When is it a good idea NOT to engage?

Its etymology derives from the Old English for a forest clearing.

Pep (If that helps?)

Whatever about sexual predilections, their music was First Class. Love that churchy little chord sequence in We Can Work It Out.

By the way, you're all wrong. All of you. About everything. And you're silly people too.


Actually you're both right. Damn, there goes my argument.

In fact that meaning is a global thing, englishly speaking. There is plenty of evidence that, like the c-word, the t-word has been argot for the honey pot for centuries. Neither the c-word nor the t-word are offensive in themselves and I'm particularly fond of the c-word when applied in the appropriate context.

Phil's floccinaucinihilipilificatory definition simply reflects contemporary usage of the c-word synonym for the t-word, which is a secondary definition and what in fact makes either word objectionable when used to denigrate someone: owners of the actual c-part take it a bit personally when they hear some fool being compared to their pride and joy. Personally, I never quite understood that because I don't take offense on behalf of Mr Happy when I hear 'prick' or 'dickhead' being used offensively.

The t-word is indeed frequently used by Englanders in the way that Phil suggests but it really is just a softer version of the c-word. Folks get away with it because, like bugger and even frig, many native speakers remain ignorant of the actual meaning.

... if you don't like the word or my opinions then please say so - I won't 'ignore' you, although I might not feel moved to answer. Can't say fairer than that.

Which is where I still live.......so, that's it, eh, it's a 'Southern California' thing. My learned definition is the same as yours.

NorCal, too.

ETA: Oh, I'm glad to see the definition I know is widespread. I'd hate to think any guy I called that thought I was calling him the equivalent of a twit.

Phil, they've derailed your thread!

Not at all a California thing, it had both meanings when I was a kid in middle England 35 years ago. Also widely used as a verb - to twat someone is to thump them.

The t-word is indeed frequently used by Englanders in the way that Phil suggests but it really is just a softer version of the c-word. Folks get away with it because, like bugger and even frig, many native speakers remain ignorant of the actual meaning.

And speaking of softer versions of words, "fuck" is largely unacceptable in general conversation on TV, but "shag", which means the same thing, is pretty much accepted.

You spelled the f-word right out, Phil!? Oh you better pray they don't moderate your ass outta here.

You spelled the f-word right out, Phil!? Oh you better pray they don't moderate your ass outta here.

Yes, but I used a small "f", so it's a softer version of it, but not as soft as shag

Hmmmm, but shag can be *very* soft... Particularly when being shagged on it!

Bugger, shit, bloody, tosser, pleb, dick, nobhead seem to be acceptable derivatives for anyone nowadays.

It's not a California word at all. Its use as a softer version of the 'c' word, originated right here in Yorkshire when one lad told another lad that a certain person is a c... The other lad didn't quite catch what he said and asked " 't what ", and the first lad replied, "exactly!" From then on, 't what', later shortened to 'twat' has spread throughout the english speaking world as an alternative version of c... It's also the reason why the correct pronunciation sounds more like "twot", as Pep said, but the "hat" sound took over simply because of how it was written down.

I think that Pep will confirm that

I can confirm that if I have ever thought I understood anything a Yorkshireman said it didn't make much sense.

And you still haven't got it into your head?

In a podcast released shortly after the show, O'Connell said Mr Cameron's press secretary Gabby Bertin had "leapt out of her skin" at his language.
"He said (to her) 'That seemed to go OK'. She said 'Yeah, apart from the language'," O'Connell said.
"He said 'Oh, yeah, pissed, sorry about that, I'm really sorry'... She said 'No, it was the twat.'
"He said 'That's not a swear word.' I think he must be posh, where a lot of them don't think twat is a swear word. His press secretary went 'It is'."

I think this thread should be safe, considering there are 'people' who have me on ignore! Well, one person. Well, one twat. Anyways........

So, in the interests of furthering debate, when should it be clear that one is dealing with what I think is technically known as a fruitloop, and it might be pointless to try to enter into any form of dialogue? Or should we press on regardless because, let's face it, mad people are funny, and if they have an appetite for argument is it far to deprive them?

I'll kick off, shall I?

It only becomes pointless when the men in white coats are actually at the ( basement ) door. Up to then, it is valid to refute the many and various bonkers claims put forward, always assuming we still give a shit.

Not to mention lobsters up the arsehole.

A Yorkshireman goes into the vet's surgery carrying a box. Tell the vet he wants him to have a look at his cat. Vet says, "Is it a tom?" Tyke says, "Nay, he's in't box".