THE EDITOR, Sir: Two years ago, I stopped by my friend’s office to waste a little time. She is a doctor and a staunch Christian. I was hardly into my first cup of coffee when a call was put through to her.
It was her bank returning her call asking for an explanation for the many deductions on her bank statement. As they were explained, her eyes widened, her mouth opened and finally she let loose a magnificent ‘forty-shillin’ word’ – a double-barrel one. At the end of the call, she apologised for using the word.
What does it mean?” I asked.
I don’t know,” she answered.
So why yuh apologisin’?” I asked.
‘Expletive’ has its origins in the Late Latin word ‘expletivus’, which means ‘to fill out’. The dictionary describes it as ‘a sound expressing emotion rather than meaning – any syllable, word or phrase conveying no independent meaning’. I just call them ‘indefinite articles’.
It is irritating and disturbing to know that a family is grieving because one of its members used the word she felt best described the depths of her emotions after being
robbed of her valuables.
We gave the policeman the power to intervene and take action. And therein lies my grouse. What makes these words ‘bad’. If one’s vocabulary is limited to the point where one has to go outside of the regular language to express oneself, why is this linguistic limitation a crime? We need to know.
GLENN TUCKER