There is a discussion on OEDILF about the use of the word "blasphemy." Here is Seth Brown's limerick:

Don't serve pork to an Orthodox Jew.
It's not kosher, so he'll say to you,
"That's a blasphemy, sir!"
The reply I prefer
Is: "Well, thanks, it's a blast for me too."

Some of us don't consider it "blasphemy" for an Orthodox Jew to eat pork. Here is what Turnip said:

"Speaking here as an Orthodox Jew, eating pork is not a "blasphemy". A blasphemy in Jewish Law is only the cursing or reviling of God (indeed, the Talmudic tractate of Sanhedrin spends a great deal of time exactly defining the crime, wondering, for example, if saying "may Baal strike down God" is a blasphemy since Baal has no power, or if one has to say "may God strike down God".) Eating pork is a sin, a crime of man against God, but not a blasphemy. Of course, this would destroy your whole lilm premise."

However, someone posted this definition from Dictionary.com which seems to support it: "An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct."

Thoughts?

I think you should ask a rabbi, rather than a word board, about this, Kalleh.

I think her question is whether the word blasphemy is limited to speech, and inapplcable to actions.

As I read OED, the verb blaspheme is so limited.

The same seems generally true of the noun blasphemy,, referring only to speech (or to the thing or occasion of such evil speech). But OED injects a bit of uncertainty at the end of its first definition, which reads, "1. Profane speaking of God or sacred things; impious irreverence." (emph. added)

In general, the word blasphemy has taken on a much broader term than just the religious sense. In a specific context, such as Orthodox Judaism, the term has a much more specific meaning. The issue is not whether the word is used correctly, it is, the question is whether the term is used misleadingly, i.e., whether the presence of the Orthodox Jew in the limerick implies the word blasphemy is the way it is used in Orthodox Judaism.

The issue is similar to that of "hack". At work, we use the term often, as a "poor, temporary, cheap, easy(or some subset there of) solution". I also use the term "hacker" as originally intended. As a person in the computer industry, if I misuse the term "hack" or "hacker", it lends credence to the idea that the primary definition of "hack" is to break into a computer and steal or mess with things.

As it is, the pun is the integral part of the limerick, and niether the pork nor the Jew are absolutely essential, so a subtle tweaking of the first two lines may solve this problem, while neatly avoiding the real issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Seanahan: it lends credence to the idea that the primary definition of "hack" is to break into a computer and steal or mess with things.

You mean that isn't the primary meaning? < surprised and confused icon> I'm ignorant of any other.

quote:

I think you should ask a rabbi, rather than a word board, about this, Kalleh.

No, Arnie. This was purely a word question. I think that "blasphemy" means something profane (writing, utterance or act) and clearly eating pork isn't profane. Turnip seems to agree with me on that. Just sinning (eating pork if you're Orthodox) isn't "blasphemy" in my mind. That's why I think the limerick does not accurately define the word. Remember, the purpose of OEDILF is to define words. I would never know what "blasphemy" means from that limerick.

quote:

You mean that isn't the primary meaning? < surprised and confused icon> I'm ignorant of any other.

Not to hijack this thread, I've ranted about this before, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hack , looking at definitions with a and b, the a definition is the original and accepted version amongst computer people, and the b definition is that which is proprogated by mostly the media, and of course, those who break into systems illegally, or crack. We can continue ths discussion elsewhere, or Kalleh might beat me, again... : )

A good dictionary lists the words in a language, all of their meanings and usages. On hacker, see the Jargon File (or, as it was called in print, Hacker's Dictionary). The 8th entry is declared deprecated, and the more proper term, cracker, is offered. Although, I understand the latter meaning, when it is used by somebody, I don't personally use it. In a way, it's similar to how many grammar mavens seem to feel about the newer meaning of the word gay.

quote:

clearly eating pork isn't profane.

If one takes "profane" as the opposite of sacred, one has "clean" (kosher) and "corrupt" (literally, outside the temple). While I'm not Jewish, I would think that "profane" WOULD include the pork prohibition, but eating pork wouldn't be a blaspheny in any but a metaphorical sense. But who'd want to eat "Babe?" (You had to see the movie!)

Profane is another one of those terms that make you scratch your head. Latin profano (profanare, profanavi, profanatum) meant literally 'to bring something to a god before the temple, consecrate, sacrifice', but profanus meant 'unholy, not sacred; wicked, impious; ill-boding'. I guess I can see how they both would work, but no doubt it brought tears to the eyes of Roman grammatical sticklers.

quote:

or Kalleh might beat me, again... : )

Oh...I'm not that bad, am I Sean? Of course continue the discussion here. I always love to hear about definitions of words that rankle people!

quote:

If one takes "profane" as the opposite of sacred, one has "clean" (kosher) and "corrupt" (literally, outside the temple).

Well, darn, maybe you are right (unfortunately meaning that I am wrong! ). I believe that I was taking "profane" and "profanity" too literal. I think of them as meaning vulgar language (like the 4-letter words). Clearly, after reading the dictionary, that's not the case. They also mean "irreverence."

I think I tend to give words one main definition, which isn't wise.

Still, I hate the limerick, though I am not quite sure why. Perhaps it's the last line.

I rather like the lim although I don't think it's a very good definition for blasphemy. I think that's what's needed are two new opening lines to better define the word. I may pop overe and check out the workshopping.

I'm not sure why we're workshopping an OEDILF limerick here. But since we are, let me open my mouth to put that topic to bed, so we can get back to Kallah's word-question.

The OEDILF's tweaking,
Should be there. How did we let it sneak in?
Nonetheless, since it's clear
That we've started it here,
Please allow my advice and my speaking.

Just dispense with the "blast for me" pun.
Which distracts and is sloppily done.
That leaves you more free
To seek accuracy.
An example? All right, here is one.

Kentuckians say, it is bruited,
That bourbon should not be polluted.
Said one, when his daughter
Called for bourbon and water,
"That's blasphemy, gal! Don't dilute it!"

Oh, Hic, that is fantastic! Wonderful! I do wish you'd post a limerick or 2 over there because you are number 1 in my mind.

The limerick that I cited went from bad to worse...but now it is finally okay now, though nothing like yours!

I think the word discussion here is finished really. I was obviously wrong to think that it just means a profane utterance. It does make me wonder, though, how we can all know all definitions of words. There are so many words to begin with, and then you have to know every nuance of them. Then there are words like "anabasis" that can have opposite meanings; in the case of that word, it can mean a military "retreat" or "advance."

quote:

Then there are words like "anabasis" that can have opposite meanings

Words like that are called contranyms, auto-antonyms, or Janus words. The last is from the Roman god Janus, who is shown with two faces looking in opposite directions.

There's an earlier thread about them here.

Words like cleave, "stick together" or "cut apart"; fast, "firmly fixed" or "moving quickly"; overlook, "to watch over", or "to miss out", etc. are all good examples.

quote:

Then there are words like "anabasis" that can have opposite meanings

We've noted that an on-line dictionary defines anabasis that way. But we've wondered if it is incorrect.

Well, according to Aput and Zmj the opposite definitions are correct, and I am not about to question either of them!