Talk:Bloody

message: The theory that this word comes from 'by our lady' is completely unsupportable.  By the time it came into common use English had been protestant for centuries.  It's not even supposition, it's just an urban legend.
--
I would expect so!
My own idea is that it came from the same tradition that swore by Christ's body parts. To swear by Christ's blood would be strong. 
Sean
You should put this into the article, if you are positive about it.  Dieter Simon 00:20, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think there should be more details on usage of the word as an intensifier (which seems to be its more common usage anyway).  This is because while usually ignored, the few people (notably Americans in this case) who notice the word being used (and don't immediately dismiss it as a ripped off British expression) usually deem it to be a serious expletive roughly interchangeable with the previously mentioned "f word". Medevilenemy 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intensifier 

message: The explanation of "bloody" seems to mostly explain that the word is NOT a swear word in Great Britain.  However, that is very misleading.  The word has been used as and treated as a vulgar word for years, probably less offensive than "the f-word".  "Bloody" is not used in polite company, except when someone wants to shock.  Evidence that "bloody" is rude is in the use of supposedly softer versions of the word, like "bleeding", not unlike "fricking" as a substitute for "f-".  The fervor with which the writer describes "bloody" as not obscene is further evidence that it is!  People use the word as a swear word, adding intensity the same way "f-" or "damned" or "g-d" might be used as an adjective.  The word is not a substitute for "very" or "really".  
Let's accept that in British society, "bloody" is not a nice word, and has only been found on TV, the papers, books, and media for the same reason that other vulgar words are: "freedom of expression" and the general relaxing of what is acceptable in society.  Like many of George Carlin's Seven Words, "bloody" is heard a lot now, but its real purpose hasn't really changed.  
Mostly I am disappointed that I still have not found plausible origins of the word as swear word -- my original reason for checking the Wikipedia.  I am not English so will let someone with more authority improve the main article.  But let's not pretend the word isn't a swear word.  I don't expect to hear the vicar or the Queen using it in the described manner.  
(Certainly, we're not talking, here, about the use in "look at the bloody bandage covering his cut arm".)
:Years ago I remember seeing "bloody" described as more, not less, acceptable than the more taboo alternative "bleeding", so is this a case of shifting tastes or inconsistent ones? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not for Polite Company 

message: I heard a theory from a linguistics expert a few years ago (on the radio) about the origin of "bloody".  His theory was that there was an entire class of ancient curses (and these were what you really refer to as curses) that invoked God's body parts.  A mild curse might be "God's ear" or "God's nose".  They were curses because they invoked God's name and because they humanized him.  "God's blood" was the worst curse, not only because it humanized God, but because it implies that God can bleed.  I don't have any references available for this off-hand (so of course I won't add it to the article), but I think it is far more plausible than some of the alternatives presented in this article.  There are other "curses", which while mild today, were abbreviations for strong curses back in the day.  "Zounds", for instance, is supposed to be an contracted abbreviated form of "Christ's Wounds".  Strong stuff indeed.  SqlPac 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Theory 

message: By User:24.234.61.45:
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the word "bloody" may actually be a linguistic devolution from the German "blűd" which can mean, in slang, "stupid" or "ignorant" - a meaning that carries well into the English use of the word. It would not be much different than our use of the term Cold Duck to describe a mixture of carbonated red and white wines - a term which arose out of the easy confusion of ending consonant sounds between the German words for Duck (ente) and End - leavings, remains - (ende). Just a suggestion.
:It's a minor point, but it's actually "blöd(e)" (a well know German ad reads "Ich bin doch nicht blöd" - "I'm not a fool, you know," so I buy from X"). The origin is supposed to be a Middle High German word meaning "weak-minded", hence "stupid" (Duden Deutsches Universal Wörterbuch) Mb 3r7864 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saw this get reverted on recent changes, adding it here 

message: It says: "Publications such as newspapers, police reports, and so on may print b__y instead of the full profanity.[7] A spoken language equivalent is blankety or, less frequently, blanked or blanky; the spoken words are all variations of blank, which, as a verbal representation of a dash, is used as a euphemism for a variety of bad words.[7]" and the ref is the OED. Which edition? I've never seen "b___y", ever, so I find it hard to believe that this still happens. It may have once upon a time, but surely no longer. Malick78 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious?

message: German for "stupid", sounds like "bloody" with the umlaut. Dankennerly (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly from blöder?