Talk:Minced oath

'Low Dutch' and 'pappe kak'
'Low Dutch' is a now archaic name for the Dutch language, and in a modern Wikipedia article should surely be replaced by 'Dutch'. See also the link to the word 'poppycock', where the origin of 'pappe kak' is correctly described as 'Dutch'. Admittedly, 'pappe kak' is obsolete in modern Dutch, and at the time when the term was first borrowed the language almost certainly was referred to in English as 'Low Dutch'. As late as the 18th century - for instance in Swift's book 'Gulliver's Travels' - the German and Dutch languages were called 'High Dutch' and 'Low Dutch' respectively (because of the then ambiguous use of the words 'Duits' and 'Diets' in the Dutch language). I remember being confused by both terms when I came across them in the book as a child in the early 1960s, and I simply assumed they both meant older languages that had since died out (though I did wonder why German, which I was already studying at school, was not mentioned). In English, 'Dutch' eventually came to mean only the language we now know as Dutch, whereas in Dutch 'Duits' came to mean only the language we now know as German ('Diets', on the other hand, was tainted by associations with the Nazis and their sympathisers before and during the Second World War). The former Dutch term for the Dutch language, 'Nederduits' (literally 'Low Dutch' or 'Low German', which survives in the names of some Calvinist South African churches), has long since been superseded by 'Nederlands', allowing 'Duits' to assume the unambiguous meaning 'German'.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Low Dutch is actually Low German. It's Saxon, while Dutch is Low Franconian. 89.64.68.227 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Minced oaths alors!
I'm surprised not to have found any reference so far (not even under 'a French minced oath') to that most minced of French oaths: the word 'mince' itself, which means 'thin' and is often used as a euphemism for 'merde', as in the exclamation 'Mince alors!' This is about as prissy as 'shoot' and 'sugar' for 'shit'.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'sugar' for 'shit'?  bugger, more like.2600:1700:EA01:1090:C9AA:4709:1BFF:9B91 (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The fuddle-duddle incident
This surely belongs in here. Former Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau is alleged to have been seen mouthing 'Fuck off' or words to that effect during a parliamentary debate back in 1971. When challenged on this, he hilariously claimed to have said 'fuddle-duddle'. An impromptu minced oath. A link should presumably be included here (but I don't how to do it) to the Wikipedia article on this very topic. His son Justin, now also a politician, has apparently stated this year that his father 'didn't actually just say fuddle-duddle'!213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't over-edit!
I'm sure a lot of this stuff is officially 'off-topic' - but it's already one of the most screamingly funny Wikipedia pages I've ever read, and a great antidote to depression on a rainy afternoon, as well as highly informative, at least to a language freak like me. So PLEASE don't start editing stuff out of it!213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a minced oath for crap?
Someone edited the article and said that crud isn't a minced oath for crap.

I had enough of this crud. I had enough of this crap.

Is there a real difference between the words, besides their meanings? Following this logic, darn wouldn't be a minced oath for damn because darn literally means to knit a hole. Crud also has a different meaning than crap. It sounds like they could be minced, though. They both can be used as exclamations, in frustration, etc. Generally, crud is the polite, no-trouble alternative used in school, by children.

Poop is the only other minced oath I can think of for crap, because shoot is already minced for shit. --2607:FB90:A65F:1E1B:0:47:6BD0:F201 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree that crud is a minced oath for crap, but the only online source I can find for that is mincedoath.com --Hillbillyholiday talk 01:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @2607:FB90:A65F:1E1B:0:47:6BD0:F201 well there is fudge too, since crap is poop and fudge (not chocolate) is poop too. Kian Vivo (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Cack, cacky, cack-car.Halbared (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the definition of crud is "a substance that is disgusting or unpleasant, typically because of its dirtiness." so that would include crap, but also a lot more stuff that is not poop. Carptrash (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Caesar’s Ghost...
... is another example. Clark Kent’s editor boss Perry White of The Daily Planet used to exclaim ‘Great Caesar’s Ghost!’ in moments of surprise and/or anger.

Some Australians of an older generation used to exclaim ‘Cheese and rice!’, or ‘Cripes!’ under the same circumstances. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:985A:D1E4:C395:C935 (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Frigs" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Frigs and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Fudge (euphemism)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fudge (euphemism) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Melonfarmer" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Melonfarmer and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the term itself?
The article seems to lack an explanation for why exactly it is named “minced oath”. It may be obvious to a native speaker, but even after reading the whole article, it’s still a riddle to me. Usually, such articles have a section describing the origin of the term itself. But here, the “History” section does not mention that. Can anyone add it? — 2A0A:A546:C344:1:E0BC:1E36:315C:295B (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Some audiences

 * Although minced oaths are not as strong as the expressions from which they derive, some audiences may still find them offensive

This is some kind of joke, right? Maybe there’s someone who is 110 in a nursing home, but I don’t think this qualifies for "some may still find them offensive". It’s 2022, not 1822. Nobody find these offensive. Please remove the passage. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything that is a slightly-altered derivative of something profane or vulgar has the potential to be considered offensive. An article that opts to replace vowels in a quoted expletive with asterisks has the potential to offend, because one might ask why they didn't simply remove the expletive entirely, rather than retain the expletive and merely take a few vowels out.
 * It is going to vary from individual to individual, but it is not incorrect to say that "some audiences may still find them offensive". It is certainly true that the percentage of people who would feel that way today is very tiny compared to what it might have been many years ago, but the notion that no one finds minced oaths objectionable (or at the very least irritating) is simply incorrect. 2600:8805:A801:B600:14EA:BE90:13FC:ABEC (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is going to vary from individual to individual, but it is not incorrect to say that "some audiences may still find them offensive". It is certainly true that the percentage of people who would feel that way today is very tiny compared to what it might have been many years ago, but the notion that no one finds minced oaths objectionable (or at the very least irritating) is simply incorrect. 2600:8805:A801:B600:14EA:BE90:13FC:ABEC (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but "audiences" makes it sound like the numbers are greater than they in all likelihood are. Perhaps replace "audiences" in the statement with "individuals" or "people"?
 * 74.95.43.253 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Formation
Is "pseudo-blasphemous" even a thing? Something is either blasphemous or it isn't. "Pseudo-blasphemous" is like saying "a little bit pregnant". 74.95.43.253 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)