# Swedish: vulgarity of 'skit'



## sakvaka

As far as I know, the word "skit" corresponds the similar English expression. However, I've seen dozens of examples where it has been used in compounds: _skitsur_, _skittråkig_ etc.

At school, we have been instructed to use "skitsur" without mentioning the possible vulgarity.

I just watched Robert Aschberg on television, and he really 'exploited' this phrase. I think I heard the word five timed during tye thirty minutes. That made me think that probably this word isn't as vulgar as the English "sh*t" or the Finnish "paska".

Is 'skit' mild? Would you use it in these contexts:
a) with good friends, in private (probably yes)
b) with little children
c) on public places, eg. in bus
d) with unknown persons, aged over 50 years
e) on TV, radio, and other public medias
f) with the king (probably not)

Thanks!


----------



## Frenchlover1

Hi!

I am a Norwegian, however; I think this may be very similar to what we have in Norwegian as well.

In Norway, one can say skit/skitt and even drit/dritt (slightly stronger expressions); literary everything means "poop", but is used as an _informal_ negative expression, such as sh*t, but with a much less vulgar meaning!

Young people use it *all the time*, in expressions such as:

Det var skitbra! (Look, the sentence even has a positive meaning!)
Han er dritsur. (As you wrote)

The words are mostly used to give the original describing word (sur, bra) more "strength". Like "_very_ good". It's just a "cooler" (among young people) and _less formal_ way to express it.

It is not normal, however, to hear persons in their 40-50's and above saying these words. It is NOT formal. I, for instance, avoid saying it to my parents, especially grandparents, aunts, uncles.

Would you use it in these contexts:
a) with good friends, in private (probably yes) *Yes, though it depends on the age of you and your friends (paragraph above)*
b) with little children *No. Or, if you are a little child yourself and want to be "cool", you may say it. Normally young people/adults don't talk like that to children because they want to "protect" the child from hearing such words. Even though this is much "kinder" than cursing.*
c) on public places, eg. in bus *Young people: yes. Young people in Norway usually never care about what they are talking about loudly in public. (Hehe)*
d) with unknown persons, aged over 50 years *No. They wont maybe even give you an unfriendly glance, but you do not make the best first impression by saying it.*
e) on TV, radio, and other public medias *Yes, among young people. But it is still informal and some people may find it "not good"*
f) with the king (probably not) *Correct*

Hope this helps!!


----------



## AutumnOwl

No, "skit" is not considered very vulgar in Swedish. Yes, it means "sh*t", but it's also used as meaning "dirt", Swedish "smuts" or "strunt", as in the expression "skitsknack/skitprat" or "vad skitigt det är" meaning "how dirty it is" and those two expressions, especially the second one, is something I might use sometime. "Skit" is often used to make a word stronger, sometimes positively, usually negatively. I would guess that many people see it as vulgar as "damn", nothing really to be upset about, especially if used in combinations.


----------



## Ben Jamin

AutumnOwl said:


> No, "skit" is not considered very vulgar in Swedish. Yes, it means "sh*t", but it's also used as meaning "dirt", Swedish "smuts" or "strunt", as in the expression "skitsknack/skitprat" or "vad skitigt det är" meaning "how dirty it is" and those two expressions, especially the second one, is something I might use sometime. "Skit" is often used to make a word stronger, sometimes positively, usually negatively. I would guess that many people see it as vulgar as "damn", nothing really to be upset about, especially if used in combinations.


 Listening to both Norwegian and Swedish I got the impression that skit in Swedish is a little more vulgar than in skitt in Norwegian. 'Å ha skitt under neglene' is for example a phrase used also in almost formal settings. My impression is that skit is much more used as a swear word in Swedish than in Norwegian (that uses dritt, as much stronger word).


----------



## Tjahzi

First your Q&A:

a) with good friends, in private (probably yes)  *Yes, definitely. Although most other people would use it more than me. I would say it's popularity peaks by 15-year-olds. *
b) with little children *No, probably not, but other people might, and it really wouldn't be such a big issue. Ironically, saying a word as neutral as "samlag" would probably be much more frowned upon (by surrounding adults/parents). *
c) on public places, eg. in bus *Absolutely.*
d) with unknown persons, aged over 50 years *Probably not, but then it depends on the situation. If it was my new teacher, no way, some random person who just walked out in front of my bike at full speed, possibly.*
e) on TV, radio, and other public medias *Probably not, but then again, it wouldn't be such a big issue. If at all. (I can imagine it being said without anyone noticing.)*
f) with the king (probably not) *If I ever got to have a chat with the king, I would probably use it just for the sake of it. Or probably go for something more severe.*

So, all that said, there is one thing that I'd like to add and that is the very widespread phenomenon already mentioned by Frenchlover1. The use of _skit-_ as an intensifier. In short, this prefix can be added to virtually every adjective in order to intensify its meaning. Hence, _mat_ can be _skitgod_, _en tröja skitsnygg, _en person _skitsnäll _and so on. The ones I mentioned here are obviously extremes and quite contradictory and would probably be frowned upon by elders and well educated people (my fathers always liked to make a point of it every time one of my visiting friends used one of the above phrases and pointed out its contradictory nature (nowadays, I occasionally use them myself in his presence simply to get the opportunity to inform him about the necessity and inevitability of language evolution (pointing out the fact that he does not speak like the generation before his))). 
That said, there is a difference between using _skit_ purely as a curse word among others (in this sense, it's still very mild) or as an intensifier. As an intensifier, it is definitely more acceptable which could be applied to your example settings above. In fact, even when conversing with the king, I believe one would get away perfectly fine with it if used in a manner such as _"Monarki är skitbra!_". If nothing else, it's undoubtedly used in a positive sense, and you would probably "just" be looked upon as uneducated and inarticulate, and forgiven considering the positive content of your message.

To sum up; _skit _is a very mild curse. Among younger people (5-25~) it can be very popular to be used as an intensifier, which is normally fully acceptable within their own chronolect, but more or less frowned upon by elders, mainly due to grammatical reasons rather than _skit_ being an offensive word. 

And finally, as usual, this is just my very own analyzes.


----------



## Lars H

Hej

Skit as I see it:

a) with good friends, in private (probably yes)
Yes!

b) with little children
No. An adult that says "skit" - or curse - when small children are present, makes a bad role model

c) on public places, eg. in bus
Could do, but I wouldn't shout it out. It is vulgar, but not very vulgar. There are other words I wouldn't use.

d) with unknown persons, aged over 50 years
Only if I were upset. The word doesn't really add anything, otherwise than that is is a reinforcement

e) on TV, radio, and other public medias
No. But Mr Aschberg gets away with it pretty good

f) with the king (probably not)
Hell, no. Aja-baja, Tjahzi


----------



## Tjahzi

I would, again, like to stress the difference between _skit_ as an independent curse word and an intensifying prefix and add that the latter is more acceptable or in fact, not even considered cursing (and hence more or less acceptable in more or less all the above context). Do you agree with me people?


----------



## Lars H

Tjahzi said:


> I would, again, like to stress the difference between _skit_ as an independent curse word and an intensifying prefix and add that the latter is more acceptable or in fact, not even considered cursing (and hence more or less acceptable in more or less all the above context). Do you agree with me people?



Yes, I think I do.

In prefix usage as in *skitsnygg*, *skitenkelt*, *skitbra * it's not particulary vulgar, at least not to me. With the exception of *skitgott* which sounds just sooo moronic.

But *skitsnack* or *snacka skit* are a tiny bit more emotional - and vulgar - as of course pure curses are. *Skit* is however not much of a stand alone curse, it's usually used together with expressions concerning the devil and his whereabouts.


----------



## Tjahzi

Tjahzi said:


> ...but more or less frowned upon by elders, mainly due to grammatical reasons rather than _skit_ being an offensive word.





Lars H said:


> With the exception of *skitgott* which sounds just sooo moronic.


 

Regarding _snacka skit_, is it really _that_ offensive? Or is it the way it's used? Would it really be more offensive to say _du snackar skit_ rather than _du ljuger_? I'm not that sure. Similarly, would it be offensive to, in a conversation, refer to statement of a third party as _skitsnack_ given that the conservationists both agree? I'm actually inclined to believe the situation to be reversed, due to _ljuga_ being more specific, and hence more accusing, rather than _snacka skit _which, in comparison, is somewhat cloudy. Thoughts?


----------



## Lars H

Tjahzi said:


> Regarding _snacka skit_, is it really _that_ offensive? Or is it the way it's used? Would it really be more offensive to say _du snackar skit_ rather than _du ljuger_? I'm not that sure. Similarly, would it be offensive to, in a conversation, refer to statement of a third party as _skitsnack_ given that the conservationists both agree? I'm actually inclined to believe the situation to be reversed, due to _ljuga_ being more specific, and hence more accusing, rather than _snacka skit _which, in comparison, is somewhat cloudy. Thoughts?



No, it doesn't have to be more offensive. Just more vulgar.
But what you write about _ljuga_ as being more specific is interesting. If I said _du ljuger_ I would be prepared to explain in what way. But _du snackar skit_ could be said without any further explanation. Easier and more casual but in a way also more poor, scanty (torftigt). It's like:
"I don't like what you say, but I am not capable to express why".

I completely agree with what you write about two speaking of a third.


----------



## Tjahzi

Oh, indeed. You are right, there is a clear difference between _vulgar_ and _offensive _(that I obviously failed to recognize). And I do agree with it, it could be considered slightly vulgar in a formal context. 

Also, I very much agree with your analyzes of _ljuga _vs _snacka skit_. I did not realize it at first, but the difference is indeed that the former is unspecified (and hence much more easily employed, and resorted from ). 

So, _(snacka) skit_ could indeed be considered (slightly (personal opinion)) vulgar. But hardly offensive, which, it seems, wasn't even mentioned by Sakvaka, so sorry for hijacking your thread for a while.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Tjahzi said:


> Oh, indeed. You are right, there is a clear difference between _vulgar_ and _offensive _(that I obviously failed to recognize).


Using vulgar expressions to persons that do not accept it is offensive.
Even using a strongly informal speech to wrong persons may be offensive.(For example using in Norwegian 'Dø, ..' (du) in a beginning of a sentence).


----------



## Tjahzi

Lars! I realized today that there is yet one thing to be said on this topic. The use of more or less contradictory adjectives as enhancers is not a new trend. In fact, I have just discovered such a word that has been around for quite some time, namely _hemskt_. 

_Det var hemskt roligt!

_So, do you associate the phrase above with fifteen-year-olds, seventy-year-olds or none at all?


----------



## Lars H

"Hemskt " is a bit old fashioned, isn't it? I dont use it. 

I can see that it works fine in expressions like "kön i butiken är hemskt lång" or "det är hemskt kallt" but when used together with postive words like "trevligt", "gott" or "mysigt" it doesn't sound right.  

"Väldigt" does the same job, except for sayings like "väldigt liten" or "...kort"


----------



## Tjahzi

Fair enough. My point was that I was quite sure about having heard elder people using this enhancer in more or less positive contexts (such as the one above) and as such, I found it fascinating that the habit of taking more or less strong noun or adjective and turning it into an adverb used to enhance more or less any adjective is not really an innovation, but rather a common practice. That said, I could be wrong. Sadly, there is no good way to confirm this.

I expected you to say that you associate it with seventy-year-olds, but I suppose labeling it "old fashioned" is just another way of saying that.


----------



## Lars H

Seventy-year-olds or even older. Agree on that


----------



## Tjahzi

Exactly. So _sjukt!_ is just today's answer to yesterday's _hemskt!_


----------



## montmorencywrf

Frenchlover1 said:


> Hi!
> 
> I am a Norwegian, however; I think this may be very similar to what we have in Norwegian as well.
> 
> In Norway, one can say skit/skitt and even drit/dritt (slightly stronger expressions); literary everything means "poop", but is used as an _informal_ negative expression, such as sh*t, but with a much less vulgar meaning!
> 
> Young people use it *all the time*, in expressions such as:
> 
> Det var skitbra! (Look, the sentence even has a positive meaning!)
> Han er dritsur. (As you wrote)
> 
> The words are mostly used to give the original describing word (sur, bra) more "strength". Like "_very_ good". It's just a "cooler" (among young people) and _less formal_ way to express it.
> 
> It is not normal, however, to hear persons in their 40-50's and above saying these words. It is NOT formal. I, for instance, avoid saying it to my parents, especially grandparents, aunts, uncles.



Interesting. I have recently been studying the book "Teach Yourself Norwegian", by Margaretha Danbolt Simons (2004 edition). She says that it only means "dirt" and can be safely used in front of your maiden aunt or whatever    (also the adjective "skitten" which she translates as "dirty").

From page 202: "You can also say skitt! as an expletive. It just means dirt and is no worse than saying bother!  Your friend's grandmother won't even raise an eyebrow".

Perhaps her advice is slightly off here. (I won't risk it, in any case  ).


----------



## Renaissance man

Since Norwegian seems to be similar to Swedish in this respect, I would strongly advice against using "skit" as an expletive if your friend's grandmother is present. 

I don't know about this Danbolt Simons, but her family must be a rugged bunch.


----------



## Tjahzi

Please PM me that forbidden link, Lars.

Also, judging from Renaissance man's post, I get the impression that _skit _would not be advisable to use in such a context. I disagree with that view.


----------



## JohanIII

I agree with Tjahzi, with the following comments:

d) Well, as I'm X years old (see above), a teacher 50+ perhaps wouldn't command such respect as for someone aged (see Tjahzi) 

e) Not by reporters or anchors!

f) ...as our king is _certainly_ no choir-boy, and he might actually appreciate it. (so I disagree with Lars H). Done with finesse though.

An it's a very good point about this being much more _often_ a question of generally good language rather than pure offence - with some overlap as per Ben Jamin.

I think it would be "analysis".

Oh, by the way, when discussing what people of age X do, *please turn on your own age* in your profile. I fall squarely into Frenchlover1's 40-50's category  .


----------



## Frenchlover1

montmorencywrf said:


> Interesting. I have recently been studying the book "Teach Yourself Norwegian", by Margaretha Danbolt Simons (2004 edition). She says that it only means "dirt" and can be safely used in front of your maiden aunt or whatever    (also the adjective "skitten" which she translates as "dirty").
> 
> From page 202: "You can also say skitt! as an expletive. It just means dirt and is no worse than saying bother!  Your friend's grandmother won't even raise an eyebrow".
> 
> Perhaps her advice is slightly off here. (I won't risk it, in any case  ).



I agree with Renaissance man.

You (and Simons) are right about the meaning of both skitt and skitten. However, among young people, in general "skitt" is simply not used, but the English "sh*t" is used all the time. Due to the words being pronounced exactly the same, people will think that the English expression is used, thus what you say is much more vulgar.

Have a beautiful weekend


----------

