Scunt

[poliphilo]

George Orwell believed that words come before ideas- that, for example, in order to form the concept "tiger" we first have to form the word "tiger". I don't know if this is true or not- I don't suppose anybody does-  but I think it's plausible.

As does Stephen Fry, who develops it in his blog, suggesting that the quality of a word affects the quality of the concept it designates. If the word is weak our grasp of the concept will be fuzzy.  He writes about encountering a huge graffito in London (by Banksy, I believe) which fills the side of a house with the slogan One Nation under CCTV- and feeling that its impact is undermined by the feebleness of the final word (if it is a word). How can you get indignant at such a playful, internally rhyming acronym?  (Seeseeteevee- it could be the name of a character from a CBeebies show) .  Maybe, he suggests, we'd be less placid under continual suveillance if we had an angrier, more visceral word for it. He suggests "scunt".  As in, "I passed three scunts on my way to the office" or "I just got scunted" or One nation under scunt.

I think he's onto something. And I'm adopting the word. From now on, as far as I'm concerned, a CCTV camera is a "scunt". Pass it on.

Comments

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

George Orwell believed that words come before ideas- that, for example, in order to form the concept "tiger" we first have to form the word "tiger". I don't know if this is true or not- I don't suppose anybody does- but I think it's plausible.

Unless I'm missing something in his explanation, I disagree. It sounds as though he's saying the tiger doesn't exist until we created the word, which is most certainly not accurate. I'd say it's just the opposite - we have to sense something, somehow - even such abstract things as ideas and emotions. We have to see the flower before we can name it, we have to feel love before we can create the word, we have to taste salt, smell death, we have to watch justice in action before we can create the words.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Your account of things is certainly persuasive, but so is Orwell's.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

I also think Orwell has things backwards, though what he's saying sounds like a simplified version of the things Wittgenstein says about language and communication. I'm still not sure whether Wittgenstein is incredibly profound or whether he's just stating the bleeding obvious, but G is studying his stuff at the moment in preparation for his new Ph.D. project.

[kinderheldin.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with Orwell. "Friendship" is eradicated in 1984 and replaced with "comrade." The way we name things/ideas indicates how we think of them; hence all the revisionist mythologies. histories are effective.

I'm beginning to think the f-word doesn't really have the same meaning any more.

I know that "feminism" has been so altered that the idea behind the original concept has made something good -- equality -- into something perceived as corrupt.

It's not just the word, it's the context i which we place words -- the signifier and signified.

And I believe the destruction of words (from the inside out, from the concept to the empty form it may come to hold, having been destroyed) is the destruction of civilization.

We're going back to grunts and cave paintings -- if Orwell is spot on; or at least, we'll blow each other up and words won't even be there to stop us. :)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It seems likely that Orwell would have read Wittgenstein- or, at least, picked up his ideas.

I tried to read the Tractatus once. I believe I got halfway down the first page.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The person who names a thing controls everyone else's perception of it. "War on terror" is a good example of this. Even its opponents have had to accept the name- which immediately puts them on the wrong foot.

Some words become battlegrounds. "Feminism" is a good example. "Liberal" is another. Maybe with conservatives all mixed up and falling over one another we can win those two back.

But other words just change their meaning over time for no particularly good reason. "Disinterested" for example.

I hope we're not going back to grunts and cave paintings. One way of avoiding that is to write- and speak- well.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Orwell and Wittgenstein were certainly contemporaries and I think lots of intellectuals were reading Wittgenstein at the time.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Or pretending to read him :)

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Currently G and I are speculating that the phrase "wittering on" derives from Wittgenstein's lectures at Oxford and Cambridge. Apparently he was not the clearest or most entertaining of lecturers! I've tried Googling but no one seems to have a derivation for the verb "to witter" and Wittgenstein was sometimes referred to as "Witters". The timing fits too, so it makes as much sense as any other attempt at derivation. :)

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

I think the danger here is that something hideous and creepy might get confused with something joyous and wonderful.

[ryanstrong.livejournal.com]

I remember hearing something about the primal nature of certain words, particularly those of old-english and germanic etymology, which inspire certain feelings in us.

Many of our nastiest swear words certainly fall in this category, being the words used by the anglo-saxon peasantry to describe directly those things which the nobility would rather allude to, which explains why the 'polite' versions of those words are all latin and french derived.

Obviously 'scunt', which I think is brilliant, by the way, is a perfect example of this, with its close similarity to the mother (if you'll excuse the pun) of all curses.

In a slightly related point, the late, great comedian George Carlin once did a bit about euphemistic language where he described the ways in which those in power manipulated public opinion by changing the way they speak.

A good example, off the top of my head, is 'shell shock' which became 'battle fatigue' which became 'combat stress reaction' which has now been enveloped within 'post traumatic stress disorder'. Phrases which exist to obscure meaning rather than enhance it.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'd like to believe it's true.

I think "witter" is a fairly new word. I don't believe I've come across it in writers earlier than the mid 20th century.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Cunt and fuck are marvellous words. Blunt and percussive. I believe cunt has the honour of being one of the oldest in the language. It goes right back to the origins. I've been told you can find it in Chaucer.

A neat example of the Carlin effect is the way our own Ministry of War morphed- sometime mid-century- into the Ministry of Defence. We need to be very aware of these linguistic smoke-screens. We need to challenge them.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[nostoi.livejournal.com]

I think his suggestion is a bit crap! Obviously scunt is similar to cunt, which will put off a lot of people in the first place. And secondly, it only serves to reinforce the negative connotations that the word cunt already has. I love cunt as a word, and fuck and prick. They're direct and sexy. Funny how it's the female word which has the worst connotations, though...

Which is why scunt is such a bloody awful word - honestly, Stephen, you're a genius or thereabouts, come up with something half-decent please!

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I take your point.

I like "cunt" too.

Lets agree that he's right in principle, wrong in his particular choice of word.

[nostoi.livejournal.com]

Absolutely :)