But if lots of people don't know this, do we really want to spread the word? Or are we better off letting scumbag enjoy life as a nonspecifically nasty term of abuse? A few slang words, after all, have outrun their unsavory origins.

"Bollix" for "mess up" is no longer vulgar, having left "ballocks" in the dust; "nuts" (though it used to be euphemized "nerts") is likewise untainted by its past. "Screw up" is now acceptable, though other uses of "screw" vary in their vulgarity ratings. "Futz around," which may be either a euphemism for you-know-what or a descendant of the Yiddish "arumfarzen" (no translation necessary), is not uncommon in print nowadays, and even "putz around" is gaining ground. (Its resemblance to "putter" may make it seem milder than "futz," though in fact its root is Yiddish slang for penis.) Origins are not, in any case, what make a term taboo; it was cultural consensus, not any secret meaning, that once made "bloody" Britain's worst swear word. These days, though, consensus can be hard to find.

Newspapers try to hold a conservative line on language - The New York Times, for instance, will print "crap shoot," but you can't say "crap" unless you're Lyndon Johnson (and dead).

But print editors are the Canutes of usage, trying to turn back the usage tide rolling in from TV, pop music and the Internet. For would-be gatekeepers, the speed of slang evolution keeps reviving the essential scumbag question: How dirty can a word be if nobody knows it's dirty? For the past decade, the slang word most delicately balanced on this usage bubble has been "sucks," as in "Mom, these sneakers suck."

Seven years ago, when I first wrote about it, I was sure it was headed for respectability: The kids using the term had no sense of any sexual meaning, after all, and (as my then-teenage daughter pointed out) the new usage was intransitive; there was no grammatical object being sucked. Sucks may have been borrowed from the slang for fellating, but innocent employment, I thought, would neutralize its iffy past.