Language desk
< December 5	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 6

Is ¡Dios mío! as blasphemous to Spanish speakers as "Oh, my god" is to English speakers?

Do Spanish-speaking parents discourage the use of ¡Dios mío! in favor of minced oaths like so many English-speaking parents do? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that 'Oh, my god' was blasphemous, as the Bible says you shouldn't utter his name in vain. 'God' isn't his name. It's his job title. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 03:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know what God's actual name is, so we just call Him "God". So, saying "Oh my God" is, in fact, taking His name in vain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" in that sentence? Readers of Biblical Hebrew have a pretty good idea what his name is, and that's the one used in the relevant proof text. Higher criticism, of course, tells us that the God of the Bible happens to have a lot of different names, and may or may not be a literary composite of one or more Canaanite deities. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "Lord" was the title. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate use of the word god as a common noun presents fewer theological problems as a title for Yahweh, Jesus, or whoever. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please be careful with generalisations. A daughter of this Australian, while working in the US for some years, was often condemned by conservative Americans for using the expression "Oh, my god". It very common in Australia. Very few people could possibly take offence once they understood how common. Where are these easily offended English-speaking parents? HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should have used "some". I did not mean to imply that sort of offensiveness, but at the pressure or personal preference to use minced oaths instead of the actual word. I am just wondering if Spanish-speakers have minced oaths like English speakers do and use them instead of the perceived blasphemous original phrase. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the "Bible Belt," and I rarely receive any gaff about it. However, I do make a point to keep it separate from other profanity (though I defend "God damn(ed)" as parallel to "God forsaken," indicating that the subject is damned/forsaken by God, not that God is damnable), and it usually is said in reaction to some tragedy or prefacing my own social commentary in a way that probably gives the impression I'm praying or preaching. The few times I have received complaints, I ask for (and have yet to receive) a proper explanation as to how prohibitions against incorporating Yahweh in oaths and magic spells (c.f. "Iao" in the Greek Magical Papyri) makes it sinful to use a word neither Abraham, Moses, Jesus, nor even Mani nor Muhammad heard of as a simple exclamation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"God forsaken" is a somewhat irreverent adjective for someone or something that is not doing well, often used in a humorous context. By contrast, "G*d d*mn"-whatever is asking for the wrath of God to smite someone or something. That's taking God's name in vain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why "in vain"? Because it never works? Contact Basemetal here 20:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read about the origin of "vain" and it should become clear.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If God is assumed to be the ultimate source of goodness, there's little distinction between being passively forsaken or actively damned by God. And why isn't describing something as "God forsaken" the same as asking God to forsake something, or why is saying "God damn (something)" merely describing something as already having been damned by God instead of requesting damnation? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an adjective, yes. As a command to God, no. And we never say, "God forsake it!", although I supposed we could, although it doesn't quite have the same punch.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I took Spanish in high school, decades ago, they told us that expressions like dios mio and por dios are not considered "swearing" in Spanish, and were not to be translated literally, as "my God" and "by God" were, at that time, considered very offensive things to say casually in English. Standards have lowered significantly since then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Adios can be literally translated as to God, even though it really means goodbye or farewell. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't "mean" goodbye - that's its usage: by saying this word on parting, the speaker is commending the hearer "to God" till they meet again. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye is a contraction of "God be with you", so they have a very similar etymology. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page it is "God be with ye" > "godb'w'ye" with later change of "god" to "good" by analogy to "good day", etc. They don't explain the change of the final vowel from "ee" [iː] to "ie" [aɪ] however. Contact Basemetal here 13:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expressions like "May God be with you" and Vaya con dios are considered blessings, not blasphemies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Philippines (where I'm from) is not exactly Spanish-speaking, but we're also almost monolithically Catholic. And no. Our equivalent expression of Diyos ko ("My God") is generally not considered blasphemous and is used quite freely to show amazement, surprise, or annoyance. It's more or less used the same as English "My God", "Dear Lord", "Dear God in Heaven", or "Jeez[us]". Interestingly enough, one of the things that always amused me as a kid was when my grandparents (who spoke Spanish) get really surprised (or pissed off). The expression they used in those instances was hesussantamaryahosep (often contracted to susmaryosep). In case you didn't get that, it's literally "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph". That on the other hand, was considered blasphemous. Though hilarious. Of course any of this will be considered offensive by the really really devout. As it would anywhere else. So I don't recommend saying those words in front of a fundamentalist preacher or something.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Jésus, Marie, Joseph" and signing (crossing) oneself at the same time used to be common in some regions of France, if one saw or heard of something really scary, but it was done only by women, at least that's my impression. Note that, contrary to the Filipino phrase, it's "Marie", not "Sainte Marie". Contact Basemetal here 14:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bozhe moy! Years ago my mother was riding an elevator with some ethnic Russian women, and one said "Bozhe pomilui!" (God help me) to which my mother instinctively reacted "Hospodi pomilui!" (Lord help me.) This is similar in the Eastern Rite to Kyrie eleison, Christie eleison in being a set phrase. The women then started questioning her in English and Russian, to which my flustered mother whose vocabulary is limited to food phrases and household command's best response was "Czecholslovakia". My personal experience with Spanish is they curse quite freely, but Dios mio would not be taken in any way as problematic, except perhaps by some evangelicals. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up above people were talking of minced oaths. I'd suggest that for some in Australia, "Oh my god" is the minced version of "Oh my fucking god". And where do I hear the latter most often? Among the students at the Catholic boys school where I teach. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about 'bloody', which supposedly refers to the blood of Christ (or even 'bleeding', as is more common in the north of England, especially in Liverpool, which has a huge Catholic community). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 22:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, my poor double-citixenshipped gradeschool friend from Scotland who flew across the sea, and mentioned at a wedding that someone's kilt was all bloody, only to get smacked for trying to be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, we have an article on "bloody". Its Etymology section suggests several possible religious connections. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One indication of whether some might consider these expressions blasphemous is the existence of euphemisms. English and French have this (gosh, golly, jiminy cricket; parbleu, sacrebleu), but I'm not aware of any equivalents in Spanish. Lesgles (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a khafīf consonant in Arabic?

The WP Arabic diacritics article mentions that there used to be a sign (a small khā’(خ) for khafīf (خفيف) "light") to mark "short consonants" but that it is no longer used. What are those "short consonants" and why is it no longer used? Contact Basemetal here 18:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short consonants are those which are not "doubled" or geminated, of course. I don't know anything about the Arabic diacritic, but I assume that it was introduced for the same reason that the rafe or raphe diacritic with the same function was introduced into Masoretic Biblical Hebrew orthography (so that the pronunciation of every consonant letter of the sacred text would be visibly marked on that letter), and was later dropped probably for the same reason that rafe was mostly dropped (i.e. if you have a diacritic indicating consonant doubling -- such as shadda in Arabic or dagesh in Hebrew -- then lack of such a diacritic can adequately indicate absence of doubling)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly right. I don't know why I was imagining something more exotic, some minute distinction in tajweed. Note it's the WP article that uses the terminology "short consonant" (in Arabic they're "light") but nevertheless I'm certain you are right. Regarding the Hebrew rafe I don't think we're in general talking about the same thing. As far as I know most commonly the rafe is opposed to the dagesh rafe not to the dagesh hazaq so it doesn't in general mark an absence of gemination but a fricative (or more accurately lenis? is that the right term?) pronunciation of one of the six letters "BGDKPT" as opposed to the occlusive pronunciation which occurs at the beginning of a word or when one of those letters follows a closed syllable. The WP article does however say that the rafe is sometimes used like you say (to mark an absence of gemination) which I didn't know, but I have no idea what sometimes could mean. The article also mentions still other uses of the rafe. Contact Basemetal here 15:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Sometimes' means where one would expect a dagesh hazaq. The rafe mark is still used in some Tanakhs to mark the lack of a dagesh of either kind when one would expect one, or that a mater lectionis is not to be pronounced, when there is a risk of confusion. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basemetal -- I didn't get into the "begadkephat" consonants because they complicate things, and have no analogue in Arabic. It's a reasonable surmise that in the beginning raphe was intended as a broad general lack-of-dagesh-or-mappiq marker -- though in the majority of attested manuscripts and printed editions it occurs only occasionally, usually to call special attention to potentially unexpected cases of lack of dagesh or mappiq (as הסרפד mentioned). AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]