shits and giggles
- Thread starter patucas
- Start date
Embeleco, tu traducción es buena. Pero "shits and giggles" es bastante vulgar, y usualmente se usa con sarcasmo. No sé como traducirlo precisamente, pero tal vez sería algo como "la boda suena como de mucha diversión y pendejadas / mamadas para todos" o algo así.
Si, es bastante vulgar, pero, si así consta en el original ¿por qué suavizarlo en la traducción?
Habiéndo dicho esto, no se me ocurre cómo decirlo... pero seguro que algún nativo te lo resovlerá...
In the US, you wouldn't hear that phrase as written. You might hear "We got married for shits and giggles" but a wedding cannot be shits and giggles, at least in the US. The phrase basically means "for fun."
And NEVER change the source/target text, no matter how vulgar.
And NEVER change the source/target text, no matter how vulgar.
"(to do sth for) shits and giggles" is moderately vulgar and fairly common in vernacular British English. The meaning is as mentioned above by grindios.
Last edited:
I agree with @grindios: the phrase is mis-used in the source text quoted in post #1.
When used appropriately, its meaning is the same as "just for fun", but with a vulgar register. for fun - English-Spanish Dictionary - WordReference.com
Maybe por la puta diversión might work as a translation in those contexts.
When used appropriately, its meaning is the same as "just for fun", but with a vulgar register. for fun - English-Spanish Dictionary - WordReference.com
Maybe por la puta diversión might work as a translation in those contexts.
I have always understood it to be the equivalent of "just for the hell of it". Agreed, the OP is a misuse of S&G.
I agree with posts #5-8, but does anyone know how this expression came about? I understand "for giggles," but I've never heard anyone use "shits" in this meaning outside of this particular expression (to do something just for shits and giggles), and I can't imagine how the first person to say it would have arrived at that.
Could it simply be an intentional vulgarization of the expression "to do something just for kicks"?
Could it simply be an intentional vulgarization of the expression "to do something just for kicks"?
Rice University says:
adverb derivation
just for fun. To do something "for shits and giggles" is to do it just because you feel like it, or maybe you have nothing to lose. It is said that this phrase is a more vulgar form of "for kicks and giggles", which is probably a combination of the two phrases "just for kicks" and "just for laughs", but with "laughs" replaced with "giggles". Both the phrases "just for kicks" and "just for laughs" mean essentially the same thing as the neologism "for shits and giggles". This is an example of how slight changes over time can result in an entirely different phrase.
for shits and giggles - Neologisms
Thanks, Grindios. I love it when I guess correctly, but then even a broken clock is right twice a day, right?
The last time I was wrong was the time I thought I wasn't right. 😉
¿Sería entonces algo como "Parece que la boda va a ser del carajo/de puta madre"? (lo digo por ser "divertido", pero en un registro vulgar)
The original sentence sounds okay in British English. It would mean " The wedding sounds like lots of fun".
I'm 70 years old. I've spent half my life in California and half in New York. And this is absolutely the first time I've ever heard this expression. Just sayin'.
As you can see from this graph, it is a relatively new expression (at least in writing, which is what the graph reflects).
Interesting. I have been using it in my vocabulary since the 90's.
The use of neologisms in writing usually lags behind that in speech. Of course, it is harder to search for speech usage (videos, etc.).
I find it very hard to believe that that book was written in 1969. It includes some very modern words, such as "whatevs," "McCheesyfries" (the whole Mc... fad came after the Sixties), "crossdressing," and "bro." Just to name a few of many. Having been alive and sentient in 1969, I know that we just didn't talk like that then.
Hmm ...reads more like '96 than '69.
I had the same thoughts, to be honest. Other sites have the book as being published in 1969 as well, e.g., archive.org, AbeBooks, but it's likely they are getting the date from Google. There is no copyright page in the scan available on Google and Archive (same scan). For second best we have 1984 (Organs of the Media) and 1985 (Beatdom).
Edit: At least the Beatdom one is misdated also; contains references to Harry Potter. The 1984 one could also be misdated. The lesson learned here is that Google Books metadata is not reliable.
Last edited: