It's Cockney, as I said above. The Aussies got if from the Poms who were deported there.Oh, I've definitely heard it used by others (and probably by myself at some point) who are not Australian, I just associate it with that country strongly, whether accurately or not.
Thanks. I'd been unaware of that until I checked the word in the dictionary before I started the thread. But, come to think of it, I don't remember seeing "Yahweh" in books and stories about the New Testament, so I should have immediately realized it at that time. It's because while "Yahweh" is translated into Japanese using Japanese Katakana characters and is pronounced similarly to the English word, "God" and "the Lord" are both translated using a Chinese character that simply means the uncapitalized "god". A Chinese character that means "(one's) master" is also used for "the Lord".'Yahweh' is the Jewish name for their version of God. Christians refer to 'God' or 'the Lord'.
(1) Yes, not only to avoid offending Christians, but also offending other Christians. In other words they are also used by Christians.1) Aren't "Cripes!", "Crikey (on a bikey)!", "Cheese and crackers!" etc. attempts to avoid offending devout Christians?
2) For Protestants, "Thou shall not take the name of the LORD thy GOD in vain." is the third commandment; for Catholics, it's the second commandment.
3 ) The meaning of the commandment was, I thought, that Christians should not call on their Deity as in a non-religious context ("As God is my witness", "I swear to God", etc.) - ?
4) I wonder which a politically correct devout Christian would find more offensive: "For God's/Christ's sake!" or "For fuck's sake!"
Not true, or at least it wasn't 30 years ago. I once wrote a letter-to-the-editor of a provincial newspaper and had the Gosh (deliberately introduced as a naive and slightly sarcastic response) edited out.No BE speaker is going to object to "Gosh!" Despite its etymology it has no religious connotation in current BE...
OK. No BE speaker is going to object to "Gosh!" on religious grounds. A provincial newspaper editor 30 years ago might have objected to naivety and sarcasm. Enid Blyton had one of the Famous Five saying "Golly!" in 1942.and had the Gosh (deliberately introduced as a naive and slightly sarcastic response) edited out.
Yes, the but the Brits got 'wow' from you. I never use it but the younger generation does, so I think it's a pretty good all-rounder.Not necessarily, Keith.
As I mentioned before, "Yikes" isn't derived from anything of either sort (it's either from "yoicks" or from "yipes" -- both mentioned in a link I referred to earlier as onomatopoeic sounds from dogs and hunting).
Also, "wow" is not exclusively American. See this thread: "Wow!" British Equivalent Some British people do say "wow." So do Australians.
I was just adding to the 'Holy..... ' thing. If I were religious I might find 'Holy Moses ' offensive, I agree.I wonder whether "Blow me!" mightn't have been an attempt to avoid "(Cor) blimey!" for "(May) God blind me!". - Re #53, wouldn't devout Jews find "Holy Moses!" offensive? - I suppose "Lawks a-mussy!" ("Lord have mercy!") and "Heavens to Betsy!" might have offensive roots, too. - "Gosh all whillikers!" is OK, I suppose, and to express amazement, "Stone the crows!" (adopted as the name of a rock group), although mostly British. - With some of these expressions, one is darned if one says them and darned if one doesn't.
I think not. OED:Yes, the but the Brits got 'wow' from you.
The Americans perhaps got "wow" from the Scots. There weren't many Americans in 1513.1. Chiefly Sc.
a. An exclamation, variously expressing aversion, surprise or admiration, sorrow or commiseration, or mere asseveration.
1513 G. Douglas in tr. Virgil Æneid vi. Prol. 19 Out on thir wander and spiritis, wow! thow cryis.
2. In general use. Now chiefly expressing astonishment or admiration.
1892 H. R. Haggard Nada v. 35 Wow! my father, of those two regiments not one escaped.
This is not true - or at least, it may be misleading. Yahweh is an attempt at a transliteration of the tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters which are used throughout (most of) the Hebrew Bible to refer to God. These four letters are thought to be the name of God, but this name is never pronounced by devout Jews. That being the case, one can only guess how that name was meant to be pronounced (since Hebrew does not mark vowels).'Yahweh' is the Jewish name for their version of God.
And you also won't see the word Yahweh in any Jewish religious texts. Religious Jews must not speak the name of God, so there's no reason for them to transliterate the Hebrew name when writing in English (or any language that uses the Latin alphabet).I don't remember seeing "Yahweh" in books and stories about the New Testament
OK, I'm not Jewish, so I'll take your word for it. In any case here's what Wiki has to say about 'Yahweh' (Jehovah: Jumpin' Jehovah?????). I agree that his name should not be taken in vain, in any case.This is not true - or at least, it may be misleading. Yahweh is an attempt at a transliteration of the tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters which are used throughout (most of) the Hebrew Bible to refer to God. These four letters are thought to be the name of God, but this name is never pronounced by devout Jews. That being the case, one can only guess how that name was meant to be pronounced (since Hebrew does not mark vowels).
There were many more Americans than speakers of English. North Americans alone probably outnumbered all English speakers, bearing in mind that numbers overseas were very small and that many in Wales, Scotland and Ireland (including, I expect, my own forebears) could not speak English.There weren't many Americans in 1513.
For North America, Wikipedia says:A steady recovery from the steep population decline of two centuries of plague was only just beginning. England and Wales had perhaps 2.25 million people, Scotland and Ireland about a third of that number each.
If we add in the rest of America, the disparity is greater still:While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million to 7 million people to a high of 18 million.
an estimate of approximately 37 million people in Mexico, Central and South America in 1492
I'm drifting further off topic, but that article is written in a very strange style. For example, consider this bizarre pair of sentences: "There is considerable but not universal support for the view that the Egyptian inscriptions refer to Yahweh. This raises the question of how he made his way to the north." There is no one in the world who thinks that Yahweh "made his way north" - either people don't believe Yahweh exists (so he couldn't have made any way anywhere), or they don't believe He possibly could have traveled from Egypt to Israel (in that he's God, and that mundane sort of travel makes no sense for a being of such as He).
I often say "Oh, good gods" to indicate annoyance or disgust."Oh my god!" and OMG are very common in the US, among atheists.
It always makes me think of Steve Wossface (the one who ran afoul of a stingray a while back).'Crikey' is still quite popular down here.
"By God and by Jesus," I suppose....And then in Joyce Carey's novel The Horse's Mouth there's the character Gully Jimson's expression "By Gee and by Jay!" (If I Remember Correctly).
I'm afraid that my response to this, even if I was at the Ladies of Canterbury Cathedral Sewing Circle, would be Fucking hell!
I think it's a fundamentally wrong way to look at it. I think those versions are used by Christians to avoid saying things they feel in their heart are wrong to say. So it gives them a way to let off steam, but it doesn't explicitly violate what they've been taught since they were young.1) Aren't "Cripes!", "Crikey (on a bikey)!", "Cheese and crackers!" etc. attempts to avoid offending devout Christians?