Everything from Z to A: Who are you? Who Who? Who Who?


“What would you say if I told you that I see you,” Z said after biting into a chicken sandwich he purchased at the food court, “and I know who you are.”  

“Oooo! Spooky intro,” A said with a laugh. “I’m going to say you don’t know me, because you don’t know the first thing about you.” 

“You’re right, of course, but what would you say if I told you I could find you without ever talking to you? If we put those you know any love through a series of tests, surveys to arrive at assessments based on observational data from a study of a sample size regarding their tendencies, patterns and routines, we might arrive at an evaluation that might surprise you.” 

“I would say that you’re so full of beans you stink!” 

“Want me to take a shot?” Z asked. 

“No, but who’s we?” A asked. “You said we. Who’s we? Wait, let me guess, Psychology major?” 

“Master’s degree.” 

“Of course.” 

“Oooo! That sounds confrontational,” Z said.  

“It is actually,” A responded. “But my confrontational response is a result of psych majors thinking they know the first thing about me. You don’t know squat. You take your textbook knowledge out to the streets to predict how we’re all going to act and react, but you don’t know the first thing about me. Psych majors think they can study tendencies, patterns and routines, and with some variance predict who I am and who I’m going to be. I just think it’s absolutely ridiculous.” 

“I view Psychology as the study of choices,” Z said, “and I’d agree with everything you say about the textbook approaches. I’m not a textbook student of the mind. I’m fascinated with creative approaches to problem solving and study. I try to avoid textbook as often as I can. I, slash, we study the choices people make, why they make them, and the rewards of consequences of them. If you don’t care for the methods we’ve devised for studying human nature, how would you do it?” 

“I wouldn’t,” A said. “I would consider it an utter waste of time. With the world population currently clocking in at just under 8 billion, and the United States at 328 billion, I wouldn’t even pretend to know anything about anyone. There are simply too many people, with too many different backgrounds and experiences in life to know any one person.”  

“Research scientists take a sample of the population, and they factor in a plus minus ratio for margin of error,” Z said. “Now, you can argue the sample size, but with that many people in the world, how can you say you’re immune to their findings?” 

“How can you say I am not immune?” 

“You see that guy over there eating a slice of pizza?” Z asked. “Did that guy sample it first? If he sampled it, was it a decent representation of the rest of the pizza?” 

“I’m not arguing methods of operation,” A said. “I’m arguing about the assumptions psych majors make.”  

“Let’s flip this around then,” Z said. “What do you think of the guy eating that pizza over there?”  

“All right, I’ll play,” A said, agreeing to this exercise after some back and forth. He turned to look at this pizza-eating man in the food court they sat in, and then he flipped completely around to examine the man.

“What are you eating, sir, and what are you eating?” A whispered loud enough for Z to hear. “I love pizza as much as the next fella, but are any of those ingredients real? Does the meat on it even merit a grade? And what are you eating? Are you eating some form of pain you could never digest properly? Did your dad tough love you into a man? Are you eating those times your mother told you that you were too old for hugs and kisses? Are you eating that time you walked up to a girl and she said, “Move along!” A guy that pale should not be wearing a bright, neon yellow T-shirt. The fella needs to contrast his skin with dark colors. Then you have the baggy khaki shorts, and the three-day growth, and you have to assume the man is a divorcee dining with his estranged kid. No wait, the child is an out-of-wedlock birth. That’s my guess, because his father obviously never had a wife influence the appearance he should present to the public. I’m guessing he gave up making discerning choices long ago, and he has issues with self-discipline.” 

“I know you’re trying to be funny here, but you just told me a lot about you,” Z said. “I have no interest in whether you’re right or wrong about the pizza-eater. I have no interest in the pizza-eater at all, except what you say about him, because it tells me something about you. Hold on, hold on, let me finish,” Z said to interrupt A’s grumbling. “This particular pursuit suggests that if I ask you direct questions about you, you’re going to give me idealized answers. You’ll either say what you think I want to hear or what you want to say about yourself. Your analysis of Mr. Pizza-Eater tells me more about you than I could ever achieve through direct Q&As. All analysis is autobiographical.”   

“And you think this is an exact science?” A asked. 

“Of course not, but why did you focus on those characteristics of the pizza guy?” Z asked. “What is he eating, and what is he eating you asked? What are you eating? What assumptions did you make about the man’s plan in life through his diet and his desire to ingest his pain? You assume this man might have a better life if he had a better diet, a wife, and if he shed the yellow shirt and baggy khakis. What does that say about you? It’s not an exact science, but it’s a lot closer to a truth than if I said, tell me about yourself. What makes A tick? What are your strengths and weaknesses?

“I was hired as a consultant some years ago,” Z continued. “I sat in on some interviews they conducted, and they asked me to determine how they could interview prospective candidates better. Most of the interview involved in-house questions, and then they asked the standard what are your greatest strengths and weaknesses question. I suggested that they flip this question around and ask the candidate to name their favorite manager and what made them a great leader? They should then ask the candidate who their least favorite manager was, and I said they should inform the candidate to avoid using names in this case. I said that demanding that the candidate avoid using names would free the candidate up to be as candid as possible in their critique of that manager. They could add a question like, “What did they do right, and what did they do wrong, and how would you do better?” I suggested that might throw the candidate off the trail of the true nature of the question, but the meat of their answer will be can be found in their analysis of their previous managers. All analysis is autobiographical.”

“That’s not exactly groundbreaking, but I’d agree with some of your analysis,” A said. “Only because your preferred form of testing gets closer to the subjects analyzing themselves, even if it’s incidental, but if I were in charge of a research group, I would go one step further. I would study group C, the interviewers, the Human Resources department, or whomever designed these questions. What questions did they design for the interview, why did they choose those questions? I would also interrogate my interviewers before they conducted the interview to see how well they know themselves. How well do any of us know ourselves? Noted psychologist Abraham Maslov suggested that around 2% of the world population practices rigorous self-reflection. In my experience, I think that number is high. Psych majors love to study others, but they’re not so great at studying themselves. How can anyone know anything about anyone else without knowing themselves first?” 

“I know myself,” Z said. “I know myself better than anyone else in the world. Why would I spend time understanding myself better? Isn’t that a little narcissistic?” 

“True reflection goes beyond narcissism,” A said. “You’ve no doubt heard people repeat the ‘You can’t handle the truth’ line? And you’ve heard people say, “They don’t want to ask me questions,” and the ‘they’ in their statement often involves an employer, or someone with some intimate knowledge of their particular brand of honesty. “They don’t want to know what I think, because they know I’m too honest. I am brutally honest.” They usually laugh after saying such things, in some self-congratulatory way, as if to say we all know how brutally honest they are. “Well, you may be brutally honest,” I say, “with others, but are you as brutally honest with yourself? Have you taken the time to sample size of your actions and reactions in the same way you do others?” 

“We all examine ourselves to some degree,” Z said. “We all think about the things we do, and we all examine ourselves.” 

“I’m talking about rigorous examination,” A said. “I’m talking about knowing what’s your fault? You’re not doing well in life, and you’re not happy. How much of that is your fault? You’re not getting along with your parents? How much of that is your fault? How many people fail to recognize their role in something as simple as a family squabble? I’ve witnessed family squabbles where my friends knew, absolutely knew, they were 100% in the right. 

When I was young and stupid, I’d ask them, “How can you not see your role in this matter?” I learned from that, let me tell you, I learned. I learned, first and foremost, never to ask that question again, because it opens a whole can of, “My parents, my Aunt Judy, or my Uncle Biff, are awful people,” they say. “Do you have any idea what they’ve done to me? Do you have any idea what they’ve done to me in the past?” I don’t do ask them this anymore, and I involve myself as little as possible now, because it’s pointless. Because when you’re intimate enough with the situation to know their role in the family squabble, you learn that most people don’t consider the role they play in it. I now know that I was around 50% responsible for just about every family squabble I was in. They don’t see it. Are they lying? No, they’ve just  completely blocked that part of the squabble out.”   

“What good does it do to dwell on our negatives?” Z asked. “Isn’t it better to move past them and forget them?” 

“How do we learn from our mistakes?” A asked. “What happens when the next family squabble arrives, and we’ve learned nothing?”  

“There is that of course,” Z said, “but we’re finding that in the debate between remembering and forgetting that Freud was just wrong. Focusing on our failed moments to the point of obsessing over them, to find some kind of truth about our current state is often more harmful than just putting the whole sordid affair behind us and moving on.”  

“I’d agree with that,” A said,  

“Thank you, Jesus.” 

“If you’re going to analyze me though,” A continued. “I expect you to thoroughly analyze yourself first. If you’re going to pretend like you know me, I ask you if you know yourself as much as you pretend to know me. I will no longer accept analysis from someone who has failed to analyze themselves properly.” 

“That’s a bold statement,” Z said. 

“Well, let me ask you this, what is a psychiatrist, psychologist, or any professional analyst?” A asked. “If we dig down to the nuts and bolts of these professions, what are they? Some of them provide technical, textbook answers, others act as our friends who guide us to therapy, but when we clear all that out, what are they? They’re listeners. The best of the professions just let their clients talk. They’re great listeners in a world where no one else listens. They teach us how to analyze ourselves and they try to teach us how to help ourselves by viewing matters more objectively. If we can learn how to achieve that level of objectivity on our own, when we analyze ourselves, we could nullify the need for analysts. I’m not saying it’s easy. It’s quite difficult to achieve objectivity when it comes to examining ourselves. Some say it’s utterly impossible, but I think they’re thinking in absolute terms. Is it possible to be objective in an absolute manner, probably not, but we can make great strides if we want it bad enough. That’s the key, Z.”     

“In one sense,” Z said. “We should all take some compliment from a research scientist’s desire to study us. People want to know who we are. They want to know what makes us tick. They’re curious-” 

“They’re not curious,” A said. “Let’s not get nuts here. I know your goal is to have a civil conversation here, but I gotta tell you that if you want us to go down this road together it will not be hand in hand.”    

“It’s obvious you’ve had some bad experiences,” Z said, “but the idea that you’re insulted by someone analyzing you in a casual way is a bit much.”  

“I’m not insulted by it,” A said. “I just consider it ridiculous. When we sit down in a research clinic and voluntarily subject ourselves to their findings and evaluations, I have no problem with it, but when psych majors think they know who we are after talking to us over our backyard fence for ten minutes, it gets a little silly. I’m talking about the people we meet on the street, in our place of employment, and at family reunions. They have degrees in psychology, and they have their little knowing smiles that suggest they have some insight into who we are.” 

“And you think they’re all wrong?” 

“Of course not,” A said, “but I think they’re wrong almost as often as they’re right, which puts them about two steps above a guess. It’s what we might call an educated guess.”   

“What is an educated guess though,” Z said. “Some are based on anecdotal experience, I will grant you that. The over-the-backyard-fence psychologists making guesses is one thing, but some educated guesses are just packed with a portfolio of data. There’s the educated guess that you’re on the insecure side, and that many of the things you’ve said today support that. That educated guess is worth about as much as the person giving it. There’s also, hold on, hold on, let me finish. There’s also the assessment that a psychologist can make, based on where you were born in your family. Where you the oldest child of your siblings? Were you an only child? If you were the oldest child, you’re more likely to exhibit certain characteristics, if you were a middle child, you often exhibit middle child, Jan Brady characteristics, and if you were the youngest, you’re likely to exhibit other characteristics. Psychologists pack those educated guesses with decades of sample data. There are too many variables to list here, and they all matter, but the characteristics of where a child was born in the family are so consistent that some psychologists suggest that it might define you for the rest of your life. That’s an educated guess based on studying patterns and tendencies that I find fascinating.”  

“It is an interesting idea,” A said, “but it’s still just a theory, and all theories are guesses, some more educated than others, but they’re still just guesses.” 

“And Einstein made some guesses too,” Z said.  

Replacing Naughty Words


“What is funny?” I asked the laughers at the tail end of our discussion. “Glenn just said he went to the post office, and the clerk didn’t give him enough stamps. Why is that funny?” If the laughers were honest, they would say, “I don’t know.” If they study the rhythms and beats of humor to the point that they drain all of the fun out of it, they know it’s all about the swear words. “If I told the exact same story without the swear words, do you think it would be just as funny?” Everyone knows the answer but no one wants to say.

Some will venture into the field with an, “Spare me your outrage.” When I clarified that I’m not interested in the moral quality of the joke, “I’m only interested in your definition of humor.” The guy knew me and my peculiar focus on tone, word choices, and emphasis, so he backed away from the charge. “I’m fascinated with how you think a story is funny when a Glenn drops swear words into it, and Mary doesn’t.”

“When Glenn complains, his complaints are the same as ours,” I added, “but we give more weight to Glenn’s complaints, because he swears.”

“He just tells it like it is,” someone said.

The obsessive language nerd, who studies the effects and affects of swear words, knows swear words are one of the best vehicles we’ve ever invented to properly convey exaggerated emotions, and hard-core truths. As George Carlin once said, “They offer excellent punctuation.”

We don’t know much about linguistics, but we know our swears, naughty words, and vulgarity. We know them, we love them, and they are ours in a way that defines us, as much as we define them. We didn’t know a whole lot about them when we were younger, but we were eager to meet them. And when our rascally uncle Jim introduced us to them, we laughed harder than anyone in the room, because we wanted him to think we were all too familiar with them. We also thought our uncle Jim was the coolest person in the room, because he wasn’t afraid to swear in front of children. We thought that meant he was treating us like adults, and we loved him for it.

Repetition eventually breeds familiarity, yet we know nothing about their history. We don’t care where they came from or how old they are, and we still don’t. We might grow to know a lot about how to use them now, how they permeate and penetrate, but most of us have no idea that our favorite swears are probably the same ones our authority figures used to tell their authority figures off. Depending on our age, they might be the same words that our great-grandfather used to tell his authority figures off. Does that matter? It doesn’t. They may have been theirs then, but they’re ours now.

We don’t rent them, or lease them with a plan to buy. We own them. Yet, when we assumed ownership, we didn’t look under the hood, examine the tires for wear, or notice the ‘as is’ sticker. They felt new to us, or new enough. The idea that they were used didn’t matter to us then, and it doesn’t matter to us now, because they’re ours now, and putting our own miles on them provides intrinsic ownership qualities.

We use these words to shock and offend our authority figures into recognizing that we’ve arrived, and we have some power now. We want them to know that we know these words now, and we’re not afraid to use them anymore. We find these words rebellious and liberating, and we plan to use them in a manner our parents have never heard before. Check that, we know they’ve probably heard them before, but they’ve never heard us say them, not like this … (kapow!) We’re not afraid to use these words to inform them that we now reject everything they hold dear, and we’re no longer afraid to violate how they once viewed us. We might understand, on some level, that their provocative nature contains evergreen qualities, but does the idea that our grandparents knew them, and probably used them in the same shocking, offensive manner give the words more power or less? Is it all about their provocative, shocking qualities, or does it have something to do with the foundational familiarities that we all have with them?

That bomb you just dropped on your mom to express your intense rebellion to her matriarchal constructs was probably the same word she used on her mother to try to accomplish the same thing. When we attempt to shock her with our provocative use of offensive words, are we smashing the matriarchy, or are we carrying on a family tradition?

We have a relationship with these words, and we know our relationship isn’t monogamous. We’ll use whatever word comes to mind to suit our needs, and we don’t mind it when someone else uses and abuses them in the same manner. We might even bond with that straight-laced, church-girl, from a neighboring cubicle, who just causally dropped a big bombastic word on her co-worker. “I didn’t know you cussed,” we say, leaning over the cubicle wall with a gleam in our eye. Now, we may not become besties over one swear word, but it could open the door to respect that could lead to a level of bonding that probably wouldn’t have happened without that swear word.

Dropping the perfect swear word in the perfect place, with learned intonation, can also provide excellent punctuation. Proper usage can garner the attention and adulation from those listening to an otherwise boring story about our trip to the post office. They can provide an interesting or funny comma, if we know how to pound our point home with a more offensive and exciting exclamation point. The proper technique involves a one-step, two-step, shock, shock, shock! series of steps that we should follow with a casual, blasé open turn that suggests this isn’t half as meaningful to us as it is to you.

I have an almost inbred need to seek the countervailing winds, and when I saw everyone begin swearing as often as they could, I joined in. Hey, even a rebel needs to fit in when we’re all young and vulnerable, and we need them to pay attention to us, and we savor their laughter.

I learned the way of the words from a sweaty, greazy, and hairy Gary who worked the line at a restaurant where we worked. Gary was twenty-five, I was fifteen, and in our little world, he was the master chef of comedy. Yet, Gary’s recipe of comedy was so effortless that it appeared almost unintentional. He had some unique internal wiring I’ve only met a few times since that could make a trip to the post office to buy stamps not just funny, but knee-slapping hilarious, and he, and his stories were not vulgar-reliant.

Gary swore, but he used them as a master chef might use paprika or oregano, knowing how powerful a subtle burst of flavor can be when using them as a topical ingredient, or garnish. The problem for the rest of us is that once we develop a taste for spice, we can’t help but add so much that we all but kill the meal. When it became obvious to me that few of my peers followed Gary’s recipe of subtle, judicious use of spicing, I noticed that swearing in a joke or story was not just expected but required for laughter, and I began to reevaluate.

The Reevaluations

Having a child led to another level of reevaluation. If we don’t want to hear swear words coming out of their mouth, we have to be more careful about what words we use around them. Some don’t agree.

“It’s a word,” parents, say. “I can think of a thousand other things, right here and now, that I don’t want to hear coming out of their mouth. That was just a word. Quit being so stuffy.”

In this second reevaluation, I became more aware of the situation specific nature of my lewd lexicon. If we’re building something with our kid, and we hammer our index finger, what do we say to effectively express our temporary but excruciating pain? If we experience situations that call for exaggerated emotions of urgency, anger, disappointment and frustration, how do we express these exaggerated emotions if we’re not going to swear? How do we move our audience in an offensive way to properly convey disdain, and inform the world that we have a painful bobo, if we’re not going to swear? If we’ve ever had such discussions with ourselves, we’ll realize that we’ve been cursing and swearing so often and for so long that somewhere along the line we became vulgar reliant. When this need to express ourselves meets our desire to influence others through language, we realize that we need to fill our situation-specific gaps with something.

My solution was to sarcastically invent my own swear words to convey these emotions. Some, like fooey monsters and fudge nuggets, worked, but most didn’t. In the midst of this pursuit (which increased tenfold when the offspring, my little demon, announced his entry into the world), it dawned on me that playful substitutes always hit roadblocks.

I never considered the value of swear words, until I tried to introduce playful substitutes, but I found that traditional swear words provide pitch-perfect stress that we need to provoke and offend. It’s the way of the words. In order to replace the traditionally shocking and offensive words, I realized we need replacements that can shock or offend slightly before the confusion sets in. Even as I was playing with this whole dynamic, I realized the the words I would use needed to be spat in anger, disgust, or whatever emotion I deemed specific to punctuate that situation to lead everyone within earshot to recognize my reaction. To arrive at a suitable replacement, I knew I needed to study the irreplaceable swear words our ancestors chose to convey emotions.

The study was brief and not very thorough, but I found that most of these words are so much older than we thought. The next thing we find, when we try to invent new, offensive words, is that our ancestors obviously knew what they were doing when they chose those offensive, therapeutic, and therapeutically offensive words. For some reason, using hard consonants, such as a hard (‘F’), an enunciated (‘T’), or the unpleasant (‘K’) sounds, work surprisingly well in certain situations. The (‘K’), in particular, can prove to be quite the crowd-pleaser, if we hit it hard and hold it for a second.

I don’t know if it’s all about the ingrained tradition of seeing and hearing older, cooler kids use them so often that we copied them, or if it has something to do with the machinations occurring in the back office of our brain, but it just feels a little better to yell a word that begins with a hard (‘F’) that is punctuated with a hard (‘K’) when we accidentally strike our index finger with a hammer.

We also discover some of their internal, medicinal benefits, when a lover dumps us. It feels so good to tell our friends what we called our ex- a name that they agree is excessive and deliciously harsh on his way out, so everyone will view it as retribution for everything he did to us. If we do it right, our friends might even give us a high-five.

“So, he dumped you on the curb, like a sack of rancid cranberries, and you called him a name?” I asked her, sitting between the two parties, “And you think you’re even now?”

The Indelicate Index

There are so many different, and somewhat boring, theories on the etymologies of these words. Some suggest the origins are very specific, and that the power and definitions simply snowballed over time. Others suggest that they started from vague and difficult to determine origins. No matter what I read in my research, I concluded each reading with a big, fat “Who cares?” Who cares what they meant in Ancient Rome, the Middle Ages, or whatever sources of antiquity the researchers discovered. If our ancestors didn’t really know what they were doing, and these words were, for whatever reason, chosen at random, it just doesn’t matter now. The only thing that matters now is what matters now, because we’ve built our own iconographic walls around these words.

Most of us don’t remember the first time we heard our first swear word, but we remember hearing them at their best … at the movies. The scripts that called for the actors to say something awful to punctuate their acts of violence were so cool. We can try to diminish their effect, as we age, and we can say, “That seems so 6th grade now,” but we cannot deny how cool it was when we were in 6th grade. “That swear word punctuated that scene so well, and they were so pitch-perfect that I gotta get that in my next situation.”

Do you remember that first time you told that perfect joke that involved the perfect swear word? I tried it early on, and no one laughed. Why? I don’t know, but I think it had something to do with the idea that I sounded like a little kid trying to use swear words for the first time. I learned, through trial and error, how to perfect my tones and stresses, until I eventually learned how to upgrade a relatively adequate joke into the perfect joke. I did it in front of my uncle Jim and his friend, and their laughter made me feel like I finally arrived. I’ll never forget that feeling. 

Some jokes and stories just don’t feel complete without quality swear words peppered throughout, particularly in the punch line. We develop a personal history with these words that feels so intimate they’re almost familial. If we feel a need to replace them how would we do it without relying too much on the tried and tested models?

We so remember the first time we dropped a big one on our primary authority figure, because we felt a peculiar sensation that is difficult to describe. We know that that sensation was all about power though. We gave them a small, knowing smile that would have made you proud, and with that, we made an announcement that “We don’t care anymore. We’re no longer children. We now have these words in our arsenal, and we’re not afraid to use them.” We learned that the strategic use of profanity can turn a period into an exclamation point. We also learned how to use tones, rhythms, and stresses to maximum effect. Then, we learned the proper facial expression to wear when delivering a haymaker to rattle our ancestors down to their foundation. We learned how to convey emotions early on when no one took us seriously, by learning how to articulate swears!

After we discovered how to use these words properly, we discovered that using profanity also requires a level of balance. When our goal is displaying a rebellious truth, too much energy and too much intent can shift the balance of power in such a way that dilutes our meaning. When we swear, we hope to vent, as opposed to internalizing our anger, but doing so too often can lead to laughter, as it shows the profane character might not have the confidence to know when and how to use profanity properly. If swearing provides excellent punctuation, in other words, excessive punctuation can lead to a clumsy presentation. The power of profanity, we find, comes with great responsibility. Excessive profanity can also lead the audience to believe the speaker is profane, and thereby unable to properly express themselves due to a lack of quality education. As we age, we learn that Gary the line cook was right on the mark, swearing should be oregano and paprika, as opposed to the main course. 

The Dysphemism Treadmill

It doesn’t matter how awful the swear word is, every single one of them will eventually run its course, individually, culturally, even sociopolitically. Our individual experience is such that we enjoy saying and hearing these words, as they define our breakout, we incorporate them into our lexicon, and we expect our peers to also do so, until we arrive at a place where everyone we know expresses themselves through a variety of the same situation-specific swear words. The selection of certain swear words eventually becomes so agreed upon that it’s expected, and when it becomes expected, it becomes commonplace.

Someone far smarter than the author of Rilaly.com developed a term for this cyclical experience that he called the dysphemism treadmill. The dysphemism treadmill, as opposed to Steven Pinker’s euphemism treadmill, suggests that what we consider profane in one frame eventually becomes commonplace. A euphemism is an innocuous word used to replace a derogatory term, a dysphemism, by contrast, is a derogatory expression. The use of the treadmill suggests that a profane word has a life cycle for each party involved. They/we regard it as an offensive taboo in the beginning, with a here, there be dragons designation, until it becomes so commonplace among our peers, and in the culture, that we begin to use it. At some point further down the road, it becomes so commonplace that extensive use drains it of any power it once wielded. Then, I add, when our kids use these terms, and use them against us, they start the cycle all over again. It’s the dysphemism treadmill. Prior generations started this cycle, we joined it, and the next one will too.

We probably didn’t know someone developed a term for it, but we know it when we see it. We hear it too, until we don’t hear it. When we’re younger, and we hear people swear in movies or TV, it’s exciting, fun, and funny. “He just said, what?” LAUGHTER “Yay!” “That movie had seven swears, two ‘F’ bombs, an MF, and four ‘S’ words!” The older we get, the older they get, until they go from an acceptable form of communication to commonplace, to a final stage where we don’t even hear them anymore. The kid was in bed but obviously not asleep in the back bedroom. The next day, he reported that he heard “everything they said” on the TV show we were watching. What did everything mean? “They said some awful awful things.” It shocked us, because we didn’t hear it, because we don’t hear it anymore. It goes in one ear and out the other. It’s such an accepted form of communication for us now that we don’t know if we still consider using offensive language a question of morality anymore, but we do not want our children hearing such language from us.

“Well, he’s gonna hear it somewhere,” people reflexively say whenever they accidentally swear in front of our kids.

“And I think we both know, there’s nothing I can do about that,” I reply. “I can only control what I can control. I cannot control what he hears at school, or among his friends. I have some control over the shows he watches, but I recognize the limits there too. I can only control what I can control, and as his primary influence in life, I can control my language when I’m around him, and you can too, Grandpa!” When his friends say them, it’s funny, naughty and rebellious. When parents say them, however, it can lead to a premature sense of commonplace on their treadmill, and they’ll learn to use those words accordingly. I also think language is a staple of youth, and by cleaning up my language when I’m around him, it might help make some small, seemingly insignificant elements of his youth last just a little bit longer. My meager efforts in this regard might be so relative as to be insignificant, but as they say every little bit helps.

Hundreds of Years Old

Those who study the origin of words suggest that some of the words, most famously listed in George Carlin’s Seven Words you can Never say on Television, are at least hundreds of years old. They question whether these words had the profane power they do now, but they state that the words are a lot older than most would believe. My guess is that this study was put forth to suggest that these words aren’t that bad, and I would flip that around and say, “Words don’t have power, until we assign them power. If they’re not that bad, why are they our go-to when we’re extremely angry, frustrated, and sad? Why do we use them on a sliding scale to properly convey extremes, if they aren’t that bad?”

When they suggest that they didn’t have the same power hundreds of years ago, in Chaucer’s or Shakespeare’s day, I cede that notion, but they’re currently as powerful as they were in the 60s and 70s when standup comedian Lenny Bruce was getting arrested for saying them on stage, and when George Carlin wrote the Seven Words you can Never say on Television. Did my great-grandpa use one of these words when he hammered a finger, probably not, but I’m pretty sure my grandpa either used them or tried to avoid using them based on the power they amassed in his era. So, the modern young people who want to carry on the tradition of burning everything that came before them to prepare the world for their new generation are probably using the same naughty words that their grandmothers and grandfathers, or great-grandparents, from the 60s and 70s, used in similar situations.

Put in that frame, it’s noteworthy that no generation, after the mid 60s to the early 70s generation, took the taboo to another level. Those who used foul language from the Carlin/Bruce generation expressed themselves in a radical manner, and audiences walked out on their shows aghast and shocked at the profanity they used in their shows. Does that still happen? 

Young people and teenagers might still be fascinated with offensive language, but adults place them on the commonplace portion of the treadmill. They don’t leave these shows, they aren’t offended anymore, and they’re probably in the same place I am in hearing these words so often that they don’t even hear them anymore. We obliterated those taboos so often that the trend in modern, comedic movies that the taboo progressed to swearing in front of children, and that only happened after the little old lady with a foul mouth ran its course. When swearing in front of children ran its course in comedic movies, they moved with the taboo to having children swear in movies. It’s the dysphemism treadmill.

Bruce and Carlin not only expressed themselves with profanity regardless what “the man” said, they fought any and all censorship of expression, and they faced legal consequences for doing so. Some might call them trailblazers, but when that generation crossed the Rubicon of thirty years of age, and they became parents, why did the next generation follow the exact same trail they blazed? Most generations speak of torching the trail of the previous generation, to build a new one, rather than follow it obediently. Why did the successive generations copy these particular words for future use?

A Profane Concept

Are the concepts behind vulgar and profane words so revolutionary that they’re evergreen and immune to change? If an enterprising social critic started trying to change the fabric by using new and different words to offend and shock parents, would they be laughed out of the building? How could anyone update such concepts? What words would they use to better, or uniquely, describe lewd activities and disgusting bodily functions without being subject to ridicule? It would be an almost impossible chore, but the one thing we love about enterprising young souls is their ability to make the impossible possible.

The avenue to doing it in such a way that reaches young people, now, would be through YouTube. The first question this provocateur would have to answer is why do it? Is there some financial reward for changing the language in this manner? The second question would be why do it? Curse words are beloved in their own way, and they’re familiar. If we are going to revamp, revolutionize, or just tweak the lewd lexicon, we better prepare for the backlash.

“I’m not giving up on my swear words that easily,” a YouTube commenter, named Smurfette’s Rainbow, adds in the reply section. “They’ve served me well in moments of frustration and angst, and they have managed to make some of my otherwise lame jokes pretty (expletive deleted) funny.”

If the influencer wanted to provide proper alternatives, he would need to understand the science of swear words. Among the many things they find will be the psychologically pleasing, offensive qualities of certain hard consonants. The hard (‘F’) is the most obvious consonant to use, but they would also have to incorporate hard (‘T’s) and (‘K’s) in their new words. They would also have to abide by our need for syllables. A simple expression of anger requires one hard consonant syllable, but an elevated level of anger requires three, sometimes four syllables to properly express ourselves, and these revolutionaries would have to be mindful of that.

“The best swear words I’ve found have hard consonants,” the influencer might say, soon after he lays out his mission in the intro. “Spraken ze Deutch (German for do you speak German?), for example, is one of my favorites. After listening to German friends of mine speak, I realized that many German phrases make great cuss words, because almost all German phrases have hard consonants. Try it out the next time you drive a hammer into your thumb. Spraken ze Deutch. There are probably too many syllables for required punctuation, but I think you’ll find using it in some contexts quite therapeutic.”

“My friends simply won’t accept any of the alternatives you’ve listed here,” Tripping the Light Fantastic replies in the comments section, “and I don’t care how many hard consonants or syllables you mix in. Our reputations are on the line here fella. Why don’t you go mess with someone else’s vocab (insert influencer’s name). We got nothing for you here.”

“How are we supposed to tone these words?” a third, somewhat eager commentator, named Fertilizer Spikes, asks. “You provide us with some situations, and I appreciate that, but we need more situations, so our tones suit the situation better. I’m all for introducing a new paradigm, through a new set of swear words that describe reproduction, our reproductive organs, and the movement of our bowels, but you have to remember how many years of practice it took us to learn how to use and tone the more traditional swear words properly.”

“You’re right, Fertilizer Spikes,” Uncle Shemp agrees, “swearing isn’t innate. It’s learned behavior, and our influencer here doesn’t seem to recognize that.”

As with all efforts of this sort, this first influencer would probably hit an epic fail, as their audience might view it as some sort of spoof ridiculousness. His failure wouldn’t be absolute however, as he would sprinkle the seeds for the second influential voice to take the baton. The second enterprising young entrepreneur might follow many of the steps laid out for the first, but he would find a unique, individualistic way of offending the other generations. Some guys are just offensive. We don’t know why, and we don’t know how they do, but our parents say, “I just don’t like him.” That’s the type of guy who could convince the next generation that his words are the “new words you cannot say.” It would likely have to start out tongue-in-cheek, but if they do it right everyone will be using the words and repeating them, whether they get it or not. How many movements started out a joke that accidentally caught on? What if the next generation believed their parents genuinely found words like “Funderbunk!” or “Fudge Crackers!” offensive? What if it caught on so well that they used one of the second influencer’s words when they hit their index finger with a hammer? Let the revolution begin!

The first answer to “Why do it?” can be answered by typing the word of choice in a search engine followed by “How old is it?” Once we learn that these words were probably used by famous radio broadcasters, before the advent of TV, wouldn’t that characterize future use as redundant? The moment after my dad or my grandma informed me that they liked a musician or band I did was the last time I “officially” listened to them. I hated meatloaf growing up, butter brickle ice cream, Neapolitan ice cream, and anything and everything my dad liked. I did not set out to loathe everything my dad liked, it was just what I did, and it’s just what we do when we’re carving out our own identity. This might fall under the umbrella of rebellion, because it is, but we don’t do it with righteous fists held high. It’s just kind of what we do. Yet, if their brand of music makes our skin crawl, and the sight of butter brickle ice cream and those little neapolitan ice cream bars causes us to gag almost involuntarily, because they remind us of our parents, why doesn’t their vulgarity have the same effect on us? We do everything we can to be different from our parents when we’re young, and we consider our grandparents so irrelevant that they’re not even worth rebelling against. Yet we still use the swear words they used when swearing at the three channels they watched on black and white TVs. When we’re brand new adults, we’re dying to break the shackles of the matriarchal and patriarchal constructs that define and confine us, so why are we still using the same offensive words to shock our ancestors with the same taboo language that they used to shock theirs?

An Hungarian Goose


“Listen Daphne,” the character Frasier Crane said, in an episode called We Two Kings, episode ten of season ten, “is your mom partial to a traditional Cornwall dressing, you see I’m thinking it would go splendidly with the twelve-pound Hungarian goose that I’m serving,” he adds the latter with a excited survey of the room to encourage joy. 

Niles and Daphne counter that they are planning on celebrating Christmas at their apartment to celebrate their first Christmas as a married couple, and they invite Frasier to partake in their celebration. Frasier argued that it’s been a Crane family tradition to have Christmas at his place. To which, Niles responds: 

“Frasier you’ve had Christmas for the past nine years.” 

“Yes, but we agreed we’d have Christmas here in its traditional setting.” 

“Yeah, well, maybe it’s time to start a new tradition,” Niles says. 

“But I’ve had new stockings loomed for everyone,” Frasier says. “Now there you see, you made me spoil the surprise, and did no one hear me say that I have ordered an Hungarian goose?” 

As is typical of Kelsey Grammer, he delivers a pitch perfect line. He stresses the word (‘an’), and he punctuates the word goose with a pleading tone that asks his audience (Niles and Daphne) to recognize the import of what he’s saying. We don’t know how many takes Grammer used to hit that line that perfect, but the finished product will live on in television history as far as I’m concerned, as one of the best one-liners Grammer ever delivered.   

Some proper grammar enthusiasts might argue that Grammer used improper grammar when he issued this historically hysterical line in the situation comedy Frasier. The grammatically correct use of definitive articles states that we use (‘a’) before vowels and an (‘an’) before consonants, but as with everything in the English language, there are exceptions. The letter (‘H’) is just such an exception. When the (‘H’) is silent, as it is in the word hour, we use (‘an’) even though (‘H’) is a consonant. “It will only take me an hour to complete this article.” If the (‘H’) is pronounced, as in “I always wear a hat when I write”, (‘a’) is the proper definite article to use. The exception to the (‘H’) exception occurs when the accent is not on the first syllable of a word, because the pronunciation of the (‘H’) is downplayed in words where the accentuation occurs after the first syllable, and it renders it closer to the silent (‘H’) rule. Unless, they argue, we’re using some words like historian or habitual, in which (‘a’) is the preferred variant.   

We also have other exceptions regarding the sound in certain other words. We don’t say “He has a MBA”, for example, because it sounds like a (‘E’) exists before the (‘M’), or (em-bee-ay). It just sounds wrong to say a MBA, even though the initials begin with an (‘M’). So, the rule states that if it sounds like a vowel precedes the consonant, then we use the definitive article (’an’). 

One rule of thumb on the use of definitive articles, says June Casagrande, from The Glendale Newspress, “[I]t’s a mistake to choose based on anything but sound.” So, if it sounds wrong, it probably is? Well, (‘an’) Hungarian goose doesn’t sound correct, even if the stress is found on the second syllable, and if we extend Ms. Casagrande’s quote out to other strict to casual rules of usage, so many of them just don’t sound correct.   

Anytime I sort through the rules of grammar and spelling as it pertains to the English language, I think of two people: a foreigner I knew well who told me that English might be the hardest language in the world to speak on a casual level. “I did well in my ESL (English as a Second Language) class,” she said, “but talking to English speakers in this country is so confusing. There are so many exceptions and rules, even in casual conversation, that I just want to pull my hair out. Talking to you, a writer who obsesses over such rules, is even more nerve-wracking. I don’t think I’ll ever get it,” the woman, who speaks seven other languages to near fluency, told me. The other person I think of is Norm MacDonald who, when confronted with the idea that the English language might be one of the hardest languages to learn, he said, “Really, because I think it’s pretty easy.” 

Was Kelsey Grammer grammatically correct when he said the line, “An Hungarian Goose”? The Word check program I’m using to write this article suggests that the definitive article (‘an’) is incorrect in this case. Yet it allows me to write both ‘a historian’ and ‘an historian’ without notification of error. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but the stress on Hungarian falls on the second (gar) syllable, and if that’s the case doesn’t it render the (‘H’) equivalent to silent in the phrase and an (‘an’) is more correct in this case?” signed Confused.    

On the surface, it appears that only skilled comedians and comedic actors can explain why some words are funnier than others. They don’t know squat, I suggest, until they try it out. Standup comedians test their material constantly, and comedic actors sort through their numerous takes, with directors and writers, to find the right sentence, the perfect pitch, and everything else that produces a finished product to which we marvel. We can only wonder how many takes it took Grammer to try to hit that line perfect, but when he hit a hard (‘an’) in the line and punctuated the word goose with a distinct plea in his voice, I think it was as close to comedic perfection as the skilled comedic actor ever achieved. Steve Martin suggests that comedy is similar to music in that what works in comedy is often based on rhythms and beats. In this frame, the syllables involved in the words an Hungarian goose are funnier than Danish hen ever could be, even if Grammer dropped the line in the exact same manner. So, if anyone who wants to debate whether Grammer should’ve said (‘a’) Hungarian goose, I would introduce them to another exception to the rule, and I regard this an exception to all rules of usage in the English language, “If it works, and it’s that funny, you can go ahead and throw all of your rules of usage right out the window.