Talk:Vulgarism

Comments

The assertion that vulgar words are not vulgarisms is nonsense, and contradicts how dictionaries define the word.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Vulgarism. 1. Vulgarity. 2a. A crudely indecent word or phrase; an obscenity. b. A word, phrase, or manner of expression used chiefly by uneducated people.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: vul·gar·ism

Pronunciation: 'v&l-g&-"ri-z&m

Function: noun

1 : VULGARITY

2 a : a word or expression originated or used chiefly by illiterate persons b : a coarse word or phrase : OBSCENITY

From the Oxford English Dictionary: Vulgarism:

1. A common or ordinary expression. Obs.1

2. A vulgar phrase or expression; a colloquialism of a low or unrefined character.

b. A popular corruption of a name. rare1.

3. The quality or character of being vulgar; vulgarity.

b. An instance of vulgarity; a vulgar action, practice, habit, etc.

08:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When you work this material into the entry, I hope you'll distinguish better between vulgarisms and coarseness. Wetman 08:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems there are two major senses (meanings) for the word "vulgarism". Certainly the one described in the bulk of the article article is one of them (corresponding roughly to AHD 2b, M-W 2a, and OED 2), but the others appear to be equally valid. Ideally the article will explain both senses, as they are both important. Nohat 09:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

doubts

Man, that article isn't really saying vulgarism to me. But I'm in the position of being a complainer rather than a helper here. As is often the way. Sigh. --bodnotbod 09:43, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV/accuracy/etc.

This article is terrible. The meaning of "vulgarism" we deal with in this article is obscure, and I'm guessing it's not the first definition in any major dictionay. As for the article itself, it is written pedantically, and pretentiously, and is not proper for Wikipedia. Total rewrite? I'm down. Or should we have articles on more obscure meanings of common words? Seems like either a note at the bottom of the main article or a trip over to wikitionary would be excellent in such cases. --Tothebarricades July 4, 2005 06:17 (UTC)

You're down indeed, I'm sure! The shifting meanings of "vulgarism" are just an introduction to the phenomenon, which is what makes an encyclopedia something more than a dictionary. If this is still just an expanded dicdef it's not doing its job yet. Is a vulgarism just imagined, or is it a fact in life? One that is perhaps even more real than a character from Final Fantasy? A shifting cluster of phenomena. But perhaps one is not really thinking of adding and refining enriching with quotes etc, so much as running big lines through text with a big crayon, leaving only what's "proper for Wikipedia"... --Wetman 4 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)

Here's a useful brief essay on "vulgarism" to compare to the Wikipedia entry: http://www.ranez.ru/article/id/133 Make it an External link? --Wetman 4 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)

why the hell should Objects D'Art be merged with Vulgarism?

Merging of Vulgarism and Vulgar

Vulgarism and Vulgar should be merged (bet you didn't see that one coming). Scorpi0n 03:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they are pretty much exactley the same thing. Coocooforcocopuffs 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on what seems to be a consensus, starting merge of Vulgar into Vulgarism. -- DSGruss 02:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge is done, but still can be cleaned up. -- DSGruss 03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

list of vulgar words website

This is a website that features all the vulgar words. Can this be put in the article so the article can list some examples of vulgar words?69.218.220.86 15:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you may not. Whoever authored that website clearly needs to get a job. We do not condone the unemployed on Wikipedia (despite the fact that many of the contributors clearly have no job). See these: job, employment, workshy for more information. Thanks. 82.163.46.227 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the referenced web page has now been disabled. Job done. Darkonc (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Literature in "vulgar", i.e. the vernacular

I have removed the following claim from the article:

One of the earliest pieces of great European literature written in vulgar was Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

For this reason, it's a misuse of an adjective "vulgar" as if it were a proper noun refering to a particular language; and then the claim doesn't seem to be correct as there are many other, earlier pieces of non-Latin European literature that "great". For example, Beowulf, the Old Norse Prose and Poetic Eddas, the Icelandic Sagas...all "great European literature"...all in Non-Romance languages...all written hundreds of years before Chaucer. And surely there is great Russian and Greek literature that pre-dates Chaucer, to say nothing of whatever might have been written in French, Spanish and Italian, Gothic and other Germanic languages...

There are also some problematic conceptualiztions here: If it's vernacular but non-Romance, is it non-vulgar? If so, then Chaucer doesn't count either... He wrote in English...NOT a Romance language the last we heard...

Seems to me that if there is to be a section that deals with "vulgar" as in vernacular languages, it should be worked out and sufficiently separated from the idea of "vulgarity" and "vulgar language" as it is meant today.

Emyth (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Worst page ever. POV, weasel words, original research, dubious definition...wow. I'm impressed. 71.86.123.248 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to pitch in and make it better. Anyone can do that. Rodhullandemu 22:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)