Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

If a Scotsman says he takes a scunner to something, he means it gives him a feeling of loathing or revulsion.

So there's no nouny object that scunner could describe, as in the way one might take a whip or a switch to something? A schooner, perhaps? Taking something out on a boat and dropping it in the middle of the lake to get rid of it?

To go on the lam means “to flee” or “attempt to elude capture.

Among a few favorite words to describe fleeing, a friend often suggests (when playing a video game where enemies can swarm an area) that we "exfiltrate," or commence our "outvasion" ^_^

Using the word literally in this way grates on many a stickler's ear.

It seems to me, purely by suspicion, that when "literally" modifies something that doesn't seem at first earshot to legitimately qualify to be modify by it, such as "I literally died when he said that," that the oft-figuratively-described definition of the word *is* what the speaker, genuinely, finds to be the literal definition.

Rephrased: When someone remarks, "I literally died when he said that," the person may genuinely believe the figurative "died" to be the actual literal use, rather than merely a misapplication of "literally". By correcting the idea that "died" literally means "to lose one's life" rather than, "be emotionally distraught", then erroneous use of "literally" would solve itself.

But who, of anyone, has the authority to determine the literal definition of a word, except by merely past statistical/widespread use? It's the intent behind the word that makes a word a word, not its history, per se, methinks.

In this show you mentioned the peculiar discrepancy in the USA between over-the-air broadcasts and cable broadcasts in the tolerance of potentially offensive language.

In the UK, there is an even more peculiar discrepancy. Songs containing bad language or offensive concepts are not banned on night-time radio, but the presenters are banned from using such words. This ban has only come about in recent years. When the legendary John Peel was alive, he occasionally used bad words, usually from song titles or band names, but sometimes to vent anger or frustration. Now there are disclaimers at the start of programmes which might contain offensive language which advise listeners to switch off if they might be offended, yet these disclaimers do not absolve the presenters of the ban on swearing!

I don't understand why bad language should be banned so comprehensively. I find it offensive when used offensively, but cannot see any reason why potentially offensive words should not be quoted in discussions of them. I get angry with my children when I hear them swearing gratuitously, but have no objection to them quoting other people's use of them. I only ever utter these words when quoting them, or discussing their use or meaning. Surely, even the FCC has published a list of unacceptable words without the use of grawlixes.

In Australia, ABC's Lingua Franca broadcast a radio programme discussing coarse language academically, and it would have made no sense if the taboo words themselves had been edited out or bleeped over.

Here in Ireland, the F-word has become quite common on radio. It is often not bleeped out at all, or has just the vowel sound bleeped out so that the word is still clearly recognisable. Fleeting uses in live programmes are not punished. This change appears to have been since the Taoiseach (prime minister) Brian Cowen was overheard using unparliamentary language in the Dáil chamber (the main legislative assembly) shortly after he took office, apparently rendering it acceptable!

It might be worth mentioning that Brian Cowen's nickname is Biffo, which a BBC journalist explained as meaning "Big Ignorant Fellow From Offaly" but that on air he had to use Fellow as a substitute for the real word.