Language desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 24

C word v. B word

Sorry for the crudeness. Will the c word and "bitch" every switch and replace each other? After looking at their respective articles, it seems to me that "bitch" is the more offensive one. A guy being called a dick (or other slang words for male genitalia) isn't much of an insult; it just means he's a jerk. But if males started calling each other "ridgling" or were called a "ridgling" by angry women, wouldn't we (as a guy) sort of see how offensive it is to be compared to an animal?? Well, I've noticed more and more girls in real life are open to the c word and use it both sexually and as a way of saying a girl is a jerk. Is there any proof that maybe the c word will eventually overtake the b word as the lesser offending and more popular word?`Reflectionsinglass (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you from that the c word is LESS offensive???165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page it states "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." (bold mine). I'm not sure there are any useful references we can provide you to answer this topic since you're just asking for people to predict what's going to happen in the future. --Jayron32 05:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I've noticed (and hope others can confirm) is that in North America cunt is usually a term of abuse for women, while in Britain and Australia it's usually addressed to men. In the latter countries it seems unlikely that it would replace bitch since bitch is everywhere usually applied to women and only occasionally to men. Angr (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we have no references that can predict curse swapping μηδείς (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there are certainly academic studies into the trends in how swear words are used and how they are regarded. More interestingly, as this is the Language desk, I wonder if there are real life cases of two words that have switched meaning? Sussexonian (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember which one now, but there is some Native American language whose word for "six" is cognate with the word for "seven" in all its closest relatives, and whose word for "seven" is cognate with the word for "six" in all its closest relatives, so apparently the words for "six" and "seven" switched meaning in that language. Angr (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they're the origin of this British idiom. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search "antagonym" there are some good starting points there.165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In America at least, you can say the "B-word" on all levels of TV (in an appropriate context), but you can't say the C-word at all, even on cable TV. So, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, you're on live TV and aren't the sort of person the producers expect to need a 7-second delay for. Angr (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Can't" as in "not supposed to". Meanwhile that "B-word" has been used on TV for a long time. It's possible the "C-word" will achieve that status someday, but not likely anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I first moved to Germany it took me a while to get used to how nonchalantly people on TV here drop F-bombs. It doesn't seem to be any stronger than "crap" or "hell" in the States. Angr (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because they learned its frequent use from soldiers? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't used to be that way here. Vulgar language, especially in public, used to be a sign of low breeding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wass up?

What does William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of Berkeley's nickname "the Wass all" mean? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something to do with wassail? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; Google only brings up results from our article and Burke's Peerage, neither of which explain. "Wass" seems to be a Middle English spelling for "was" [1] - although William "Was all" doesn't make much sense either. Alansplodge (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. Th-th-th-th-ass all, folks! Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"speculated to be"

At [2], I queried whether the following phrase is correct:

"... Mondeuse noire (pictured) has been speculated to be the Ancient Roman wine grape ..."

Although two people there said it was correct English (albeit in one case a bit awkward) I remain unconvinced. You can't "speculate something to be something", so how can something be "speculated to be something"? I would like further opinions on this. 86.146.104.207 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculate is technically intransitive. One speculates "about something" or "that something is the case". One does not speculate "something", hence we cannot say "something has been speculated". I'd rewrite it as "It has been speculated that Mondeuse noire (pictured) is the Ancient Roman wine grape ...".

That said, people do employ these clumsy sorts of constructions all the time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, a combination of passive voice and weasel words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely from interference with "suspected to be". μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that has the same problem. You could not say "Oswald has long been suspected to be a stool pigeon" without raising the eyebrows of a purist. The closest you could come with impugnity is "It has long been suspected that Oswald was a stool pigeon". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of sentence in an article is what gave rise to the ^[who?] template. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any grammatical problem with "Oswald has long been suspected to be a stool pigeon". 86.128.5.101 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No grammatical issue, just factual, as he never confessed to anything. He claimed to be a "patsy", which is something different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IP 86 that "suspected to be" is okay, but I agree with Jack that "suspected that" is much better, and were I being paid to do so, I would rewrite it as "suspected that". μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would go so far as to write "Oswald has long been suspected of being a stool pigeon", but not the "to be" version. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "of being" may read better, but logically I think the following are equally valid:

People have long suspected him of being... -> He has long been suspected of being...

People have long suspected him to be... -> He has long been suspected to be...

81.159.110.250 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]