Friday, 15 October 2010
Grow Up!
Watching Autumnwatch last night (as one does, despite its annoying features - not least the chap with the long hair who keeps putting his glasses on then taking them off and sweeping his hair about and clearly fancies himself rotten and is beginning to irritate me in a big way), I was struck by how quickly and completely the word 'poo' has migrated from its rightful place in the nursery to become the neutral generic term for a substance for which, heaven knows, the English language (not to mention Latin) has plenty of words. Even the Great Attenborough has succumbed. Whereas the Attenborough of old would have talked of droppings or dung or faeces, the great man now unblushingly uses the nursery term without any indication that he's lapsing into babytalk. Will it be 'birdies' next, and moo-cows and baa-lambs? Will presenters of railway documentaries start talking about choo-choos? It seems wildly improbable, but then a very few decades ago it would have seemed equally unlikely that grown men and women would appear on TV, in supposedly scientific documentaries, straightfacedly talking about 'poo'. I believe it is called infantilisation. It's everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blimey, does Attenborough use it? What next?
ReplyDelete"We have searched all night for the white tiger in vain. But at last...a sign! Vikram, our guide, has found a great big pile of tiger doodie plop plops...Pee-yew!"
It's interesting to juxtapose this development with Brit's post at the Dabbler on the modern ubiquity of the F-word and other extreme vulgarisms. I shudder to think we are headed towards films and TV shows with dialogue like: "F--k, man, do I ever have to make a pee pee!".
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's just cheap programming? After all, "poo" - dread word! - doesn't hide in a burrow or forage only at night. In fact it just sits there and appears completely unconcerned even by the close approach of humans. I'm waiting for Chris Packham to produce a particuarly fine example from his pocket and explain to Kate that it's one of his favourite keepsakes. The man with the funny hair can then host a straight-faced studio discussion of this exciting new pastime.
ReplyDeleteHoho I can just see that Mark! Exactly the kind of thing Packham would do...
ReplyDeleteYes the parallel takeover of F*** etc is interesting - inevitable, I suppose, now that the crudely infantile 'shag' has become nearly as neutral and universal as 'poo'. What a world eh?
Bring back Oddie!
ReplyDeleteBut of course Dick - tho he too was a pooist.
ReplyDeleteIs this not another case of an american euphemism creeping its way into our speech. Away with them all.
ReplyDeleteNige, I thought you would love this headline.
ReplyDeleteMmm...seafood!
Richard, not it's not. I'm 46 years old and I've never used the "p" word in my life, nor has anyone in my family, or circle of friends. I never heard an extended use of it until I moved to the UK.
ReplyDeleteDon't be so quick to blame everythiing on Americans. Also, even if it were an American term, no Brit has ever had a gun held to their head and been forced to use the word. It would have been completely voluntary, if it were an American issue.
If a country chooses to let anything American permeate the culture of that country, it is the fault of that particular country, not the United States.
Lord - thanks for that troubling headline Peter.
ReplyDeleteAnd Ron, don't worry - this blog is anything but anti-American, and I personally think American English has done a lot to refresh and enrich the homegrown version.
Nige, my fault. I don't think anything, or anyone, here is anti-American.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a little bit of irritation on my part at hearing things like that pretty much every day. I know most of it is in fun, but a stalagmite grows by drips.
But I agree with your point entirely. Where ever the word comes from, it's annoying.