2006-11-20 06:24:24 · 22 answers · asked by al 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
Robert said it the most accurately, to my knowledge:
"It used to be but it has become more accepted in the last few years. Some older people I class myself in this group) still find it dis-tasteful."
I do say bloody and bloody hell for emphasis, though admittedly it has no bite, though a woman of about 60 that I know has flat told me not to curse when I say it.
It goes back, I think, past the old childhood game, "Bloody Mary."
But with my age group, all sorts of swears have not real bite like they did at one time. I can tell someone my age (a mate) to F--off and it is taken as a joke. So now we are working on variations as are others
Fark off--Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's guide
Feck off-- who knows but sounds better in mixed company.
And to think, bugger off was at one time a horrible thing to say!
So my take, use Bloody Hell with some discrimination to preserve the unique qualities of British Curseword English...
And if you don't agree with me, you can floggle off, Bloody, Blasted W@nker!
[Being creative can be soo draining].
2006-11-20 06:43:36 · answer #1 · answered by Charles-CeeJay_UK_ USA/CheekyLad 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Except in the literal sense ("covered in blood"), it is still seen by some people as a swear word. As an interjection, it is a contraction of "by Our Lady" and therefore seen as blasphemic - though you can argue about whether it really is or not, the point being that it can cause offence to those who see it this way.
When I was a child, I remember using this word for the first time and being told by my schoolmates that I would burn forever in hell for saying such an evil word. I must have been about 6 - imagine how devastated I felt! Ah, what darling little monsters children can be!
In the latter quarter of the 20th century, the word became downgraded to "mild swear word" and nowadays I think few people would take real offence unless it was used in a totally inappropriate setting. Especially now that the original meaning has been lost.
2006-11-20 14:42:29 · answer #2 · answered by keith 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a mild swear-word. If you're referring to the fact that it's not asterisked out when you type it into Yahoo Answers, that's probably because it's an English swear-word, and they don't seem to have programmed those into the censoring machine. You can type in bollocks, bloody, knobhead, bugger, sodding and possibly many more, without them being blocked. They also don't appear to have excluded any racially offensive language (which I won't include) which seems pretty odd, as that gives people the opportunity to write some of the most disgustingly foul racial abuse I've ever seen. There again, Yahoo do appear to be quite two-faced about what they consider to be racially offensive.
2006-11-20 18:19:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I regard it as such but I'm English
History lesson coming up....Bloody hell was a shortened version of By my Lady in Hell. Like saying I will be by the virgin Mary in hell. So it is about as bad as you could get for an Englishman in the middle ages when everyone was catholic.
Blimey.....That is short for God blind me....also pretty bad for any Christian. These old English words are actually more offencive than the more common f*ck but people have lost the true meaning with time.
2006-11-20 14:38:36 · answer #4 · answered by paulnewbyhq 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is a swear word. Why isn't it seen as a swear word? That's because too many people swear nowadays so swear words have lost their shock effect and become ineffective.
2006-11-20 16:10:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is a discriptive word acceptable in the dictionary to describe a scene that is bloody , bloody awful goverment , the word bloody is not rude but the word governmant could be, if that Blair chap is in charge
2006-11-20 14:33:04 · answer #6 · answered by john r 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
cos the word bloody just means something with blood. its the context people use it in that makes it seem like swearing when it isnt.
2006-11-20 14:28:29 · answer #7 · answered by strawberry delight 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you have a nose bleed then you have a bloody nose. It's just like us humans to take one simple word and turn it into something horrible.
2006-11-20 14:35:33 · answer #8 · answered by afrikaaner 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It used to be. The scene in Guns of Navarone where one character uses it over and over again was dubbed to, I think 'ruddy'. Newspapers used to not print words like 'damn' and now they print the f-word. Society is becoming coarser and coarser and the acceptability of 'bloody' is just part of that.
2006-11-20 15:01:46 · answer #9 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I see it as a swear word. I only ever use it to describe something which is blood stained.
2006-11-20 15:54:21 · answer #10 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋