Fake swear words are a staple, particularly in otherworld fantasy and science fiction. But most of the fake swear words that I can think of are real words, just not ones that are typically used as swear words. This is fairly realistic to real life, too. If you think about it, the word 'bitch' doesn't have any intrinsically scatological, sexual, or blasphemous meanings and is simply an ordinary word to which negative connotations have been attached.

Examples:
"Rust and Ruin!" from Alloy of Law by Brandon Sanderson. 'Ruin' is the name of a malevolent god, and metal has magical importance. 'Rust' and 'rusting' are common swears on their own.

"Hell's Bells", "Stars and Stones", and "Empty Night" from the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher. No idea what the phrases mean, but Butcher has indicated that they are significant.

"Shards" and "Shells" from The Dragonriders of Pern by Anne McCaffery. Both refer to dragon eggs.

"Figs" is used in The Widdershins Adventures by Ari Marmell, but that's a quirk of main character, which is explicitly addressed in story. Everyone else uses regular swears.

The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan has an entire dictionary.

Then there are many swears which simply replace "God" with the deity of choice of the world.

If you do want to use an untranslated swear, I think that the best methods are to lampshade its lack of translation, or to include enough other untranslated words so that it doesn't feel out of place.

Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer uses "D'Arvit", but the first time it is used it is accompanied by a footnote reading "There is no point translating that word as it would have to be censored." You don't need a narrative comment, but if there is a character around who doesn't recognize the word (and can't find anyone who is willing to translate it) you can add a bit of humor while justifying the word's untranslated state.

Watership Down by Richard Adams includes an entire insulting phrase in the rabbit language, but by that point the rabbit language had been pretty thoroughly scattered through the novel, enough that if you care to it's possible to translate the phrase in its entirety.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Arcanist Lupus‭

145 reputation 0 24 29 0

"Yosemite-Sam" Style: "FLIPPIN' BUCKETS OVER SUNDAY MORNING! See, when one begins yelling random regular words like this, it sounds like how Yosemite Sam (Warner Bros. Cartoon Char. from Bugs Bunny/Mel Blanc) seemed to be cussing, but really wasn't saying anything that a child should not hear.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Cipko David‭

10 reputation 0 1 2 0

First, I would not do the "translation" of your last sentence.

Second, you need to understand that swear words are typically one or two syllables, and the audio effect needs to be somewhat similar.

Another word for "fuck" is "intercourse", but it is nearly impossible to use "intercourse!" as a swear word, in places where we would normally say "fuck!". "Intercourse you" sounds stupid. "Oh intercourse!" when I stub my toe sounds stupid. "Intercourse off!" sounds stupid. You need the "K" sound. You need a single syllable. That is why "frak" is used, and "frikkin" for the adjective "fucking".

It is why "Damn" is replaced by "Dang" and "Darn", and even "God Damn it" it replaced by "Dag Nab it". It is why "Bitch" is replaced by "Witch"; they have a similar 'mouth feel' when said. The same goes for "God and Gol", as in "Gol dang it" vs "God damn it".

In the current TV series "The Good Place" the characters are magically prohibited from uttering any curses, and can only utter the closest sounding non-curse word. Their replacement for "fuck" is "fork": One syllable, begins with "F" and ends with "K", and it works and is funny: A character in trouble says, "We are so forked."

Made up swear words need the same number of syllables as the words you think they replace, and some of the same starting and ending sounds, or at least they need the same "mouth feel" when uttered (number of muscular movements of the jaw, tongue and lips), and that mouth feel tells people which curse it is.

Hard sounds where the original curse has hard sounds, soft for soft, sibilant where sibilant. "Pussy" and "Wussy" are an example of the last.

You don't have to be quite as obvious as I used for examples, but the principle holds. IMO "Author of life" is not a good replacement for God, even if you somehow explained that it was. It takes too many mouth and tongue movements to say, and drops me out of the willing suspension of disbelief, I cannot imagine myself slicing a finger and saying "Author of life!".

However, the word "Gee" alludes to the first letter of "God" without saying it, and the later "Geez" is a similar reference to "Jesus". I can see a character cutting her finger and saying "Gee!" or "Geez!". They are plausible exclamatories.

From my comment below, from "The Good Place" (and writing from my memory), how the screenwriters introduced alternatives to swear words.

In the first episode, the MC (Kristen Bell) tries to say 'fuck', as in "fuck that," and it comes out "fork that."

She says, "Fork. Fork. Why the fork can't I say fork? What the fork is wrong with me?"

Another character tells her, "You can't say fork here, all you can say is fork."

MC says, "Well that's a ship rule. Ship. Oh ship! I can't say ship either?"

A writing lesson to be drawn from that, if you want to introduce alternatives to swear words, make sure the very first usage of each alternative swear word is in a spot where it is unambiguous to the reader what actual swear word should be there. In the context of the first (and on film), no reasonable American adult would expect anything but "Fuck that" in the first instance, Kristen's dismissive facial expression and wave of her hand makes this clear.

The same is true for "Ship" instead of "Shit", it is the only reasonable curse word to fit in the second example, preceding the word "rule" and commonly said after the word "Oh" when a realization is made. (So is 'damn' or 'fuck', but they don't fit with 'rule', and the "shi" is giving us the clue to the intended curse).

Once the reader understands the substitution, then subsequent usage should be consistent with normal usage, but wouldn't have to be quite so obvious.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37

One way to accomplish this is by using the same word roots and structure of swear words but modifying them in a way that is not immediately obvious. For example, think of the ominous land of "Mordor" in Lord of the Rings, which uses the same root as "Murder", a very negative thing. J.K. Rowling employed this tactic as well when naming places, things and characters. For example, the hostile and dark Professor Severus Snape's name is based on the roots and phonemes of "severe", and "snake" - words with negative connotations.

With swear words you can do the same. You can use sounds from existing swear words and build new components around them. Another way to go about it could be to combine two or more existing swear words in such a way that the connotation is obvious but the source is not, for example with the word "shmilfke".

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

SammyS‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

Keep it consistent throughout the story and don't use lots of words. Making up one or two is better than four, and keep using those. Make his audience gasp when they hear him saying the word. Make them shake their heads at his foul language. No need to say what it means, the reader if he reads it a couple of times should catch the idea.

And if they don't, they can go sumina themselves, those machika losers! Cause I have no intention of machika translating it to them. Sumina, them all!

A different language is usually written in italics and at times, authors put it in capital letters, although I don't see the need.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

A.T. Catmus‭

30 reputation 0 6 6 0

Derive the profane words from something your characters' culture reveres.

Swearing emphasizes a moment. Profanity does that while also reinforcing the cultural background that helps to make a story interesting, and the cultural background provides a framework for ranking the severity of the profane words.

For example, many terms in Quebec French profanity are based on the vocabulary of the Roman Catholic Church.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Gaultheria‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

I think this is a good technique, I've recommended it myself elsewhere here, but it needs to align with how people really create and use words. Curse words and oaths are generally used for shock value. Euphemisms are used to clean up or soften curses. And slang is used to establish an in-group (that understands the slang) and an out-group (that doesn't).

If a word doesn't sound shocking to the reader, it won't function as a curse word. "Fark" works because it sounds like a rude curse word we all know. "Mudblood" works, because it sounds pretty transparently insulting. Even words that are taboo solely because they are holy have a shock value --it's the inappropriately blasphemous use of them that makes it into a curse. On the other hand, perfectly real, but archaic curse words like "Zounds!" just sound laughable to the modern reader, because the derivation of them isn't obvious. Similarly, "author of life" and "beautiful idol" aren't shocking. They sound like respectful euphemisms, not curses. And when you take it one step further away from the source (like turning "God's wounds" into "zounds"), it's no wonder you lose your audience. It might work better if you introduced them first as reverential expressions --that way the audience could feel the shock value when they are abused.

It is true that real-world slang (for instance, Cockney rhyming slang) is often elaborate and playful. I could see complex circumlocutions like yours believably being part of some subculture's private slang (including their cursewords). But if you're going to deploy it like that, be aware that it inevitably positions your audience as a member of the "out-group" --that is, the people who are intended to be baffled and annoyed by the slang. You have to remember that your characters' experiences live only inside your readers' heads, and only to the extent you succeed in placing them there. Just having worked out an elaborate backstory for a word, or telling us something is impactful to the character doesn't mean it will come alive for the reader. We (the audience) need to be able to feel it too.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Chris Sunami‭

1355 reputation 13 171 261 0