Ontology of Linguistics

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

PRC1964 replied

11 February 2008, 23:01
Originally posted by expat View Post

If I write a word that is recognised as a "swear word", it will be changed to an "innocent" word, to avoid offence. But if I do as we all seem to now, and just continue writing these words, knowing that everybody knows what they are, what is the difference? Is it the word itself that gives offence, not its use?

So that it is OK to see "tulip" or even "tulipe" in a post, but not tulip or tulipe (you know what I mean). I swore and you know I swore: why are you less offended because the words have been transformed?

I'm more offended by the tulip than by the sh.1t.

However it's not my site and I imagine that Cuk benefits from not being blocked by webfilters. There are a lot of people posting from work who would not be able to visit the site if one of the net nazi companies blocked it.
Leave a comment:
Jubber replied

11 February 2008, 21:02
My grandad used to 'lift shirts' for a living. He worked in a laundry.
Leave a comment:
Denny replied

11 February 2008, 20:06
Originally posted by moorfield View Post

Language evolves, so if used often enough in a "rude" context, tulip will eventually become a "rude" word.

Classic example is the word: gay

When your grandad used to have a "gay time in the playground" after school he probably wasn't using a tube of lube ...

I remember my Dad used to say 'I turned queer in the night' (meaning he felt odd or unwell).
Leave a comment:
moorfield replied

11 February 2008, 17:36
Language evolves, so if used often enough in a "rude" context, tulip will eventually become a "rude" word.

Classic example is the word: gay

When your grandad used to have a "gay time in the playground" after school he probably wasn't using a tube of lube ...
Leave a comment:
expat started a topic Ontology of Linguistics

11 February 2008, 17:31
Ontology of Linguistics

If I write a word that is recognised as a "swear word", it will be changed to an "innocent" word, to avoid offence. But if I do as we all seem to now, and just continue writing these words, knowing that everybody knows what they are, what is the difference? Is it the word itself that gives offence, not its use?

So that it is OK to see "tulip" or even "tulipe" in a post, but not tulip or tulipe (you know what I mean). I swore and you know I swore: why are you less offended because the words have been transformed?
Tags: None