Talk:boo

What is the history of Boo as a term of endearment?

I must agree with the above poster: I think the slang meaning of "boo" warrants an entry here.24.98.134.48 22:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"A close acquaintance or significant other." it's already there. No idea for the etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been listed as derived from French beau. Should it then be listed under a separate etymology? Davecw (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Equinox ◑ 14:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Another unacknowledged use of 'boo'

'Boo' can also mean 'a look', as in "Let's have a boo at that". Might be exclusively British usage; derivation could be from the Cockney rhyming slang: "butcher's hook" = look.

                                       David F. Hutchinson 68.71.17.19 14:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This is familiar to me in Canada as well (British heritage and middle aged). I don't know but my generation in Canada might be the last to recognize it though. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm also Canadian, but grew up mostly in England, so I'm never quite certain which pool of language I'm drawing from. 68.71.17.19 15:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Another thought: the origin may also be, illogically, from "peekaboo", where the "peek" has been dropped instead of the "boo". DFH 68.71.17.19 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, "Let's have a peekaboo at that" sounds pretty reasonable. 68.71.17.19 15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February–October 2024

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

boo

This is my first nomination, so I hope I'm doing this right! Sense 2: "Used ironically in a situation where one had the opportunity to scare someone by speaking suddenly." I don't understand how this is a definition of "boo". Do words normally have distinct definitions when used ironically? I'm also having trouble visualizing this use, which seems rather nonsensical to me. Maybe I could just have deleted this as obvious nonsense, but I wasn't sure that would have been appropriate, and I thought I'd better seek feedback first. Also, and I don't know whether this should (or needs to be) discussed here or in a separate nomination, but I'm not sure that sense 1 needs the words "especially a child". Perhaps children are more likely to shout, "boo!" or be shouted "boo!" at than adults, but I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the definition of the word. And could I just have "been bold" and deleted one or both of these things? Most of my contributions on Wiktionary have been new definitions, rewording, or comments on talk pages, so I'm a little unsure of myself. P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. “to scare someone by speaking suddenly” seems oddly specific. And every kind of child-directed speech can be used ironically. So this definition in question is at least superfluous in combination with the other questionable definition, the claim of the target of scaring being a child, so something must be deleted.

To get the real picture, scaring is not to be taken literal anyway. In affective neuroscience after Panksepp we assume rough-and-tumble Play as a basic emotional system positive in contrast to Fear, and by saying boo one targets the former primary-process system in order to train or maintain social interaction as a function of the age, i.e. booing is always “ironical”, so one should combine definitions with the line that the interjection is used to playfully introduce a sudden scare. The definition in the words “loud exclamation intended to scare” took itself way too serious. Fay Freak (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with that last point. Shouting "boo!" when one jumps out at someone isn't necessarily ironic. A bit camp, perhaps, but that's only because our notion of what's scary—for adults—has changed, likely due to familiarity with horror movies and similar tropes. I don't think that playfulness or social interaction theory form any part of the definition of "boo". The definition is what it means, not what interpersonal dynamics might justify its use. "A loud exclamation intended to scare" is at least simple, straightforward, and accurate, whether or not grown-ups regard it as childish compared with a jump scare by an axe-wielding maniac. P Aculeius (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I have witnessed this. For example, someone is (apparently) alone in a room, and you draw attention to your presence by (quietly saying, not shouting) "boo". It's humorous. Equinox ◑ 11:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it can't be used ironically or humorously. I'm asking whether that constitutes a separate definition of it. It seems to be "the same meaning, but used ironically". Is it normal to have a separate definition for anything that can be said ironically or humorously? Perhaps the visualization issue is due to the wording: in your example, the presence of the person saying "boo" is either known, but unannounced until the person speaks, in which case there was no "opportunity to scare someone"; or the person's presence was not known, in which case quietly saying "boo" will still scare (or at least startle) someone, and therefore not be ironic. But either way, I don't think that ironic use of a word or phrase constitutes a separate definition. Is it normally treated as one in Wiktionary, or is there something special about this word? P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

With no further feedback, I've gone ahead and deleted the second sense, and done a little trimming of the other two, as indicated above, and also deleting the words "or many members" as an alternative to "a member" in sense 3; I think readers will assume that what one person in a crowd can do, several can also do. Also slight rewording of the first: it seems a little extreme to refer to someone frightened by a concealed person shouting "boo" as a "victim". P Aculeius (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• @P Aculeius Welcome to RFD! You made the right move in starting a discussion here rather than deleting it yourself, especially since you hadn't started an RFD before. Being bold fits best when you are familiar with how things are usually done.

Since no one has objected to the changes you made (after plenty of time to do so), you can close this discussion by striking its heading, which would look like this in the wikitext: == <s>[[boo]]</s> ==. This will indicate to admins that they can archive this discussion. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know I was allowed to (or supposed to) close the discussion. And frankly I had almost forgotten it, since nobody ever replied or reverted my edit! I'll do it now. P Aculeius (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May–November 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

boo

Rfv-sense: to defecate. I can only find this as boo-boo (or boo boo), not with only one boo. (Another editor removed the sense out of process in January and was reverted with a note to use RFV.) - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You found use of boo-boo to mean poop? When I saw this, I was skeptical of both .... while there are probably a thousand euphemisms for bodily functions among parents and their small children, I'd think most don't leave the household. This one particularly could cause a gross misunderstanding if another child got hurt and used boo-boo in the more familiar meaning. And I don't think looking in books is trustworthy ... authors can make up children's speech all the time, for one reason or another. No less than Stephen King claimed that woo-woo is yet another euphemism for poop, and while I could believe a few families somewhere have used it (witness p > w in whiz, widdle, etc), very few people would understand it without a full explanation beforehand.

It's possible even if we do find cites that people simply misheard boom-boom.

If you're saying boo-boo is citable, then I trust you; otherwise I would like to add that to this RFV. Thanks, —Soap— 20:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, boo-boo/boo boo has had cites since before this was posted. (You can find more with searches like google books:"boo-booed on himself".) It's probably derived from the "mistake" sense ("I made a boo boo", meaning in effect "I have accidentally defecated in my pants, which is undesirable", a usage which seems decently common), comparable to similar use of "an oopsie" (or indeed sense 6 of "accident") as a euphemism for an instance of child or dog defecating on something they shouldn't've. (The similarity to childish pronunciations of poo poo probably also helped.) - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually live with a number of people who use "boo-boo" as their baby talk for feces or defecation all the time! Khemehekis (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

okay thanks. i guess it just didnt occur to me to check the verb section. the self-published 2012 book is quite poorly written, though ... i'd actually rank the social media posts higher than it in terms of how much it tells us about how the word is actually used. do you mind if i move it to the citations page, or remove it altogether? —Soap— 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed the version with only one boo. (Boo-boo with two is attested.) It's believable, either as a shortening of boo-boo or a childish mispronunciation of poo, but no-one's found cites. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)