Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I think it was the 1980s when I first heard someone say Holy smokes! instead of Holy Smoke!
The original. 1627, in a poem by Beaumont, referenced the burning of incense while praying. It seems to me that it was about the 1980s that nicotine fiends seemed switch to a box of Pall Mall, calling them smokes instead of rolling up a soft pack of Luckies or Camels in their sleeve and calling them fags. Of course, if you go back far enough, we find that a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke! But that was see-gars, not cheap ole coffin nails, and I didn't ever hear cigarettes referred to as a pack of smokes by ordinary people.
The Daily Kos just published a headline, "Holy smokes! Democrat drops out in Kansas Senate race—but increases chances of a Republican loss". I hate to mention it, for fear of being associated with liberal politicians, but since I'm calling them ninnies, I guess I can risk it.
So what's the skinny on this? Do people find tar and nicotine to be sacred, or is this merely degenerate illiteracy. like the fools that say card sharks where card sharps is intended? Is there any information on by who and where Holy Smokes! originated?
Ordinarily, Google is my friend, but it has the ordinarily-useful policy of treating plural and singular the same.
deaconB,
Try Google Ngrams. It finds a few in the 1879 to 1883 "books". I did not look up 'holy smoke' to see how prevalent it was during the 19th century. Perhaps you can check and report.
Emmett
Robert said: 'Clearly' and 'the 60s' – rather interesting contrast of terms
Indeed. Astute comment. Recently attended my 45th HS reunion, and I have to say, the Class of '69 still knows how to party. 
To respond to Tromboniator ... when we bought them in the 60s (this is Midwest) we referred to them alternately as "smokes" "butts" or "cigs" but I rarely heard "fags" which was dropping out of use then for obvious reasons.
Heimhenge said
I was under the impression that "holy smoke" had its origin in the ritual of burning various papers/substances to indicate whether a new pope had been elected by the College of Cardinals. I'm pretty sure a nun told me that back in grade school. But then, the nuns told me lots of lies too.
How many would depend on what you categorize as lies. Is it an incorrect statement or is it a statement intended to deceive? The nuns probably thought (and think) the papal origin to be correct.
"Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?"
deaconB said: How many would depend on what you categorize as lies. Is it an incorrect statement or is it a statement intended to deceive?
Lest I leave the impression that the nuns (in Catholic grade school) were less than honest, allow me to clarify. I think that overall, for a grade school education, it was a pretty good experience. My comment about "lots of lies" refers to 3 categories of statements.
1. Lies in the form of religious dogma. We were told that a baby who dies before having a chance to be baptized could not go to heaven. That just plain didn't make sense to me, even at my young age ... sounded more like a "statutory rule" than the policy of a loving God.
2. Lies in the form of grade-appropriate pedagogical oversimplification, like: Columbus proved the Earth was round. Or: Any American child can grow up to become president. But then, that type of thing happens in most grade schools, regardless of affiliation.
3. Lies in the form of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the part of the teacher. For example ... when I asked why a hymn in English translated to Latin (we sang both forms) rhymed in both languages, I was told "It just works out that way." Nothing was said of poetic license during translation. Again, that happens in any grade school, and even some high schools.
Heimhenge said
1. Lies in the form of religious dogma. We were told that a baby who dies before having a chance to be baptized could not go to heaven. That just plain didn't make sense to me, even at my young age ... sounded more like a "statutory rule" than the policy of a loving God.
To me, it sounds like a counter-argument against the Roman Catholic position on abortion (which prohibits even the use of rubbers or diaphragms which kill babies while still unfertilized eggs). Nobody really argues that a first-trimester fetus is not alive. Abortion is found acceptable bu others because the tissue is not yet a separate human being, so it's in the same category as having an appendectomy. Nobody pickets hospitals with signs saying "Appendectomies kill a living organ." But if any faith has a doctrine or dogma which is without internal inconsistency, I have yet to see it. As I've heard it expressed by disillusioned former churchgoers, "God, in his official capacity, sometimes finds it necessary to do things which personally, he detests."
In any case, I didn't see your comment as particularly vile. Saying that one finds Mott's applesauce to unappealing does not imply that one dislikes Musselman's as well, nor does it suggest that Mott's causes one tp grpw warts on their nose. "Nobody's perfect except thee and me, and frankly, I sometimes have reservations about thee."
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)