The surprising likely origin of the word "bad" -- "effeminate man." From the Oxford English dictionary (OE = Old English, ME = Middle English):
Prof. Zupitza, with great probability, sees in bad-de (2 syll.) the ME. repr. of OE. bæddel ‘homo utriusque generis, hermaphrodita’ ... and the derivative bædling ‘effeminate fellow, womanish man ...’ applied contemptuously; assuming a later adjectival use, as in yrming, wrecca, and loss of final l as in mycel, muche, lytel, lyte, wencel, wench(e. This perfectly suits the ME. form and sense, and accounts satisfactorily for the want of early written examples. And it is free from the many historical and phonetic difficulties of the derivation proposed by Sarrazin [which ends up relating it to an OE. word meaning ‘forced, oppressed’] .... No other suggestion yet offered is of any importance; the Celtic words sometimes compared are out of the question.
The Random House and Webster's Revised Unabridged echo this; the Online Etymology Dictionary suggests that bæddel and bædling also meant "pederast."
Thanks to Language Log for the pointer. Naturally, I do not mean to imply that I agree with the thinking reflected in the etymology, much like I don't think that Slavs are naturally slaves. I just thought it interesting that such a simple, foundational-seeming term as "bad" appears to stem from attitudes about sex roles.
Stick with 'radical'...wait...that's no good either.
How about 'bodacious'?
"I did a bad, bad thing"
"Bad to the bone"
'bodacious' can only refer to two things.
OK. Slavs may not be natural slaves. But since you mentioned them AND gays, the origins of the term "buggery" might deserve a thread.
Then again, it might not.
Hoosier: Beat you to it, twice -- here and here.
That's seems unlikely. There are, first, a great number of synonyms for "bad," that is, the foundational concept has many words describing it, not just this one. What you are observing is only the fact that the connotations of this particular word have shifted over the centuries, perhaps from having a connotation of sexual misbehaviour or misconduct to generalized misconduct, or the result of it. A similar shift in connotation has occurred in the last 80 years with the word "gay."
You do not know if "bad" was 1200 years ago the basic word it is now. There were very likely other synonyms that feel into disuse and vanished. One or more of them may actually have been more common than "bad" at the time, and may have a completely different origin.
Patterns of usage and how they change are at least as important in understanding the socio-psychological origin of words as the etymology. For example, if the word "gay" entirely replaces "homosexual," because it's easier to say, or for some other complex set of reasons, it would be a mistake for future anthropologists -- who only know the surviving word "gay" -- to conclude the most common word for homosexuality had its origins in attitudes towards happiness and pleasure.
Your etymological fact is interesting, but I think your subsequent linguistic theory makes too much stew from one oyster.
In the KJV, "bad" only ever appears in the phrase "good or bad" or variations thereof: "bad or good," "good nor bad," "a good for a bad." I would guess that, because of the euphony, "good" and "bad" were commonly paired in speech, with "bad" losing its earlier meaning and becoming simply the opposite of "good." Maybe etymologists have explained this.
In other words, you don't necessarily agree that the word "is free from the many historical and phonetic difficulties of the derivation proposed by Sarrazin"?
N. attributes "bad" to a warrior/ruler caste's contempt for the vanquished/governed. It would be psychologically very predictable for this contempt to express itself by depicting the lower orders as effeminate. We see the same thought-process at work at any number of sporting events.
Stick with 'radical'...wait...that's no good either.
How about 'bodacious'?</i>
Perhaps <a rel="nofollow" href="http://onlineslangdictionary.com/browse/s/page5" target="_blank">"Sick"</a> (new window)?
Stick with 'radical'...wait...that's no good either.
How about 'bodacious'?
Perhaps "Sick" (new window)?
Is it oysters, or snails? I always forget.