In a recent post an issue arose in the combox over whether a particular term has a crass origin and what the implications should be for Christians who use this term.
I won’t link to this post for reasons which will promptly become obvious.
In fact, I won’t even use the term in question, though at least partly for a different reason than you might think.
There is a well-known phenomenon in languages of using euphemisms for tabooed words. Every language has tabooed words. When people of conscience feel the impulse to use these tabooed words, they often substitute a euphemism in their place.
Over time these euphemisms can become so established that they are viewed as independent words in their own right and they do not call to mind the original tabooed words on which they are based.
I’d give you examples, except to make the point effectively I’d have to enlighten (or try to enlighten) you about a word origin that you didn’t already know.
You’d then be burdened with the knowledge of where a particular word came from, and you’d have unpleasant, tabooed associations pop into your head when you heard or were tempted to use the word whose origin I had "outed."
To avoid this problem, let’s make up a new pair of words.
Suppose that schmelf used to be a taboo word. It doesn’t matter what the meaning of schmelf was. It could have been any of the usual suspects: something connected with the bedroom, something connected with the bathroom, something connected with religion. All that matters is that schmelf was a really, really tabooed word.
Let’s say it had the same kilotonnage as the F-bomb.
Naturally, polite people wouldn’t want to use it. But, being human, they’d be tempted to at least on occasion. And so a euphemism–smurf–comes into existence.
At first, the fact that smurf is being substituted for schmelf (pardon my language!) is painfully obvious to everyone. But with time, smurf takes on a life of its own, and people no longer realize how the word originated. It has its own, distinct meaning (let’s suppose that it refers to a tiny, blue imaginary creature), and it no longer calls to mind any of the unpleasant associations of the tabooed word from which it was derived.
In fact, let’s suppose that smurf becomes a very popular word, and people use it all the time, saying things like "Oh, Papa Smurf! He’s just the smurfiest smurfing smurf that ever smurfed!"
And one day a Catholic blogger who does not know the origin of the word smurf (a blogger who happens not to be me, though easily could have been since I had never heard its claimed origin either) is writing a blog post in which he uses it, and someone in the combox says:
I am SICK TO DEATH at seeing the vulgar slang words, "smurf" and "trolling," beginning to appear even on Catholic blogs. How in the world could people not be aware of the following:
(1) "trolling" is so obviously a euphemism for "troll king" (which word comes to mind every time the milder version is spoken/written).
(2) "smurf" (as I well recall from my childhood) was coined as a variant of "schmelf" (slang term that sounds as bad as the F-bomb), and then took on an extended meaning of "small blue imaginary creature."
Anyway, folks, DON’T USE THESE BAD WORDS, please.
What would happen next?
Probably, a lot of people would point out that it doesn’t matter where smurf came from. Regardless of whether this word was originally a euphemism for schmelf, it simply doesn’t mean that anymore and does not call up that association in the minds of most people. Now–for the great majority of people–it refers to a small blue imaginary creature, and that’s all.
Not meeting with the success he wanted, the commenter might then reply:
I should have realized that no one here is truly Catholic, but will
do/say anything to justify their use of euphemisms (that call to mind
the vile words behind them), rather than resolve to amend their lives
and pursue the universal vocation to sanctity. I guess that’s one of
the reasons for Purgatory, to burn away the love for the vulgar that is
found in so many people who responded to me.The lack of humility among almost all commenters here — and the
penchant for kneejerk self-justification and rationalization –are
mind-boggling. It breaks my heart to see NOT EVEN ONE person write a
message saying, "Thanks, dude. I was not aware of what you told us. I
will avoid saying ‘smurf’ and ‘trolling’ in the future."As always, we can ask the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" You can
be sure that he would not use foul language or even any euphemisms
derived from it it. He would also not use His Father’s name improperly.
Ditto for His vicar on earth, Pope Benedict XVI. Let’s follow these
role models, instead of making bad role models of ourselves.PS to another commenter: It doesn’t matter what "Jimmy" says on this, because I
have noticed that he too has rationalized some of his own (and others’)
improper behavior. Although "Jimmy" knows lots of facts, he is
definitely no guru for Catholics’ behavior.
Setting aside the attempt at poisoning the well there at the end (and the strange quotation marks around my name, and noting that I’m a sinner in need of Christ’s mercy and do not aspire to be a guru for others’ behavior), I would raise the following concern.
To the great majority of people today, the word "smurf" is not associated with its alleged term of origin. (And word origins for slang terms are really tricky matters. Slang terms–especially tabooed ones–don’t get well documented in dictionaries, meaning that it’s hard for etymologists to trace their pedigree, so a lot of what you read is just conjecture. As someone who spends a lot of time looking up word etymologies, I know what I’m talking about. Sources regularly disagree and admit ignorance over where terms came from, and there are popular myths about word origins that simply aren’t true. Most of the origins that you hear for the F-bomb are false.)
Since most people today are not burdened by the knowledge of where the term smurf (may have) originated, they do not have to wince when they hear it or wonder whether they should correct others who use it or feel bad when they are tempted to use it themselves, because for them it has no crass associations.
If for you it does have crass associations, that is a cross you must bear (either that or decide that at some point it’s not worth fretting over what the origin of a word was and just go with the way it’s being used now).
It is one thing to shoulder this cross yourself, but it is another thing entirely to impose it on others by forcing upon them knowledge that will now be the occasion for scrupulosity on their part.
Now, many people will not scruple over this–or scruple much–but some will. (Particularly the scrupulous ones.)
The meritorious thing to do in such a situation would be not to disturb the consciences of others and to shoulder one’s own cross, without causing others to suffer as well.
Incidentally, I’ve been restrained in discussing this subject in the past because I didn’t want to burden people by revealing the origins of words they didn’t know. Now that I’ve come up with smurf and schmelf, I’ll be able to talk about it more freely.
I’d also recommend that people not "out" euphemisms in the combox. (That was kind of the point of this post.)
Anyone who does so is a smurfitty smurf who’s just out trolling!
(NOTE FOR LINGUISTS KEEPING SCORE: The use of smurf as a way of avoiding using an actual euphemism makes it a meta-euphemism. Schmelf, as a replacement for a non-specific taboo word, would be a generic euphemism.)
