Return to Index

The Grumpy Grammarian

Euphemism – defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as "substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive" – can be interesting.  I am sometimes amused by the verbal gymnastics that people perform to avoid calling something by its blunt name, as if the word used to describe it changes its nature.

We all engage in a form of euphemism, especially (as will be demonstrated later) with terms relating to certain bodily processes, bodily parts, and sex.  We have developed an entire sub-category of vocabulary of substitute words for terms that we somehow deem too harsh, blunt, or offensive to use in "polite" company.  (Conversely, we have developed a corresponding armory of obscene and profane words that are intentionally harsh, blunt, or offensive.)

Furthermore, where a word falls on the spectrum from euphemistic to crude varies over time and differs among various segments of society.  What was considered inappropriate in the 19th century, never to be uttered in mixed company or within earshot of children, may now be widely used without any need for cloaking by euphemism.  A term that may raise eyebrows – and hackles – in some social groups may evoke no such response in others.

This is all very curious because, after all, the label we put on something does not change what it is.  A bathroom is still the same and has the same functions regardless of what we call it – and that leads to the observation that our common euphemisms are sometimes inaccurate or misleading.  What we in some parts of the English-speaking world call a "bathroom" is used for functions other than bathing; indeed, some bathrooms have no bathtubs at all.  And our primary purpose of a "rest room" is not for resting.  Similarly, when we say that a young couple are "sleeping with each other," the activity we are focusing on is not sleeping.

Interestingly, too, we have certain shifting and unwritten rules about what is acceptable in the spoken language but not in the written language (except, perhaps, when the writer is presenting dialogue).  In writing, a kind of euphemism sometimes replaces the blunter word that (we're almost certain) the writer might use in conversation.  One of the primary examples today is what has become almost universally known as the "f-word."  It is, to the dismay of many (including me), becoming increasingly common in speech, even in mixed company and in contexts where it was once considered too crude to utter; however, most reputable publications will not print it, even in a direct quote.  Curiously, some have developed the practice of writing "f***" and "f***ing," as if substituting asterisks for letters made a difference.  We all know what the word is.  (One of the problems I have in writing this column is that, even in this context, I feel obligated to observe rules of propriety for written public discourse.)

As an example of shifting ground rules, we may observe the words damn and damned (as intensifiers and not in the literal or biblical sense of damnation).  They have been sliding back and forth on the crudeness scale.  A long time ago, they were mild expletives, much as they are today.  A few decades ago, they were considered inappropriate in polite speech or writing; those who wanted to swear used the euphemism darn or darned (or perhaps dang or danged).  Now one again sees and hears them damned near everywhere, and hardly anyone flinches.

Euphemism, as its definition suggests, is not confined to the avoidance of profanity and obscenity.  It plays a major role in sugar-coating unpleasantness, varnishing the rough surface of reality, and giving a hyperbolic gloss to the plain and simple.  It may even be used to intentionally deceive.

We are, for instance, reluctant in certain situations to say that somebody died and will use a euphemism such as "passed on."  If we lose our jobs, we may declare that we were "laid off" rather than admit to being "fired," even if the action is permanent and we were dismissed with cause.   True, the terms do have technically different meanings, but we use them interchangeably and usually prefer the less blunt, especially when applied to ourselves.

In fact, when describing ourselves we are inclined to use euphemism, whereas when describing others we are likely to be more blunt.  My dress is casual; yours is sloppy.  I am slim; you are skinny.  I am misinformed; you are wrong.  I have a positive self-image; you are conceited.  I am attentive to detail; you are a nitpicking, anal-retentive fussbudget.

Euphemism is the language of political correctness.  With pc, secretaries became administrative assistants, janitors became custodians, and garbage collectors became sanitation engineers.  The humble sales clerk became a retail consultant or a sales associate.  The job and the pay are about the same as ever, but the label has changed.  Crazy people are as insane (pardon me, "as disturbed") as ever, but we put the nuttiest (pardon me, "most unbalanced") of them in mental institutions, not insane asylums.  Under pc, I am no longer old; I am a senior citizen.

It is also the language of marketing.  Every week, thousands of advertising people meet in offices around the country to discover the right euphemisms to give the most positive spin to selling products.  A computer is described as "turbocharged," not merely "fast" – never mind that no turbine is involved.  "Perfume" somehow acquired a negative connotation and became "fragrance."  Nobody sells dungarees anymore (I haven't heard or seen the word in years); they are "jeans."  Nothing being sold second-hand is "used"; instead, it is "pre-owned."  Just as euphemism softens unpleasantness, it can be used to exaggerate and to endow what is plain and ordinary with special qualities, even to the point of deception.

In this regard, euphemism is first cousin to the "glittering generality" – the use of nice-sounding and often meaningless words to convince others that what one stands for is noble and true.  This is the language of politicians, all of whom – in America, at least – stand for "the American way of life."  That, however, is the subject for another column.

The existence of euphemisms and our reactions to them prove a point – the words we use do matter.  Although what we call something does not and cannot change the physical thing (or the emotion, behavior, or person), the label we give it does affect our reactions.  Words may not have the power to change the world, but they can magically affect our perceptions of it.