“Language does change through the eons. But there is also an ethical aspect to the use of language which governs that change at the place where each of us dwells.”

I like how you explained that. Very helpful. Thanks.

There is a deeper objection to the term that I will address later.

However, I also had promised (#3) to get back on the issue of yiddish vulgarities. (I was travelling in Europe during the latter part of the discussion and it slipped through the crack.)

It’s true that the terms are often used as a bare insult, in which the literal reference is not in mind.

That would also be the case in using the ordinary English words for private parts as insults. Of course such usage is not meant to be taken literally. The question, however, is whether there is a linguistic ethic that allows us to say that such figure of speech extensions can be forbidden as improper.

Note that even the antiseptic and prosaic English words for private parts are themselves metaphors taken (to give even more indirection) from Latin. This is because there is a shyness about such exposure which dates from the Garden of Eden. The linguistic development in English (metaphor borrowed from Latin) shows that that primal shyness extends even to the imagination.

Thus, I am willing to say that those that flaunt such words (often accompanied by an air of sophistication and worldly-wisdom) are actually sinning against conscience and the seventh commandment.

How much more, then, if such a word were used as a contentless insult. Then it adds to the sin of bringing an improper image to mind, a vacuous use of language.

So far, I am talking about the ordinary English (that is, Latin) words.

With that preliminary observation, now what about the use of yiddish words for private parts?

Here, we have the added difficulty that a typical goy user of one of the words in question never did know what the primary lexical meaning in the yiddish dictionary was. He thinks shm– simply means “stupid person” or even just “person that I don’t like.”

First, when the meaning in the borrowed language is explained to him, he should stop using it. And a fortiori the Yid should stop using it also. Both, for the same considerations I outlined in the use of the well-understood English words as insults.

Second, one should take a warning from this against adding words to one’s vocabulary that have no denotation. Insults should not be words that have no meaning other than “this is an insult.” As if one were to say, “I can’t think of what to say, but INSULT INSULT INSULT to you.” Even our insults should be meaningful. One ought not to fill up language with meaningless linguistic chaff. Might as well just become a barking dog.

Thus, to say, “I and many others besides are simply using this word as a contentless insult with no particular meaning” is bad enough on its own. But to defend it by accusing criticism of committing the “etymological fallacy” misapplies that hermeneutical insight. Language does change through the eons. But there is also an ethical aspect to the use of language which governs that change at the place where each of us dwells.

Your article is highly informative.

My statement that “It’s impossible to say how many people know what the yiddish words really mean” was directed at your comment “a lot of the people (the majority I think) who use Yiddish don’t…” In other words, I don’t really find this statement to have much value.

On the hand, I said, “I’m sure the meaning is more familiar to Jewish people.” While we cannot say whether the majority or minority understand the meaning of yiddish, it is more practical to say that people who developed yiddish would be more likely to understand yiddish more than those who did not.

So I don’t see my two statements as being contradictory.

I understood Tim’s last response to be more directed at those of us who have read Wex’s article rather than at the general populous. Either way, if someone speaks yiddish to me I’m going to punch them in the stomach… just to be safe.

I have trouble reconciling these two statements of yours, “It’s impossible to say how many people know what the yiddish words really mean”….I’m sure the meaning is more familiar to Jewish people.” How can you be sure that Jews are more familiar with the meaning than non-Jews if its impossible to say how many people know what yiddish words really mean? Perhaps you only mean that its impossible to come up with an exact number of people who know what Yiddish words mean. If so, I agree. But this doesn’t really relate to my argument. Perhaps you intend something else that I am unable to discern.

Tim,

A fine illustration, minus a few flaws. The word “whore” is nearly opposite to the meaning of beautiful. Whore is an insult and beautiful is a compliment. This doesn’t parallel what I’m saying about Yiddish words. I am not saying that Yiddish words used by those unfamiliar with their base meaning have turned words like “schicksa” or “putz” into wholesale compliments. I am saying that many Jews who use Yiddish do not use them as insults. I think many of them use “schicksa” as just “gentile woman” and do not load it with the more vulgar meaning. This, I think, points to another disanalogy in your illustration. In order for your illustration to be true to the state of things, Johnny can’t be the only one using a word a particular way. He must be one of many who use a word that way. Furthermore, he needs to be using a foreign word one that is not as obviously transparent as “whore” is.

So a better illustration would be that kids at school are calling Johnny’s mom a jabberwocky meaning “whore”. Johnny goes home and calls his mom a Jabberwocky thinking it means “adult female”. He’s heard lots of people use Jabberwocky with this meaning and therefore thinks his use is legitimate. His mother, unfamiliar with Johnny’s use, is horribly offended. He explains to his mother that he didn’t know that word could be used to mean “whore”. He thought it just meant “adult female”. But perhaps the boys at school only meant “adult female”. To find out what the boys at school who first called his mother a jabberwocky meant he will need to ask them or observe them using it consistently with a particular meaning. Johnny’s use as it turns out is legitimate because it is widespread enough, but it turns out he’s wrong in thinking that the kids at school only meant to call his mother an adult female when they in fact meant to call her a whore. Now that we’ve sufficiently insulted Johnny’s mother, I’ll cite dictionary.com’s definition of “shiksa”: “Often Disparaging.
1. a girl or woman who is not Jewish.
2. a Jewish girl or woman whose attitudes and behavior are felt to resemble those of a gentile.”

It is often a disparaging remark but the fact is that there are legitimate uses apart from that. Legitimate enough to not punch a guy in the mouth who calls my mother a “shikse,” unless I can determine that he means it disparagingly. Furthermore, even when it is used disparagingly, it’s not clear that it means anything other than Gentile woman. To argue that it has connections to beastility you have to make an etymological connection which makes it an etymological fallacy.

After the dust settles, and everything is explained, Mom is not going to hold the remark against Johnny. But after things have been explained to him, if he does it again, he should have his mouth washed out with soap.

Now, Wex has asserted (a) this is what we mean when we use these terms, (b) for us, the word used defines the reality of the referent, (c) this is part and parcel of our loathing of you and your civilization.

I think we should take him at his word.

It’s impossible to say how many people know what the yiddish words really mean. Maybe the writters of Seinfeld knew what it meant and simply thought it would be a funny inside joke… who can say. The average honkey may not know what “shickse” means but I’m sure the meaning is more familiar to Jewish people.