swearing in the 17th/18th century, f-bomb and variants

murmel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
14
Location
in betwixed the cultures
Not sure whether this is the right board to post this thread... so feel free to move it.

In my WIP, Scotland 1689, my lead character has seen the world and is of higher education, although not a chief/lord. Is he allowed to swear and if yes, what would he say?

See, I had him curse (mildly) but a Scottish friend (lover of historical novels and master of English) told me that he would not have used swear words. I'm confused because I think that swearing and men go together. Also, most of the knowledge we have is from written material, writers like us writing stories and publishing them. Does Shakespear represent the language of the people of his time? Yes, to a certain extent, but I think the assumption is fair that not all of the writing represents authentic speech.

Imagine this, the f-word is tabooed since 13th century. Why would you need something to taboo if it's not used? Would a 17th C gentleman have said to his opponent he is crossing swords with, "Dear Sir, would you please kindly consider to move and to surrender your sword?" or would he have said, "you fsob..." or something in between?

A bigger challenge even is to find authentic swearing in the Gaelic community. Because of the Presbyterian and Free Church, swearing is a nono. However, 300 years ago, things might have been mighty different. Gaelic has her fair amount of swear and cuss words, no doubt about that.

Do you think a king swears when in private? You see, I think he does, because swearing is human.

What's your pitch and recommendation?
 
Last edited:

c.e.lawson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
1,286
Location
A beach town near Los Angeles
Ooh, fascinating question, murmel.

I'm afraid I can't answer for your specific era/locale, but I did find in my research for my Civil War short story (American, 1860s) that yes, swearing was frequent among the enlisted men, but that it was a different story for officers. Officers were not respected if heard to swear, and some were even punished for it. In addition, the specific swear words are so important, because words that seem relatively mild to us today can certainly be viewed as extremely vulgar in past eras. So there's a lot of nuance here! Good luck sorting it out.

c.e.
 

johnnysannie

Banned
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
435
Location
Tir Na Og
Website
leeannsontheimermurphywriterauthor.blogspot.com
Gaelic, which a Scotsman would have spoken in 1689 as his first and native language, is particularly lacking in what we consider "swear words". And although your time period is many years past the Covenant, you might also want to remember that some families, particularly in the Highlands (but not all) remained staunchly Catholic. That would matter a great deal when the Jacobite cause rose because most Jacobites were Catholic, supporting the Catholic king-in-exile James and of course his son, Price Tearlach (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie although whether or not he was called that is debatable)
 

murmel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
14
Location
in betwixed the cultures
Johnnysannie, the issue with Scottish Gaelic, or Gàidhlig, is that because of her oppression post-Culloden much knowledge has been lost and even concerning the language. I know this touches a sore point with some, but although here had been a surge in Gaelic bibles after Culloden (to convert the remaining Catholics rapidly to Presbyterian faith) the language lost ground. Three hundred years of no school education backfires one day. Only in the last thirty years, Gaidhlig experiences revival attempts, for a community language may be too late.
Gàidhlig has swear words, absolutely. If those are the original ones before the cut, is hard to tell because what has survived the ban is mostly poems. There's not much swearing in English poems, too.
I can speak to that because I study at the Gaidhig College on the Isle of Skye (higher education) and my books explore the incipience of the Jacobite movement (much more interesting than the 18thC uprisings, IMHO).
 

PastMidnight

Oponionated
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,401
Reaction score
278
Location
A slantwise perspective
Website
www.jabrockmole.com
I think this is more generally an interesting question for us writers of historicals, as 'real language' (so to speak) doesn't always turn up in our research. I think that we can all assume that swearing occurred, no matter the time period, although the type of people likely to swear has probably changed.

c.e. lawson makes a good point as to the intensity of swear words in the past vs. today. For myself, I tend to use modern words that I feel the character would use if he (always 'he's for me...) were talking today. It's perhaps easier for me, as I tend to stick with 20th century history. They are always words that I know existed during the time I write and I am very particular with regards to character. In my current WIP, I only have one character who swears, although another has used the odd 'strong' word in narrative, although he doesn't dare in dialogue. I have one line uttered by my heroine that I am still unsure of, as I'm not sure if the language is fitting to her upbringing, but the intensity fits the situation.
 

slcboston

Pasture-ized
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
50,312
Reaction score
29,060
Location
Second Star To The Right
I think the trend toward swearing is something of a modern one. We've become so inured to it via pop culture and the like that we tend to forget just how seriously it could be taken. ("He said Jehovah!" :D )

I also think that we've blurred the lines a bit today, but you might look in contemporary times at the issues of grammar and diction. Everyone swears, perhaps, but there are distinct differences in speech patterns between classes. This would have likely been more pronounced "back then" and I am inclined to believe it would have included swearing as well.
 

johnnysannie

Banned
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
435
Location
Tir Na Og
Website
leeannsontheimermurphywriterauthor.blogspot.com
Johnnysannie, the issue with Scottish Gaelic, or Gàidhlig, is that because of her oppression post-Culloden much knowledge has been lost and even concerning the language. I know this touches a sore point with some, but although here had been a surge in Gaelic bibles after Culloden (to convert the remaining Catholics rapidly to Presbyterian faith) the language lost ground. Three hundred years of no school education backfires one day. Only in the last thirty years, Gaidhlig experiences revival attempts, for a community language may be too late.
Gàidhlig has swear words, absolutely. If those are the original ones before the cut, is hard to tell because what has survived the ban is mostly poems. There's not much swearing in English poems, too.
I can speak to that because I study at the Gaidhig College on the Isle of Skye (higher education) and my books explore the incipience of the Jacobite movement (much more interesting than the 18thC uprisings, IMHO).

While there are "swear words" they were not of the same nature as English words (i.e. not as scatalogical).
 

Puma

Retired and loving it!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
7,340
Reaction score
1,535
Location
Central Ohio
This has been touched on - but there has been a tremendous change in what's acceptable to listeners and readers in the last 60 years. In my childhood and teen years, I never heard the F word (except in third grade on the schoolyard when it made kids giggle). Many men would not utter any swear words at all in the presence of a woman (or child). If they did use any swear words, they were ones of religious derivation - not anatomical. When I was a woman in the workforce about 1976, one of the female vips (attorney) at my place of employment used the F word in public and it was not taken well by anyone (her male counterparts did not use it in public).

So - my suspicions are that our modern age is far more foul-mouthed than any other period in history. Look at historic forms of oaths in foreign languages - sacre bleu, s'blood, por Dios, etc. - they're pretty tame in comparison. Puma
 

Doogs

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
213
Location
Austin, TX
Website
doogs.wordpress.com
Very interesting issue you've brought up here, murmel!

In my opinion, swearing is as much a part of humanity as greed or hope or teenagers writing bad love poetry. Sure, some of the methods and mores may have changed, but the core has been and will always be with us.

Unfortunately, because it's vulgar, it doesn't really find its way into the public discourse ("Ask not what the f#*! your country can do for you..."), so those of us writing in periods where all we have to go on are published texts and maybe speeches are kind of left in the cold.

Now, as it so happens, Romans did swear, and in a number of instances their word choices weren't that far off from those we use today. I wonder if that might be yet another way Latin has influenced the western world...
 

funidream

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
247
Reaction score
94
Location
chicago area
I think whether your characters are allowed to swear or not is up to you and the story you write, because swearing and foul language of some sort exists in every culture throughout time.

Of course there are the types of characters who are historically known for colorful language, like sailors and fishwives, but I think it is acceptable to have characters who might normally not use foul language, do so under certain circumstance - to lend impact to a situation.

For example, I'd accept that any man might swear in battle formation when his musket misfires no matter what his educational background. Women are known to use foul language when in the throes of childbirth no matter how genteel or religious. It's all relative to character and circumstance.

As far as what words you use, again it is relative. My husband and I tried to never use bad language in front of our four kids. But when I was really frustrated in regards to their behavior, I was known to let loose with a "goddammit". My kids, now grown, all say they knew I really meant business when "goddammit" came out. In the context of my character, "goddammit" was just as bad as the ef-word.
 

pdr

Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
832
Location
Home - but for how long?
What the****!

Joan of Arc.
English soldiers were called Goddams because that is what they swore.

Blasphemy was socially unacceptable, it was a sin. Didn't stop your poor peasants though. Anyone would swear in their situation. But you didn't, generally, take the name of the Lord in vain!

You're in 1689 when religion was still the glue of a society. Anyone swore if that was in their character but you'd use terms like:
Devils from hell, Satan's imps, the Devil's brood, bastard, scurvy knave, the Devil's own, Satan's curse, you demon, and variations of the same. Swearing at someone could take the form of : 'You cowardly poltroon' rather than the more modern 'You effing arsehole'.
There are some wonderful words like knave and poltroon you could call people and they were real insults when bravery and honour were vital to a man and cowardice was social death.

Be careful to get class and clan right. Scotland then was less class orientated and more Laird and clan orientated. If, by better educated, you mean he's related to the laird and therefore upper class say and show so. Don't call him better educated, for education had a very different meaning and value in 1689.
 

PastMidnight

Oponionated
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,401
Reaction score
278
Location
A slantwise perspective
Website
www.jabrockmole.com
I am heartily in favour of using period cursing and expressions. Whether familiar or obscure, they add a wonderful flavour to the book, setting both the scene and the time.

But (and I know I'm going to get a lot of disagreement on this!), I think there is a time and place for more modern cursing in historical novels. There are certainly words and expressions that packed quite a punch back in the day, whether insults, taunts or simply that word that you pull out when you bash your thumb with the hammer. However, many of them simply don't have the same intensity today. I think in an emotional scene, where you are trying to keep the reader in the same frame of mind as the character, it doesn't always work to use an old-fashioned expression. Modern readers are going to know and perhaps use modern curse words/expressions. If you want to convey the intensity of the situation and swearing is called for, a more modern expression is going to do that much more effectively. Make the reader's skin crawl in the same way that the character's skin crawls by using a taboo word that the reader will understand.

(I should clarify, although I'm saying 'modern curses', I'm mean words that, although they might have not been preferred, did exist way back then.)

As always, though, when appropriate for both the character and the scene.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what Doogs was trying to accomplish in the one scene of his over in SYW. As the enraged oxen charge the troops, writing,

"By Jupiter's toes!" Scipio said, dropping his spear.

just doesn't have the same intensity to modern ears as something like

"Oh f---." Scipio dropped his spear.

Ok, I know I'm going to get a lot of disagreement, so have at it! :)
 

Doogs

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
213
Location
Austin, TX
Website
doogs.wordpress.com
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what Doogs was trying to accomplish in the one scene of his over in SYW. As the enraged oxen charge the troops, writing,

"By Jupiter's toes!" Scipio said, dropping his spear.

just doesn't have the same intensity to modern ears as something like

"Oh f---." Scipio dropped his spear.

Ok, I know I'm going to get a lot of disagreement, so have at it! :)

You know, I'm surprised the amount of attention one f-bomb has managed to attract!

First, it is, if not 100% period accurate, at least period appropriate. Yes, the Romans swore by Jupiter and cursed Neptune's beard, but they also had a nice store of anatomical/scatalogical/sexual swear words they could throw around, as well.

Second, it's not Scipio who says it in that instance (though he has been known to swear in moments of extreme stress). It's one of his soldiers, who's just seen a pair of disembodied torches bearing down on them with this deep, pissed-off sounding bellow.

In that moment, and especially coming from a rank-and-file legionnaire, "WTF is that!" conveys the confusion and anxiety far better than, "your pardon, sir, I don't suppose you know what that might be?".
 

Doogs

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
213
Location
Austin, TX
Website
doogs.wordpress.com
Also - and I haven't done any research specifically on this point - but I wonder what role Christianity played in the "tabooization" of swearing. It's rise influenced just about everything else, after all...
 

murmel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
14
Location
in betwixed the cultures
Great discussion. Gaels liked to curse with the devil and my devoted beta readers, unaware of the finesses of historical fiction, have a fit over it. Thus I wondered.

Christianization impacted the culture very much and not only in respect to swearing.

Another comment: listen to people with brain damage, dementia, Altzheimer and the likes. You'll be surprised about the vulgarity that comes out of mouths that never talked foul in their conscious lives. When the brain learns words, it makes connections as a wired computer. Your consciousness filters words according to appropriateness and to intented use. In the very moment, the filter is damaged or distracted by other overwhelming events, the original word surfaces. That's why I think that even a King will swear in certain moments even to the point of the f-word.

A discussion about Scottish and Highlander society would deserve an own thread, I suppose. Many Highlander chiefs were either in France or in college in Inverness or even at the uni of St. Andrews - depending on persuasion and adherence to the statutes of Iona. This education replaced the earlier tradition of fostering somewhat and later, fostering was used in combination with formal education. And yes, they had a class system for sure!

My hero is not a chief or a chief's son, but the upring and formal education he received was similar and I have him swear in-period and in-class, but I am sooooo tempted at times. I bet in-character he'd say "what the f***" in a totally unguarded baffling moment. but he says once Thalla 's ithe càc and Thalla mhic na galla, because sob is a very old curse, used in many cultures. He uses a ghonadh, which is what it sounds like, and a shiorraidh, heavens. The issue here is that unlike English or other languages, there is not much 17thC profanic language documented. I don't think any at all. Too much destroyed. Not sure about pòg mo thoin though, which sounds like a translated calque.
 
Last edited:

funidream

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
247
Reaction score
94
Location
chicago area
I am heartily in favour of using period cursing and expressions. Whether familiar or obscure, they add a wonderful flavour to the book, setting both the scene and the time.

But (and I know I'm going to get a lot of disagreement on this!), I think there is a time and place for more modern cursing in historical novels. There are certainly words and expressions that packed quite a punch back in the day, whether insults, taunts or simply that word that you pull out when you bash your thumb with the hammer. However, many of them simply don't have the same intensity today. I think in an emotional scene, where you are trying to keep the reader in the same frame of mind as the character, it doesn't always work to use an old-fashioned expression. Modern readers are going to know and perhaps use modern curse words/expressions. If you want to convey the intensity of the situation and swearing is called for, a more modern expression is going to do that much more effectively. Make the reader's skin crawl in the same way that the character's skin crawls by using a taboo word that the reader will understand.

(I should clarify, although I'm saying 'modern curses', I'm mean words that, although they might have not been preferred, did exist way back then.)

As always, though, when appropriate for both the character and the scene.

I'm in agreement. 100%.
 

Pup

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
75
However, many of them simply don't have the same intensity today. I think in an emotional scene, where you are trying to keep the reader in the same frame of mind as the character, it doesn't always work to use an old-fashioned expression. Modern readers are going to know and perhaps use modern curse words/expressions. If you want to convey the intensity of the situation and swearing is called for, a more modern expression is going to do that much more effectively.

...Ok, I know I'm going to get a lot of disagreement, so have at it! :)

Since you offered the invitation... :)

Actually, I think it comes down, once again, to suspension of disbelief, which will be different for everyone. I know something about the swearing of the 19th century, and a Civil War soldier who tossed the f-word around like a World War II soldier would just be laughable to me, because I know how the F-word was used in the period, and that wasn't it.

On the other hand, I know nothing about ancient Roman swearing, so for all I know, "Get that f'ing chariot out of the f'ing way" could be a literal translation of the Latin, and I'd be perfectly happy with it. :) But somebody else might react differently, depending on what they know and the facts.

Writing about 19th century America, though, I'm pretty much stuck using the real words, because they're in English and well documented, so my only option is to make them seem intense enough.

One way is how others react. If a character has a favorite curse-word and there's a strong reaction to it by others, then when he uses it alone or when there's no opportunity to describe a reaction, the reader is already primed to understand it's serious.

Another way is when the words are used. In my just-finished WIP, the female MC swears just once in the whole book, with "damn," and is embarrassed and apologizes afterward, which I hope helps set the contrast for the tough street boy who has a whole repertoire, and either riles other characters or gets reminded to watch his language, depending on the situation.

As usual, I can't offer any research for the real olden days, but if anyone's interested in mid-19th-century American swearing, here's a handy resource: http://www.columbiarifles.org/Articles/Cussing.html

And some period letters using them in context: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8335

Obviously, there's a foul-language warning on the above links. :)
 
Last edited:

Manat

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
312
Reaction score
38
Location
Right next to the Atlantic Ocean
Website
www.judithjamesauthor.com
Actually I think in 17th century England profanity was used almost as much if not more than today, particularly after the Restoration. There was a lot of backlash against a decade of Puritanism and a lot of cynicism towards ecclesiastical and governmental authority after years of civil war and infighting between Catholics and Protestant, and various other factions. At one point it was quite the thing for those among the newly restored elite to curse and swear in a way that would seem shocking to many people today. Anyone who thinks the F word or C word etc. were uncommon need only take a quick look at the works of the Earl of Rochester, one of the foremost of the court wits at the time, and part of Charles II inner circle along with his merry band of "f***sters. The ode to the Kings proclivity for mistresses and his appendage below did cause him to be banished from court for a few months, not because of the language, but because it was just a bit too disrespectful to the King. It’s said that Rochester “accidentally” slipped it to Charles himself, when he meant to give him notes for a play. Another interesting thing I note when reading original source materials, is that contractions in speech also appear to be as common as they are today. Don’t read below if you’re easily offended. I’ve just finished an historical in that time period and I would note that a good Scots Presbyterian would NOT have spoken this way or he would have been hauled before the Kirk. By the way, I believe it was Rochester that first dubbed Charles The Merry Monarch. http://www.ealasaid.com/fan/rochester/charles.html
 
Last edited:

funidream

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
247
Reaction score
94
Location
chicago area
Since you offered the invitation... :)

Actually, I think it comes down, once again, to suspension of disbelief, which will be different for everyone. I know something about the swearing of the 19th century, and a Civil War soldier who tossed the f-word around like a World War II soldier would just be laughable to me, because I know how the F-word was used in the period, and that wasn't it.

Again it all comes down to character and circumstance. You might not find a lot of foul language in the letters, diaries and memoires from the American Civil War, but a soldier getting his leg amputated with a rusty dull blade and no anestaesia might toss an F-word out there. In the movie GLORY, I remember the Irish drill sergeant calling the black soldiers "f!@#ing hindoos" and I accepted it. It wasn't a suspension of disbelief as much as that dialog was appropriate to the character and added impact to the scene and the story.

There is a reason that these strong words (and their equivalents in different languages) have existed forever - because they are used.
 

murmel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
14
Location
in betwixed the cultures
I’ve just finished an historical in that time period and I would note that a good Scots Presbyterian would NOT have spoken this way or he would have been hauled before the Kirk.
Exactly this is the reason, why many Gaels are "officially" in denial that Gaelic swear words do exist. One of my teachers insisted that Gaelic had never swear words, and later, when I told this story to my friend from Uibhist, he laughed.
I told the certain teacher that a language without swear words is truly dead. However, I would want to agree that some words (thus my question about minced oaths) had a different impact than they have today.
 
Last edited:

Pup

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
75
Again it all comes down to character and circumstance. You might not find a lot of foul language in the letters, diaries and memoires from the American Civil War, but a soldier getting his leg amputated with a rusty dull blade and no anestaesia might toss an F-word out there. In the movie GLORY, I remember the Irish drill sergeant calling the black soldiers "f!@#ing hindoos" and I accepted it.

I disagree, because that's not how the F word was used in the period. Check out the links I posted--there's plenty of documentation of foul language, and I've looked at court records and documents on my own to see other examples (c**ksucker, for example).

But as many times as I've seen the F word used in primary sources, I've never seen it in the 1860s used for anything other than a literal synonym for sexual intercourse.

So a soldier saying to a surgeon, "Leave my leg alone and go f*** a dog," well, why not?

A soldier shouting "Leave my f***ing leg alone," or just "F***!", not so much. It just wouldn't occur to someone to use the F word that way in the period, any more than it would occur to us to say something we'd never heard, like "Leave my c**ting leg alone." I mean, the C word is offensive today for extreme situations, but you just don't hear people typically use it like that no matter how angry they are.

So I'd believe lots of period options: "Hindoo sons of bitches," "damned Hindoos," "Hindoo c**ksuckers." But based on my research, I just wouldn't believe "f'ing Hindoos" unless they were literally lying on the ground doing it in front of him.

But there's a perfect example of the difference in suspension of disbelief. What works for one reader doesn't work for another, and vice versa. There's no way to prove that no one ever said "f'ing Hindoos" in the 1860s, and whether it sounds modern or period depends on the hearer (or reader) and their background.
 

Doogs

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
213
Location
Austin, TX
Website
doogs.wordpress.com
Found this on the Online Etymology Dictionary:

As a noun, it dates from 1680. French foutre and Italian fottere look like the Eng. word but are unrelated, derived rather from L. futuere, which is perhaps from PIE base *bhau(t)- "knock, strike off," extended via a figurative use "from the sexual application of violent action" [Shipley; cf. the sexual slang use of bang, etc.]. Popular and Internet derivations from acronyms (and the "pluck yew" fable) are merely ingenious trifling. The O.E. word was hæman, from ham "dwelling, home," with a sense of "take home, co-habit." F*** was outlawed in print in England (by the Obscene Publications Act, 1857) and the U.S. (by the Comstock Act, 1873). The word may have been shunned in print, but it continued in conversation, especially among soldiers during WWI.

"It became so common that an effective way for the soldier to express this emotion was to omit this word. Thus if a sergeant said, 'Get your ----ing rifles!' it was understood as a matter of routine. But if he said 'Get your rifles!' there was an immediate implication of urgency and danger." [John Brophy, "Songs and Slang of the British Soldier: 1914-1918," pub. 1930]

The legal barriers broke down in the 20th century, with the "Ulysses" decision (U.S., 1933) and "Lady Chatterley's Lover" (U.S., 1959; U.K., 1960). Johnson excluded the word, and f*** wasn't in a single English language dictionary from 1795 to 1965. "The Penguin Dictionary" broke the taboo in the latter year. Houghton Mifflin followed, in 1969, with "The American Heritage Dictionary," but it also published a "Clean Green" edition without the word, to assure itself access to the lucrative public high school market. The abbreviation F (or eff) probably began as euphemistic, but by 1943 it was being used as a cuss word, too. In 1948, the publishers of "The Naked and the Dead" persuaded Norman Mailer to use the euphemism fug instead. When Mailer later was introduced to Dorothy Parker, she greeted him with, "So you're the man who can't spell 'f***' " [The quip sometimes is attributed to Tallulah Bankhead]. Hemingway used muck in "For whom the Bell Tolls" (1940). The major breakthrough in publication was James Jones' "From Here to Eternity" (1950), with 50 f*** (down from 258 in the original manuscript). Egyptian legal agreements from the 23rd Dynasty (749-21 B.C.E.) frequently include the phrase, "If you do not obey this decree, may a donkey copulate with you!" [Reinhold Aman, "Maledicta," Summer 1977]. Intensive form mother-f***er suggested from 1928; motherf***ing is from 1933. F***-all "nothing" first recorded 1960. Verbal phrase f*** up "to ruin, spoil, destroy" first attested c.1916. A widespread group of Slavic words (cf. Pol. pierdolić) can mean both "fornicate" and "make a mistake." Flying f*** originally meant "have sex on horseback" and is first attested c.1800 in broadside ballad "New Feats of Horsemanship."
 

murmel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
14
Location
in betwixed the cultures
Another source:
early 16th cent. : of Germanic origin (compare Swedish dialect focka and Dutch dialect fokkelen); possibly from an Indo-European root meaning 'strike', shared by Latin pugnus 'fist'
 

funidream

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
247
Reaction score
94
Location
chicago area
But there's a perfect example of the difference in suspension of disbelief. What works for one reader doesn't work for another, and vice versa.

I'm not an expert in civil war swearing. I'm sure your take on how swear words were normally used in the 19th century is based on thorough research for your time period. What I'm trying to say is that I believe, in regards to fiction writing, people (characters) don't always have to conform to perhaps what was the documented norm for the time period. This opinion offered to murmel's original post on whether or not his/her (sorry murmel!) Gaelic-speaking character should be "allowed" to swear.

The example I gave - a soldier blurting out the ef-word in a moment of extreme pain, is perhaps contrary to what is documented as historically accurate usage, but the ef-word used in this fashion could very well be a stronger evocation of pain and emotion than a more accurate "leave my leg go and go f!@# a dog!" - and thus, maybe, a more immediate and better envisioned scene for the reader. And since the ef-word was in usage during this time period, I wouldn't consider it historically inaccurate. I don't view this as a matter of getting your reader to suspend disbelief. I view it as the ability to write a believable scene appropriate to your character and the circumstance.

But then, as much as I love my history, I lean more toward story and character when making these kinds of decisions as I write. As we all know from past discussions, everyone has thier own take on what is "historically accurate", and I sure don't want to open that can of worms.

Happy writing! :Sun: