A question arose on OEDILF about the vulgarity of the word 'ho' when used in Ebonics. It's a late 20th century pronunciation of 'whore' but has come into common use as a disrespectful substitute for 'woman'. In my observation it retains its connotations of looseness, but in the past few years has lost its accusation of prostitution.

That several dictionaries regard the word as taboo doesn't surprise me. Many would regard the existence of Ebonics as anathema. I expect there will be more diffusion of African American vernacular into accepted English in time.

What did surprise me is that the word 'whore' is regarded by some as offensive (e.g. MSN Encarta Dictionary places an advisory warning on it). Given that it is used extensively in the Bible ([1]I found eight translations that use it freely and two others using 'whoredom'), should it be considered an offensive term? Should a book be deemed unsuitable for children if it uses the term? Does it depend on how the term is used?

The word 'liar' is not considered indecent, but to call someone a liar would be considered offensive. I note that the over-protective Encarta places warnings on 'idiot' and 'moron', but not on 'liar' or 'cheat'.



[1] 'whore': King James Version, The Message, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, 21st Century King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, Darby Translation, Wycliffe New Testament
'whoredom': Amplified Bible, American Standard Version

To quote Shakespeare, "There is nothing, neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so." The word is not bad, but around here it carries greater emotional impact than "prostitute."

African American words have already become part of everyday speech. "Jazz," for one. "Mojo" and "voodoo" qualify.

There once was a girl named Madonna
To all the boys she'd ask "Do you wanna?"
Warren Beatty said no,
He called her a "ho",
Now she has Guy Ritchie upon her.

Arnie, your account of Madonna reminds me of something I read recently.

The author had been asked, "What is the average, and the standard deviation, of the length of the human erection?" In response he pointed out that most studies, including those done by Kinsey and (for business purposes) by condom manufacturers, relied upon self-reporting. The potential for bias is obvious.

One study attempted to avoid this difficulty by going to Florida during the annual spring-vacation celebration of college students, to find amid the drunken male revelers volunteers who would allow the researchers to take the measurements. Unfortunately, over 30% of said volunteers were unable to produce measurable results.

The author concludes that the best way to get adequate and reliable data is simply to ask Madonna.

All of which, quite naturally, is best summed up in a limerick.

A subject of such sensitivity
Is not likely to yield objectivity.
So I think you would wanna
Consult with Madonna,
In view of her well-known proclivity.