nonobjective
Member
maybe?
in practice, language can only approximate the narrowest of medians of human thought and emotion. the extremities are indeed relative to the individual, culture and language in question.
i recall an instance where my grandmother, while cutting a potato, also managed to slice in to her finger. she dropped the knife, grit her teeth and groaned in a sharp and guttural manner, "FUDGE!" As a child, I didn't so much hear a word, in this case 'fudge' but an expression of sincere, albeit short-lived, panic. It was frightening, and just about the most severe usage of the word Fudge, or any other F word for that matter, I’d ever experienced.
From a philosophical stand point, I would say that a word is a word is a word. we attach meaning based on context and previous experience... no word exists that has any innate meaning (except possibly a small subset of words including 'mama' and it's variants as chomsky and ree contend).
From a linguistics perspective, I think it's helpful and healthy that we do have "taboo" or extreme words, words that we use with some measure of economy, especially in mixed company. If we were to completely liberalize our vocabulary in every setting and every context, we would loose a great deal of articulacy of expression.
Banning a word or words would only add to their potency and power, probably the inverse of puritans intentions.
in practice, language can only approximate the narrowest of medians of human thought and emotion. the extremities are indeed relative to the individual, culture and language in question.
i recall an instance where my grandmother, while cutting a potato, also managed to slice in to her finger. she dropped the knife, grit her teeth and groaned in a sharp and guttural manner, "FUDGE!" As a child, I didn't so much hear a word, in this case 'fudge' but an expression of sincere, albeit short-lived, panic. It was frightening, and just about the most severe usage of the word Fudge, or any other F word for that matter, I’d ever experienced.
From a philosophical stand point, I would say that a word is a word is a word. we attach meaning based on context and previous experience... no word exists that has any innate meaning (except possibly a small subset of words including 'mama' and it's variants as chomsky and ree contend).
From a linguistics perspective, I think it's helpful and healthy that we do have "taboo" or extreme words, words that we use with some measure of economy, especially in mixed company. If we were to completely liberalize our vocabulary in every setting and every context, we would loose a great deal of articulacy of expression.
Banning a word or words would only add to their potency and power, probably the inverse of puritans intentions.