[obscene gerund]
Though I
vowed
to take a vacation from taboo avoidance, here's one
that's just too delicious for a linguist: "obscene gerund" as an
ostentatious replacement for the modifier
fucking (or
fuckin'). In a
Doonesbury cartoon from 1999, and
in a more recent
Jerk City
cartoon:
(Hat tip to Paul Blankenau.)
[Correction 9/7/07: The Trudeau cartoon above was dated 1999, but the panel is considerably older that that, as correspondents Qnavry Pheevr and Nathan Simpson have pointed out to me. The panel seems to have first appeared in 1985 and was included in Trudeau's 1986 collection
That's Doctor Sinatra, You Little Bimbo.]
You can google up a fair number of other instances.
But, but... I have to object to the
gerund part of
obscene gerund, as a reference to
fucking (or
fuckin') in expressions like
your fucking boss. I've
written here before about grammatical concepts and terminology in the
world of English V
ing, so I'll
give just the most basic explanation.
Background: except for a few defective verbs, every verb in English has
a form in
-ing (with a
variant
-in') with a great
many uses. The form gets various labels in the scholarly
literature on English: among others, "present participle" (or some
abbreviated tag, like "PRP"), "gerund participle", "-ing form", "form
N". (The first is the most common label; the second is the term
in
The Cambridge Grammar of the
English Language; the third is the term in the big Quirk et al.
grammar,
A Comprehensive Grammar of
the English Language; and the last is my own preferred label.)
Most of the uses of form N can be classified as one of three types:
verbal, adjectival, or nominal. (The examples in the following
discussion are merely representative of a much larger collection of
cases; this is not an inventory of all the constructions that form N
can appear in. And, to keep things short, I've swept many
complexities under the rug.)
In verbal
uses, the form serves as the head of a (non-finite) clause (exclamatory
Him having a hat on!) or as
the head of a VP complement to a V (progressive Kim was amusing the children by juggling
watermelons, with amusing the
children by juggling watermelons serving as complement to a form
of BE; aspectual It
started fiercely snowing, with fiercely
snowing serving as complement to a form of the aspectual verb START).
In adjectival uses, the form
serves as the head of a adnominal phrase, modifying a N (people not having a hat on, with not having a hat on modifying people, much as a restrictive
relative clause like who do not have
a hat on does).
In nominal uses, the form
serves as the head of an argument phrase, just like an ordinary NP (Kim's juggling watermelons so skillfully
entertained the children, with Kim's
juggling watermelons so
skillfully serving as subject; Kim's
skillful juggling of watermelons astonished us, with Kim's skillful juggling of watermelons
serving as subject).
I'd prefer to use the terminology above --
verbal vs.
adjectival vs.
nominal -- for a rough (and
incomplete and pretheoretical) taxonomy of the uses of form N, but
unfortunately there are other terms,
participle
and
gerund, deriving
ultimately from grammatical terminology for Latin, that have long been
used for this purpose, and they aren't very satisfactory. Part of
the problem is that in this tradition the same terminology ends up
being used for labeling morphological forms and for labeling classes of
syntactic constructions, but that's not my concern in this posting.
Here's the immediate problem: in this tradition,
participle is often defined as a
'verbal adjective' (or 'verb used as an adjective'),
gerund as a 'verbal noun' (or 'verb
used as a noun'), which would provide alternatives to my labels
adjectival and
nominal above, but nothing
corresponding to
verbal.
In some handbooks of English grammar, this gap is filled by extending
the term
participle to the
verbal uses, while maintaining the characterization of participles as
verbal adjectives. That's just wrong, because the verbal uses
have no adjectival properties at all.
Some sources just stipulate that
participle
covers both adjectival and verbal uses. And, of course, some use
participle for all uses of form
N.
But there's one fixed point in this terminological morass: so far as I
know, if a source uses the term
gerund
at all, it's restricted to nominal uses. Which brings us back to
obscene gerund. The
fucking in
your fucking boss is in no way
nominal; instead, it's adjectival, located in NPs between determiners
(like
your) and the head N,
in with ordinary adjectives. The expletive (
god)
damn has a similar distribution, as
of course do alternatives to
fucking
like
freaking,
frigging, etc.
Actually, expletive
fucking
has a wider distribution. It functions as an "A-al", with
adverbial as well as adjectival uses. (Adverbs and adjectives
share a number of properties, so that it makes sense to posit a larger
class A comprising both of them.) It modifies not only nouns, but
also A's (adjectives, as in
That's
fuckin' huge, and adverbs, as in
You did that fuckin' fast) and verb
phrases (
You need to fuckin' stop that).
So expletive
fucking doesn't
quite fit into the taxonomy above; it's one of the complexities I
alluded to above. But what's special about it is that it's an
A-al use rather than just an adjectival use of form N; it's not nominal
and shouldn't be labeled a gerund.
(By the way, I don't really understand what's going on in the
Jerk City
cartoon.)
zwicky at-sign csli period stanford period edu
Posted by Arnold Zwicky at September 5, 2007 01:50 PM