Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:damn your ass. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:damn your ass, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:damn your ass in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:damn your ass you have here. The definition of the word Talk:damn your ass will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:damn your ass, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Delete, not idiomatic, not difficult to guess the meaning, and for damn your ass surely at the very least this should be damn someone's ass - you can damn anyone's ass, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
The entry is of what is claimed to be an Interjection, but would possibly better belong under a Phrase header and categorized grammatically as Category:English imperatives with others that form independent sentences. We have several of these imperative forms, "go to hell" but not "go home". We treat (deprecated template usage)shut up in a usage notes. The only PoS header at ] is Verb. All invective has a grammar, mostly identical to normal grammar, with a few remarkable exceptions, like -fucking- and -bloody-. I am torn as to how to present these. If they are deleted, users will reinsert them. Blocking the entry might be an option, but makes us seem prudish. One or more appendices on invective, oaths, euphemisms, and similar subjects with lists of common non-idiomatic collocations and a lot of entries using {{only in}} would be my long-term preference.
If it were really "set", why so many "blast and damn"s. There is clearly a productive grammar of invective by which terms like this are formed. I'm not sure that such grammar is well covered in CGEL (Damn their eyes!), but a grammar it is. I'll have to see if I can get a hint of that grammar from The "F" Word, 3rd edition. 2009. Delete. DCDuringTALK17:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, that is odd. But something peculiar is going on with the b.g.c. counts. The hits for "blast and damn" run out at 388. The hits for "damn and blast" run out at 400. "That's odd", said I, so I tested "damn"; the hits ran out at 341. :-/
For a second opinion, I turned to the BNC; it gives 14 hits for "damn and blast" vs. 1 chance collocation for "blast and damn". (COCA yields 1 and 0, confirming Britishness). Absent further evidence, it seems setphraseish. If our invective coverage ever gets up to snuff, I daresay we can find some useful things to say about it.
Per the lemming test, I note that Partridge has an entry for this. Actually three entries; one for the interjection and one each for a noun and a verb that bear further investigation. -- Visviva02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Doing the search from the US gives me 19 hits for "damn and blast" and more than a hundred for "blast and damn". Not a single one in the damn/blast order is after 1922. On News the ratio is 10:1, so perhaps the order is becoming set. Is 5:1 an adequate threshold of setness of order? DCDuringTALK12:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I had done the bgc search with "full text only". I can reproduce my earlier results on relative frequency on US bgc. Subtracting the Partridge/Oxford mentions and "God damn and blast" makes it even more nearly equal. DCDuringTALK12:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
