Srabonti Bagchi might have got closer with mukhpora, kopalpora, hatobhaga than her own effort.
Sent from my iPad On Apr 14, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well well .. I sort of suspected someone would have written a paper on this. >> >> http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/8/2/113/ >> >> Citation >> Database: PsycARTICLES >> [ Journal Article ] >> The psychology of profanity. > > Profanity when it is not cathartic is a weapon isn't it? The idea is > to shock and wound the opponent. The subject of the profanity > therefore is anything that the opponent values which can be degraded. > What profanity gets used though depends on context, even if the > aggravation levels are the same across contexts. > > When it is two soldiers exchanging abuses across trenches, it is > usually about nationality. When it is neighbors cursing each other, > kids, spouses and pets seem to be invoked. Kids in a playground prefer > unflattering comparisons to body parts, mothers and scatology. In each > context the perceived identities of the parties is different, and this > chooses the language. > > Now, men historically seem to have fought more often than women, so > the body of non-physical violence is mostly equipped with curses that > are effective against men. The profusion of unflattering references to > women in curses is a natural outcome of this. Most men after all place > their identity in their women, and it's an excellent object of attack. > > Cheeni >
