What the H. Stands For: A Wager...
When people "use the Lord's name in vain," they do a remarkable thing. Actually, most people behave this way when they use any expletive, whether of Divine origin or not. The acuity of pain or exasperation involved in a situation in which an expletive is used seems to at least partially determine the kind of expletive as well as the vehemence with which a person utters it.*
For example, when one drops a coin or pin, one is wont to mutter a rather weak, "Crap." When one causes injury to oneself -- or another -- one will likely emit a slightly more emphatic, "Damn," or, "Shit." There are even special cases in which one might express pleasure -- of greater or lesser intensity -- with an expletive, i.e. the profanity-laced song of coital ecstasy.*
In all three situations, the more intense the sensation, the more profane and forceful the expletive elicited.
Moreover, it seems that as sensation and expletive-driving passion increase, so to does the complexity of the expletive.* As injury or irritation grow, a simple, "Dick," becomes a, "Stupid, motherfucking bastard."
Similarly, as tension, pain or pleasure heightens, a, "Jesus," becomes a, "Jesus Christ," a, "Damn," becomes a, "Goddam."*
This brings me back to my opening remarks.
Once one has let fly with a grammatical molotov cocktail as powerful as, "Jesus Christ," where can one go next, should an appropriately charged occasion present itself?*
The answer is as follows:
Jesus H. Christ!
Apparently, this one is in a league of its own. Apparently it -- and it alone -- can express what was inexpressible without it. Apparently, it owes its superior expressive utility to some more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts je-ne-sais-quoi afforded the phrase by the mysterious new "H.," or the "H." itself wields some unique exclamatory quality.
The question occurs, then: What does the "H." stand for?
Well, as any frequenter of Yowza should have guessed by now -- or even expected from the outset of this post -- I have no humorous answer. This is a joke whose punchline lies within the set-up. Don't bother combing it's lines, though. It can't be found simply because, as the punchline is entirely without humor, it will not be recognizable as such. Moreover, as I have stripped the punchline of even the most basic degree of discernability by declining to avail myself of the traditional structure of jokes in our culture, i.e. the punchline comes at the end, the reader should immediately reconcile himself with a painful reality:
There will be no resolution, no compensation and no wager. The joke is, by design, un-gettable. You have just waded through another overlong exercise in self-indulgent passive aggresion.
More than likely, the "H." has its origins in the spoken, rather than the printed word. Consequently, the propriety of the period -- which would suggest that the letter preceding it was the first letter of a word, abbreviated by the addition of the period -- is an unanswerable question. My arbitrary ruling is that the "H" is like the "S" in "Harry S Truman," i.e. not an abbreviation. As the earlier discussion suggests, an expletive's power is apparently proportionate to its complexity, which is at least partially determined by the the number of an expletive's syllables. The "H" is simply filler, like Yosemite Sam's "rass-uh-frassin." "Jesus H Christ" is simply longer -- though still brief enough to be "barked" -- and therefore a better expletive.
* This may strike the reader as fairly obvious. I might remind such a reader that Yowza never has, does not currently and never will make claim to any amount of insight -- original or otherwise.
* I am currently doing research for another related thesis, i.e. that the more profane and more emphatic the expletive hollered by a man upon ejaculation, the greater the volume of semen issued.
* It should be noted that, curiously, the moments in which one might employ the most intricate expletives tend to be, alternately, moments of extreme mindfulness and un-mindfulness. They are, therefore, also moments of extreme ostentation and unreflective sincerity, respectively.
* An interesting side note: Because "damn" in the expletive is also "damn" in the imperative, i.e. a command to damn someone, thing, etc., and because God could presumably perform any task more competently than man -- not to mention the extra heft of Divine condemnation -- the more damn-worthy a thing, person, etc. is, the more likely that damning will become a "Goddam"-ing.
* This is the age-old question of envelope-pushing and its inherent limitations famously answered by Spinal Tap's Nigel Tufnel and his custom, "these go to eleven" amplifiers.
For example, when one drops a coin or pin, one is wont to mutter a rather weak, "Crap." When one causes injury to oneself -- or another -- one will likely emit a slightly more emphatic, "Damn," or, "Shit." There are even special cases in which one might express pleasure -- of greater or lesser intensity -- with an expletive, i.e. the profanity-laced song of coital ecstasy.*
In all three situations, the more intense the sensation, the more profane and forceful the expletive elicited.
Moreover, it seems that as sensation and expletive-driving passion increase, so to does the complexity of the expletive.* As injury or irritation grow, a simple, "Dick," becomes a, "Stupid, motherfucking bastard."
Similarly, as tension, pain or pleasure heightens, a, "Jesus," becomes a, "Jesus Christ," a, "Damn," becomes a, "Goddam."*
This brings me back to my opening remarks.
Once one has let fly with a grammatical molotov cocktail as powerful as, "Jesus Christ," where can one go next, should an appropriately charged occasion present itself?*
The answer is as follows:
Jesus H. Christ!
Apparently, this one is in a league of its own. Apparently it -- and it alone -- can express what was inexpressible without it. Apparently, it owes its superior expressive utility to some more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts je-ne-sais-quoi afforded the phrase by the mysterious new "H.," or the "H." itself wields some unique exclamatory quality.
The question occurs, then: What does the "H." stand for?
Well, as any frequenter of Yowza should have guessed by now -- or even expected from the outset of this post -- I have no humorous answer. This is a joke whose punchline lies within the set-up. Don't bother combing it's lines, though. It can't be found simply because, as the punchline is entirely without humor, it will not be recognizable as such. Moreover, as I have stripped the punchline of even the most basic degree of discernability by declining to avail myself of the traditional structure of jokes in our culture, i.e. the punchline comes at the end, the reader should immediately reconcile himself with a painful reality:
There will be no resolution, no compensation and no wager. The joke is, by design, un-gettable. You have just waded through another overlong exercise in self-indulgent passive aggresion.
More than likely, the "H." has its origins in the spoken, rather than the printed word. Consequently, the propriety of the period -- which would suggest that the letter preceding it was the first letter of a word, abbreviated by the addition of the period -- is an unanswerable question. My arbitrary ruling is that the "H" is like the "S" in "Harry S Truman," i.e. not an abbreviation. As the earlier discussion suggests, an expletive's power is apparently proportionate to its complexity, which is at least partially determined by the the number of an expletive's syllables. The "H" is simply filler, like Yosemite Sam's "rass-uh-frassin." "Jesus H Christ" is simply longer -- though still brief enough to be "barked" -- and therefore a better expletive.
* This may strike the reader as fairly obvious. I might remind such a reader that Yowza never has, does not currently and never will make claim to any amount of insight -- original or otherwise.
* I am currently doing research for another related thesis, i.e. that the more profane and more emphatic the expletive hollered by a man upon ejaculation, the greater the volume of semen issued.
* It should be noted that, curiously, the moments in which one might employ the most intricate expletives tend to be, alternately, moments of extreme mindfulness and un-mindfulness. They are, therefore, also moments of extreme ostentation and unreflective sincerity, respectively.
* An interesting side note: Because "damn" in the expletive is also "damn" in the imperative, i.e. a command to damn someone, thing, etc., and because God could presumably perform any task more competently than man -- not to mention the extra heft of Divine condemnation -- the more damn-worthy a thing, person, etc. is, the more likely that damning will become a "Goddam"-ing.
* This is the age-old question of envelope-pushing and its inherent limitations famously answered by Spinal Tap's Nigel Tufnel and his custom, "these go to eleven" amplifiers.
posted by fockler at 6:22 PM
2 Comments:
In keeping with the tone of the site, I will refrain from making too positive a comment about this post. I will most definitely not, for instance, succumb to the desire to describe this post as "fucking hilarious," or "damned insightful."
I will, however, comment as follows:
1. As someone prone to frequent employment of expletives, I do indeed find my unconscious casting about for syllables to add to the phrase in progress when a particularly pungent swear seems appropriate--in search of "eleven," as it were. This has actually resulted on occasion in such in-retrospect amusing utterances as the Flanders-like "damn-diddley-fucking-shit" and "god-diddley-fucking-dammit." Why "fucking" seems most comfortable following "diddley" I am at a loss to explain.
2. As for your thesis on the direct relationship of ejaculate volume and intensity of expletives employed upon ejaculation, I would assert that, controlling for other factors, more intense stimulation leads to both greater ejaculate volume, and a greater probability of utilizing an expletive phrase elongated by the "unreflective sincerity" of the moment.
This is hilarious! I must admit, I have never seen or heard anyone analyzing expletives as you have. Very entertaining. You might also consider the effects of medicinally stimulated erections or pleasure in relation to the volume of semen. Things like Viagra and sex-lotions, etc. HA!
Post a Comment
<< Home