Number of words: 772<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The historical root of swearing in English and many other language is, oddly enough, religion. We see this in the third commandment, in the popularity of hell, damn, God, and Jesus Christ, and in many of the terms for taboo language itself: profanity (that which is not, sacred), blasphemy (literally \u201cevil speech\u201d but in practice disrespect toward a deity), and swearing, cursing, and oaths, which were originally secured by the invocation of a deity or one of his symbols, like the tabernacle, chalice, and water incongruously found in Catholic maledicta.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In English-speaking countries today, religious swearing barely raises an eyebrow. Gone with the wind are the days when people could be titillated by a character in a movie saying. \u201cFrankly, my dear, i don\u2019t give a damn.\u201d If a character today is offended by such language, it\u2019s only to depict him as an old-fashioned prude. The defanging of religious taboo words is an obvious consequence of the secularization of Western culture. As G.K. Chesterton remarked, \u201cBlasphemy iself could not survive religion; if anyone doubts that let him try to blaspheme Odin.\u201d To understand religious vulgarity, then, we have to put ourselves in the shoes of our linguistic ancestors, to whom God and Hell were real presences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Swearing and oaths, in the literal sense of guarantees of one\u2019s promises, take us into the Strangelovian world of paradoxical tactics, where voluntary self handicapping can work to one\u2019s advantage. Say you need to make a promise. You may want to borrow money, and so must promise to return it. You may want someone to bear or support your child and forsake all others, and so must promise to be faithful in kind. You may want to do business with someone, must promise to deliver goods or survices in the future in exchange for something you receive today. Why should the promise believe you, knowing that it may to be your advantage to renege? The answer is that you can submit to a contingency that would impose a penalty on you if you did renege, ideally one so certain and severe that you would always do better to keep the promise than to back out. That way your partener no longer has to take you at your word; he can rely on your self-interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nowdays we secure our promises with legal contracts that make us liable if we back out. We mortgage house, giving the bank permission to responses it if we fail to repay the loan. We submit to marriage laws, giving our spouses the right to alimony and a division of property if we desert or mistreat them. We post a bond, which we forfeit if we fail to come through on our obligations. But before we could count on a commercial and legal apparatus to enforce our contracts, we had to do our own self-handicapping. Children still bind their oaths by saying, \u201cI hope to die if I tell I a lie.\u201d Adults used to do the same by invoking the wrath of God, as in may God strike me dead if i\u2019m lying and variations like as God in my witness, Blow me down!, Shiver me timbers!, and God blind me! \u2013 the source of the British blimey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such oaths, of course would have been more credible in an era in which people thought that God listened to their entreaties and had the power to carry them out. At the same time, every time someone reneges on an oath and is not punished by the big guy upstairs, it casts doubt on his existence, his potency, or at the very least how carefully he\u2019s paying attention. The earthly representatives of God would just as soon preserve the belief that he does listen and act in matters of importance, and so are unhappy about people diluting the brand by invoking God as the muscle behind their small-time deals. Hence the proscriptions against taking the name of the Lord in vain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Short of literally asking God to serve as one\u2019s escrow agent, one can sanctify one\u2019s promises in a more tactful way, by bringing God into the discussion obliquely. One can link one\u2019s credibility to appurtenances of God in which he presumably takes a continuing interest, such has his name, his symbols, his writings, and his body parts. Thus we have the phenomenon of \u201cswearing by\u201d and \u201cswearing on.\u201d Even today, witnesses in American court proceedings have to swear on the Bible, as if an act of perjury undetected by the legal system would be punished by an eavesdropping and easily offended God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n