Mehercule?

« previous post | next post »

Paul Krugman, "Is There a Dignified Legal Way, Preferably in Latin, to say 'Holy Shit'?", 5/28/2025:

A court just threw out Trump's whole trade agenda.

It will take me a while to digest this […]

Some more coherent thoughts in the morning, after a gallon or so of coffee.

Google Translate's suggestion is "Mehercule!"

The entry in Lewis & Short (along with my dim memory of Plautus from high school Latin) suggests that (the various forms of) this exclamation expressed emphatic assertion more than emphatic surprise — though looking through a couple of examples, I'm not entirely sure, e.g. from Plautus' Amphitryon:

Perii, dentes pruriunt;
certe advenientem hic me hospitio pugneo accepturus est.
credo misericors est: nunc propterea quod me meus erus
fecit ut vigilarem, hic pugnis faciet hodie ut dormiam.
oppido interii. obsecro hercle, quantus et quam validus est.

Henry Thomas Riley's  translation:

I'm quite undone, my teeth are chattering. For sure, on my arrival, he is about to receive me with the hospitality of his fist. He's a merciful person, I suppose; now, because my master has obliged me to keep awake, with his fists just now he'll be making me go to sleep. I'm most confoundedly undone. Troth now, prithee, look, how big and how strong he is.

In any case, the various forms of "by Hercules" aren't really the sort of thing that Prof. Krugman is looking for, namely a "dignified legal way" to express shocked surprise — probably as a referential noun phrase rather than a performative exclamation.

An alternative for Prof. Krugman might be Law French, though I doubt that "putain de merde" was current in 13th century England, in law courts or otherwise. And again, it's not really the right morpho-syntactic (or pragmatic) category.

After spending a few minutes thinking about this, I realize that linguists don't have a very good taxonomy for the contextual interpretation of exclamations (and similar expressions). At least, I don't have one — readers may provide suggestions…

And there's also the obvious point that the cultural evolution of exclamatory idioms has the same sort of illogical logic as other types of meaning change. The old-fashioned English oath "by Jove!" has no direct Latin counterpart, as far as I know — it's just a substitution to preserve meaning while avoiding blasphemy, which "by Hercules" would not accomplish. Or consider the Quebecois "tabarnak", which is in principle available to other bible-believing cultures, but has not been adopted by them.

Update — In a comment on Krugman's substack, Robert Hartinger offers some alternatives. His conclusion:

In summary, there's no single, perfect Latin equivalent for "Holy Shit" that carries the exact same emotional weight and vulgarity as in modern English. The closest you might get to the feeling of shock and strong emotion would be "Dī Immortālēs!" or by using "Merda!" as a standalone expletive for frustration or disgust.

 

 



11 Comments »

  1. Laura Morland said,

    May 29, 2025 @ 7:13 am

    In re: "the Quebecois "tabarnak", which is in principle available to other bible-believing cultures"….

    Not really. You'd need to be "tabernacle-believing," which would reduce the available Bible-believers to Roman Catholics, at least in the West. (I'm not sure whether Anglicans/Episcopalians use a tabernacle, but unless they truly believe in transubstantiation, they'd have no need for one.)

    By the way: a French Jewish atheist mathematician once proudly stated to me that the French no longer use religious terms as "gros mots," since most no longer believe in God.

    And as a French speaker myself, I would aver that "Merda!" would not be equivalent to "Holy Shit!" (I do like the sound of "Dī Immortālēs!")

  2. Dave J. said,

    May 29, 2025 @ 7:16 am

    I quite like “Stercus sanctus!”
    (or “Sanctus stercus!”).

  3. Lucas Christopoulos said,

    May 29, 2025 @ 8:24 am

    It sounds more like "nom de dieu!" or “nom di dju !” in Belgium. Much worse than 我的天哪! (Oh My God!) In Chinese. In ancient Greek, it was: μὰ τὸν Ἡρακλῆς (Ma Herakles!!!). But they often used different gods (as: Ma Zeus!!! μὰ τὸν Δία) according to the object they hit with their sandals (and the pain caused by it).

  4. Geoff M. said,

    May 29, 2025 @ 8:43 am

    I can confirm that my Anglican parish in Québec has not only a tabernacle, but also two monstrances/ostensoria! We do not define the Real Presence, whether in terms of transubstantiation or otherwise, but we do believe in it.

  5. Rodger C said,

    May 29, 2025 @ 10:43 am

    (1) What Geoff M said.

    (2) I was just thinking about "Mehercule!" the other day. Cold it (pronounced "Mercle!") actually be a euphemism for "Merda!"? Cf. Spanish “Miércoles”.

  6. Y said,

    May 29, 2025 @ 1:37 pm

    Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, XI, 6:

    In veteribus scriptis neque mulieres Romanae per Herculem deiurant neque viri per Castorem. Sed cur illae non iuraverint Herculem, non obscurum est, nam Herculaneo sacrificio abstinent. Cur autem viri Castorem iurantes non appellaverint, non facile dictu est. Nusquam igitur scriptum invenire est apud idoneos quidem scriptores aut "mehercle" feminam dicere aut "mecastor" virum; "edepol" autem, quod iusiurandum per Pollucem est, et viro et feminae commune est. Sed M. Varro adseverat antiquissimos viros neque per Castorem neque per Pollucem deiurare solitos, sed id iusiurandum fuisse tantum feminarum ex initiis Eleusinis acceptum; paulatim tamen inscitia antiquitatis viros dicere "edepol" coepisse factumque esse ita dicendi morem, sed "mecastor" a viro dici in nullo vetere scripto inveniri.

    Translation:

    In our early writings neither do Roman women swear by Hercules nor the men by Castor. But why the women did not swear by Hercules is evident, since they abstain from sacrifcing to Hercules. On the other hand, why the men did not name Castor in oaths is not easy to say. Nowhere, then, is it possible to find an instance, among good writers, either of a woman saying "by Hercules" [mehercle] or a man, "by Castor" [mecastor]; but edepol, which is an oath by Pollux, is common to both man and woman. Marcus Varro, however, asserts⁠that the earliest men were wont to swear neither by Castor nor by Pollux, but that this oath was used by women alone and was taken from the Eleusinian initiations; that gradually, however, through ignorance of ancient usage, men began to say edepol, and thus it became a customary expression; but that the use of "by Castor" by a man appears in no ancient writing.

  7. David Marjanović said,

    May 29, 2025 @ 1:46 pm

    By the way: a French Jewish atheist mathematician once proudly stated to me that the French no longer use religious terms as "gros mots," since most no longer believe in God.

    That's not quite why; it's simply because the whole society has become secular. Religious terms in that function have practically disappeared in German, too, and are rare in Russian.

  8. David Morris said,

    May 29, 2025 @ 3:11 pm

    I have a vague memory browsing through a book of Latin for modern life, and seeing 'Mehurcule, caldus est! as the equivalent of 'Geez, it's hot!'.

  9. tudza said,

    May 29, 2025 @ 8:07 pm

    Merde gets my vote.

    Mehurcule sounds useful. Reminds me of the Asterix the Gaul "By Toutatis!"

  10. David Morris said,

    May 30, 2025 @ 3:22 am

    I don't think the religious words and the bodily function words correlate very well.

  11. stephen said,

    May 30, 2025 @ 6:55 am

    Mehurcule looks like the name Hercules. It is a strong word, and Hercules was a strong person. Is that just a coincidence?

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment