a euphemism. Just wanted to tell that story, did you?PacificBoy 01:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Nicholas Lemann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Lemann) argues:

"Between 1910 and 1970m, six and a half million black Americans moved from the South to the North; five million of them moved after 1940, during the time of the mechanization of cotton farming. In 1970, when the migration ended, black America was only half Southern, and less than a quarter rural; "urban" had become a euphemism for "black." (http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500PromisedLandI.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.112.108 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I read the "euphemism treadmill" with full expectations to see something about "negro > colored > black" and was surprised to see nothing about it. I thing you guys have made an excellent point, and someone should expand on it. "Euphemism treadmill" has nothing to do with getting more specific; it is about how a word which had been PC in a previous generation is now seen as pejorative, so a new PC euphemism needs to be invented. That is EXACTLY how the "negro > colored > black > African-American > person of color" treadmill developed. --Keeves 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole section needs to be overhauled. The phenomenon isn't properly defined, and the examples include one book in which it's mentioned as a concept but not used, and two which don't apply, as they aren't actual examples of phenomenon treadmill but regionalisms.PacificBoy 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

While the similarity in terms might cause confusion, Orwell actually called it "Newspeak" -- arguably a much better term, because it represented a "new" way of talking, and also the way of talking heard in the "news" controlled by the "Ministry of Information" (itself Newspeak for "Propaganda Department"). Ptorquemada (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2011 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You mean , sort of like the way poofters like to call themselves Gay?

Political Correctness

Is there scope in this article to discuss the use of euphemisms as a form of Political Correctness ?

For future reference, please remember to sign your comments, by using the 4-tilde shortcut.

I would vote "Yes". It is in fact mentioned once in a wikilink, but I think more can be done with it here.

You might summarize the main Political Correctness article in 1 or 2 sentences. (I haven't looked at it - it might turn out to be a stub, in which case your effort would be better spent fleshing it out there.)

Avoid using it as a vehicle to promote an idea you feel should (or should not) be treated poltically correct and you will do well. (As editors of an encyclopdia, in general we should document what *is*, not what *ought to be*.)

Badly Bradley 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Improve this article

I suggest, (and this may not be correct) taking out some links. Not sure of most relevant policy, but those that just are to define a word are helpful, but not needed? Particularly, why do there need to be any links in the religion sub-section - the terms that get links are fairly common words, and the concepts are not central to the topic at hand. Although, if the content of the article changes rapidly, taking out links may leave none at all, its tricky. Just suggestion, look at this issue of links.Newbyguesses 00:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Those who know my editorial work already realize I LOVE to create wikilinks and have occasionally accused me of going overboard. I've even had a few reverted here and there (which I generally do not challenge).

An important aspect of a properly constructed link is that it takes the reader directly to the appropriate page, especially when it would require an extended effort for an uninformed or ill-informed reader to find it. If you find a link is a "constructed" or "pipelined" type, consider before you remove it: the previous editor may have put it there precisely because it was hard to find. On the other hand, if you find a link that lands on a disambiguation page, you should try to repair it. If you judge it to be unrepairable, then you *should* delete it.

With that out of the way, a Judeo-Christian perspective does indeed leave one suspecting the links are unnecessary. To understand why a word is an euphemism, one must consider it's background. Imagine briefly that the reader is athiest, Muslim or Budhist: such readers might very well need/want such (properly disambiguated!) links.

Eventually, when this article is fully balanced, there will be detailed descriptions of athiest, Muslim and Budhist euphemism. As a Christian, I hope someone would make an effort to set up corresponding links, which I surely would use.

Finally, we are encouraged to "Be Bold! … but don't be reckless." I would rather see too many than too few links.

I would vote to leave the links alone (or even add more!).

Badly Bradley 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

References to Gresham's law

There are two references to Gresham's law, but there is not really any relation. I suggest we remove the references. --Apoc2400 04:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there does not seem to be a connection. - Redmess (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Add a section "Euphemisms in job titles"?

Because these are becoming increasingly popular, nearly every normal job has a euphemism nowadays.

Examples:

Binman - waste removal officer Security guard - loss prevention officer Blacksmith - equine chiropodist Cashier - sales assistant

Those are just the few at the top of my head, but I'm sure there are loads and loads that people could add to the list, and someone could write a little section on when and why these came about. Just a suggestion, Alex9788 10:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At the halls I lived in last year the cleaners were called 'Domestic Assistants' despite the job explicitly involved nothing but cleaning. Tomgreeny 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's just one of many, so do you reckon there should be a new section for it in the article? Alex9788 20:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Tomgreeny 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the entries in this section seem to be joke terms rather than actual job titles. Was that the intent? 64.171.162.77 01:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't the intent, and I did just take out 3 of them including 'carcass discombobulator', obviously not a real job title (feel free to prove me wrong). However, one must remember that many, even commonly used, euphemisms in job titles may appear jocular because they do over-inflate the importance of the job. (Not to say of course, that the jobs are unimportant.) Alex9788 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on. Vision Clearance Engineer? Does this really exist as a job title? Can anybody verify it? Also, the note to expand this section is not necessary. Wikipedia articles are not dumping grounds for lists -- or a t least they shouldn't be. If there is a real desire for a longer list, I suggest creating a separate article for this list. Slithymatt 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Sandwich Artist" the OTT usage by SUBWAY to refer to their staff could be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.167.109 (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maldición

Hi. I noticed you take the meaning of "maldición" as being "bad word". It actually means "curse" (as used in "gipsy curse", for example). This can be clearly seen in the expression "maldito seas", which basically means "curse you". Whereas "maldito seas" usually goes against someone, "maldición" is usually expressed as a sign of distress directed at no one in particular, as is "¡mierda!" and similar expressions, although "mierda" is considered much more offensive - note that "maldición" is not usually considered a "bad word", although its use is discouraged in formal occasions.

There is, however, a fun fact: "puteada" is in certain dialects a dysphemism for "bad word". This varies greatly, though, as Spanish dialects are way too varied. For the record, I am from Argentina, and am familiar with the argentine dialect, but the chilean dialect is quite different when it comes to "bad words", and something you would find offensive in Mexico, for example, may not be so in Uruguay. 200.127.112.162 15:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, I would like to argue that the use of "maldición" in Spanish is similar to that of "Damn" (short for "Damnation") in English. As a result, there's no need to look for an example of this use in a different language if we have one in our own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.91.179 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Carlin mistaken?

In "The 'Euphemism Treadmill'" section is mention of a George Carlin routine, and the following pejoration sequence:

Shell shock (World War I) → battle fatigue (World War II)→ Operational exhaustion (Korean War) → Post-traumatic stress disorder (Vietnam War)

However, the 'pedia's own redirects and articles suggest that "shell shock", "battle fatigue", and "operational exhaustion" are acute disorders synonymous with "combat stress reaction". On the other hand, "PTSD" is a similar, but chronic, disorder synonymous with "traumatic war neurosis". I realize that Wikipedia is not a source for itself (and even contradicts itself in the articles on the two conditions I just linked to), so if anyone can clarify this it would be appreciated. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 09:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Excretory euphemisms

Are the manure brands in this part of the text real brands? It sounds like a joke. This needs a lot of references. - Redmess (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferenc Gyurcsány

The reference to Ferenc Gyurcsány and "his controversial speech that triggered the 2006 anti-government protests" is not contextualised. Who is he and which 2006 protests are being referenced? I realise there is a link and it's easy to find out the information, but surely inserting "Hungarian Prime Minister" before his name would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.112.108 (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fag, etc.

Someone changed the wording to rub out the fact that "fag" really means "unmanly". It's as the ever-politically-incorrect George Carlin once said: "In my neighborhood, a fag was someone who wouldn't go downtown and help beat up queers." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sucks

I think the explanation for the use of 'sucks' in American English is incorrect. While it has a sexual connotation to city dwellers, I'm pretty certain that use of 'sucks' as a description of a bad situation arose from the farm expression, "sucking hind teat". This refers to the runt of a litter being pushed out of the way by its larger siblings, and eventually being relegated to the last teat, which receives less milk than the others. I theorize this meaning pre-dates the sexual one in American society, but I'm not certain how to research this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.201.227.100 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Euthanasia is a euphemism?

The article says:

"Euthanasia" also attracts euphemisms. One may put one out of one’s misery, put one to sleep, or have one put down, the latter two phrases being used primarily with dogs and cats who have made their final visit to the veterinarian. (These terms are not usually applied to humans, because both medical ethics and civil law deprecate euthanasia.) In fact, Dr. Bernard Nathanson has pointed out that the word "euthanasia" itself is a euphemism, being Greek for "good death".

I don't think euthanasia is a euphemism. It means ‘good death’, i.e. a death that is more desirable than life (e.g. because of irremediable suffering), as distinguised from other words that mean death. It's not an inoffensive alternative to a more direct term; it is in fact the most direct term there is for the thing it describes — euthanasia. It's like saying that murder is a euphemism for ‘unlawful killing’.

I'm not 100% sure, though, so I won't delete it yet. BreakfastTime (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's somebody's original research. "Put to sleep" is itself a euphemism. "Mercy killing" is probably the most straightforward term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Capital punishment

an euphemism for death penalty? it sounds so much nicer and cleaner

if so it should be addded

--Stefanbcn (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

digital scatologist?

Digital scatologist sounds more like a dysphemism to me. --Urzică (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's clearly a joke. It shouldn't be here. 68.239.78.86 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bought the farm

I've seen dozens of references to this phrase, and nearly all of them relate to an WWII policy of compensating British farmers (engaged in critical war work) for damage done to their property by friendly forces. A pilot who crashed into a field caused enough damage to net a large check, thus literally "buying" the farm. LordShonus (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Spastic & Joey Deacon

I don't think "spastic" as an insult started with Joey Deacon on Blue Peter (1981 I think). I'm sure I heard it (or something obviously similar like "spazmo", usually accompanied by oncoordinated gestures and parodied speech), in the early 1970s if not the late 1960s. (i.e. in the playground in my own schooldays). The OED traces "spaz" to a 1965 US usage, but also cites it in a Martin Amis book of 1975: "Dead Babies viii. 47, I know how long, you little spaz." PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Same here, and in the same period (1960s, primary school in Yorkshire) as you. Any chance we can find a citation from that period so that the Deacon material can be deleted, as I think it should be? Kay Dekker (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

same here, in New Haven CT in 1974. The reference should be deleted based on the above citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.102.130 (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the bit about Tiger Woods as the different conotations of spastic and spaz in the UK and USA is a bit odd. Spastic/spaz as an insult in the UK has been used to mean clumsy, un-coordinated and physically incompetent, as well as suggesting stupidity, which seems to me pretty similar to the US, except that the US uses it more lightly, and more often directed towards the self. But characterising people who have cerebal palsy in that way is insensitive and unfair whether it is directed as an insult or in a self-deprecating way which is why it is considered so offensive.87.114.227.184 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a specific editing change to propose? Hertz1888 (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Code words to hide sex abuse

There is an interesing source here that could eventually be added to a specialized article about sexual euphemisms. It talks about the words that were used to hide clerical pederasty. [2] ADM (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"An euphemism" or "a euphemism"

Which should it be at the start of the article. "An euphemism" or "A euphemism" as both are used here on this talk page. A text search of this page on "an e" and "a e" returns many examples of both just an 'a' in front of a word starting with 'e...' (or should that have been "a 'a' in front of a word starting with 'e...'") and also many with 'an'.

If this is a difference between English dialects then both version should be given at the start of the article with a note that this is a difference in dialect as is done for different spellings in articles like color. --PBS (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it isn't always used with the long-"u" sound. "A united front"; "a user"; "an ulcer"; "an umpire". --UnneededAplomb (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"united" and "user" have /j/, while "ulcer" and "umpire" have /ʌ/. That's why the first two take "a" and the latter two take "an". "Euphemism" is /ˈjuː.fəˌmɪ.zm̩/ or /ˈjuː.fəˌmɪ.zəm/ (not sure if the syllabic m showed up properly), so it takes "a". CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

regarding "umpire", it wasn't a good choice for an example, given that it derives from the same kind of metanalysis that gave us adder, apron, and orange. Twistlethrop (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of content on Dysphemism treadmill

Content on so-called Dysphemism treadmill deleted this day due to lack of any reliable/authoritative cite, merely circular references to this Wikipedia article and others within Wikipedia employing it, and casual use by those evidently familiar with the term via same: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22dysphemism+treadmill+%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=. Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another advance, the use of "spesh", derived from special needs. Should be added? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.31.79 (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

List of examples

There are millions of euphemisms, born every day, in all languages. I see no point to keep a random list of them, especiall keeping in mind that this is a long and detailed aritcle, with examples abound in the text. I suggest to dismantle this section: spread notable examples over the text and delete the rest. 20:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loggerjack (talk • contribs)

Topic itself or choice of words ?

Currently, the article states:

Similarly, scientific or medical words which are in fact euphemisms in their original languages, such as "anus" (Latin: literally "ring"), "vagina" (Latin: literally "sheath"), or "pudendum", (literally "something which one must be modest about") are now considered generally unacceptable and should be replaced by other euphemisms in polite conversation. (end quote)

-- I don't think that is true at all. To the extent that the very topic of those body parts makes it into polite conversation, I have never experienced or heard of an instance where those particular words have been deemed offensive or not "sugar-coated" enough. Rather, it is the topic itself that is avoided. And I'm referring to "polite conversation" here -- not medical conversations, such as between doctors, where those words would surely be OK; nor "smack" talking or joking around where those words would be considered too tame.

(the above unsigned comment edited by 76.113.104.58 (talk) at 19:32, 23 December 2010).

I agree. If anything, the statement is perfectly incorrect.

Over the last few decades I believe that some words that might have been previously taboo in non-medical conversation have become accepted and natural terms for body parts and bodily functions in general. Two examples might be the twee "bottom" and "willy", which have been replaced by "anus" and "penis" respectively. I don't believe that we can be certain that such words were euphemisms in the original Latin, and I don't believe they have never been such in English either.

I'm usually wary of some statements such as...

"are now considered generally unacceptable and should be replaced by other euphemisms in polite conversation"

...because, to me, they are not only generalizations but they also dance off in the direction of an archaic and worn-out rectitude that denies the existence of some concepts, never mind the physical realities of them. Where, if it impossible to avoid admitting in conversation that some body parts actually exist, nothing less than the most oblique reference will suffice. Where even "maleness" may be too bold a replacement for "penis", and only words such as "flower" will do for anything in the general area between the female hips and thighs (themselves almost taboo concepts).

For those reasons, I've removed that section.Twistlethrop (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Legally blind

The article claims that the term "blind people" excludes those with uncorrected poor vision. Doesn't legal blindness cover people with less than 10% of standard visual acuity? Perhaps "mild to moderate poor vision" might be a better example, leaving "blind" to mean severe to profound impairment in vision. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Jew, Jewish, etc.

I just removed a few sentence on "Jew", having found them misleading and poorly supported by the two given references. Notably, the first relied on the second, the second (contrary to the article) gave the impression that "Jew" was making a comeback after centuries as an "evil" word, and also that the main problem was in constructs like "Jew lawyer" rather than "a Jew" (while the article focused on the noun).

I have no objects to a reinsertion with better references or corresponding modifications. (But I do note that I have never, myself, considered the noun "Jew" to be derogative.) Michael Eriksson (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking closer at the second source, there is discussion of "Jew" as a noun at the beginning (skimming, I caught more of the end of the article), My criticism of the sourcing is, thus, a little too hard, but the big picture remains the same.Michael Eriksson (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

idiom versus euphamism

This article is rife with confusion between an idiom and a euphamism. It needs an editor to start cutting left and right. I will wait for other editors to weigh in (an idiom for state an opinion) on euphamism examples from the page which are actually idioms so we have consensus before I start swinging the scythe.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

W.C.

W.C. isn't a euphemism, it's a straightforward name for the apparatus in question. 'Closet' refers to the fact that the apparatus closes the connection to the sewer and 'water' refers to the fact that it's done with water (the water in the U-bend). 'Closet' does not refer to the room, despite what has been written in this article and also the article 'Flush toilet'.

This link http://www.theplumber.com/closet.html should make it clear - it also refers to 'pneumatic', 'plunger', and 'valve' closets.

The term may be being used in the belief that it's a euphemism, but it isn't.

Say what

"A euphemism is the substitution of a mild, inoffensive, relatively uncontroversial phrase for another more frank expression that might offend or otherwise suggest something unpleasant to the audience"

it Sound weird at best. --190.21.103.207 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)--190.21.103.207 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

discrimination

in "profanity", i changed the word "young" to "some". the reason being that it was discriminatory against youth, unreferenced, and unverifiable. if someone has a reference to verify it, please point me to it. thank you. Jake1993811 (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Profanity §

It's trash and should be emptied, but over my limit for such actions. There's a small on-topic area in euphemisms for things for which there are profane terms, like "poop". However what's accumulated is not anything like that. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. For a topic like this, it's impossible to discuss it properly without stating the profanities that euphemisms hope to avoid. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Read my fucking text. It's being off-topic and dumb-ass not the use of shitty English. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Table deleting

Rather than deleting the table, my view is expand it to include all the examples the article cites in a single, simple table. There is no need to have separate sections for warfare, or sex, or what have you.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

All unreferenced entries must be deleted. There are millions of euphemisms. By common sense of wikipedia, only notable items, discused by scolars or otherwise attracted public attention must be listed, with references. Wikipedia is not a repository of everyrting . The proper place for information from this table is wiktionary, with its category, "Euphemisms". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. One might ask for a citation for, perhaps data to support, the proposition that there are "millions of euphamisms." If that is, we need a citation, a footnote for everything worth posting in Wikpedia. I respectfully disagree that everything must have a cite. Some euphamisms are so commonly understood they need no footnote ("final solution to the Jewish question," for instance). Others in the table do indeed have footnotes, and it is wrong to delete properly footnoted material. Conceding the impossibility of listing all euphamisms and that the attempt would become unwieldy: the table represents those euphamisms that editors, dozens of different editors--chose, thought worth the time it takes to include them. One editor objecting to clutter should not outweigh all those dozens of editorial decisions. Instead I would be grateful for your view on the idea of, rather than deleting the table, moving into the table all the examples in the paragraphs before it and deleting the paragraphs.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

After yesterday's addition, I scanned through the table and was thinking that it needed a serious cull. Some of the items in the table are not euphemisms and some are similar enough to the examples in the sections. Also, the way a few of them are expressed seems to break our NPOV policy. I was about to start culling when Staszek Lem deleted the lot—which I saw as a viable solution and so elected to not challenge the deletion. With it challenged, I'm going to tidy it a little and move it back to where it belongs in the article (under the heading "Common examples").

With respect to the suggestion to expand the table from the sections, I'm not convinced that this is the best course. This would end up with a very big table. We also need to be careful not to wander into areas that Wiktionary looks after. What about, as an alternative idea, splitting the table off to List of common euphemisms? To follow standard WP list practice each item in the list would have to have a citation. It could have sub-sections for sex, warfare, &c. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A split-off list of common euphamisms is an excellent idea. I started a List of islands of Maine which was a lot of work, but it has proven to be very useful. I do caution though about over-insistance on the need for footnotes for each one. It becomes an effort to belabor the obvious. We don't really need an English professor's dissertation full of footnotes to document that, for instance, passed away or passed or departed or kick the bucket are euphamisms for death. On the other hand we do need to police the list to make sure idioms and euphamisms are not confused, as they are throughout this article. If Beeswaxcandle would like to create the list page and link to this one I will happily start contributing to it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dongle?

'Dongle' appears in the list of euphemisms contained in this article. Surely, "hardware key, hardware token, security device" are not euphemisms for dongle - they are merely synonyms or descriptions. Dongle is not an offensive word, and the suggested phrases are not used to obfuscate or create a 'milder' term for dongle. Even if some people may think the word 'dongle' sounds slightly rude, this is not a good example of a euphemism and can serve only to confuse. Can we remove this from the list? Carty239 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is no justification for considering "Hardware key", "token", etc, as substitution for the "offensive"(!) term "dongle". They are nothing more than synonyms. This is the case for several items in this table in fact. 115.64.132.182 (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• bias crime hate crime (used by the New York Times to describe the Rutgers University/Tyler Clementi case.)
  

• hate Bias or discrimination based upon involuntary characteristics, illness, or lifestyle (not an euphemism when used simply to describe strong dislike towards something)

The two above examples from the table appear to contradict each other. In any case, would "bias" or "discrimination" be considered offensive (as terms)? - Which then provoke a euphemistic substitution?115.64.132.182 (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)