Throughout history, the cultures of civilizations have been shaped and reflected by their vernacular; it is the concrete on which the pillar of society is rooted. It is an unfortunate fact, then, that few, if any, individuals truly appreciate the art of communication. As our world hurtles into the 21st century, the delicate beauty of human interaction on a personal level has been reduced to an intangible network of computers and fax machines. Nevertheless, though verbal talents have dwindled in their might and importance, they remain essential to any true scholar. To this end, it is vital to understand those words which continue to prolong the life of the gilded tongue; those words for which the printed page and the computer screen only deaden their timeless power and flexibility.
Two individual words, then, have been the bane of the linguist for centuries, their meaning forever inconstant; the ever-present "bitch" and "ho." No other words are so often used, and so often misused. Many a misdirected scholar have passed off the duo as interchangeable; indeed, the differences between the two are subtle, but intensely relevant. Woe to the poor individual who would mistakenly interchange one with the other! How, then, can the discerning individual go about understanding the subtleties of these two essential elements of any orator's repertoire? As a means to this end, we will first examine the earthly origins of these two terms; upon conquering this task, we shall produce a method by which any individual may be classified into one of the two aforementioned groups.
From whence, then, didst these two wondrous inflections come? He of paltry learning would declare bitch to mean no more than simply a female dog. Such a definition is as comparing a comic strip to a Rembrandt; it is below the level of the true scholar. It is a little-known fact that Shakespeare first espoused upon the countless uses of the word "bitch" in one of his first and finest works, poignantly and simply entitled Doggy. A notable passage demonstrates the limitless meaning of the term:
"Beyond the door of the inopportune, methinks there lies the world… nay, just a bitch."-- Shakespeare, Doggy, c. pretty long time ago
Many a would-be toreador have pondered the wondrous intensity of this single line. Indeed, the phrase could dance on the tongue for centuries, and yet forever lay unknown. The world a bitch? The incomprehensible meaning of life, perhaps? Such is the genius of Shakespeare; would that we all could attain such perfection!
The origins of the word "ho" possess a less lofty, but no less important, character. The learned litterateur knows that beet farmer Ernest E. Ruthington first coined the phrase "ho" in upstate Kansas sometime in the 19th century. He and his fellows, on a literary streak, then proceeded to introduce several other timeless phrases, including "bag us some ho's," "beat some ho's around the bush," and "that ho is right proper." It is unfortunate that such precocity, in many ways equal to any Whitman or Hemingway, would pass from this world in a ditch somewhere in the midwest; nevertheless, Ruthington's brilliance lives on still in that which he created.
As for usage: in general, "bitch" enjoys far more varied and colorful meanings in everyday dialogue. Unlike the more limited "ho," its use is not constrained to a feminine subject; indeed, in certain cases, reference to a male individual could be of the utmost taste. Suppose a certain personage assigned you a 2-page paper of little social relevance. Dubbing this seedy individual a "bitch" would brazenly emphasize the effeminate nature of said individual. In contrast, usage of the term "ho" would seemingly be qualified only for a female subject. Differences also arise in the usage of possession coupled with either term. A righteous brother calling a woman his "bitch" generally is indicating that the woman is his girlfriend (or one of them, in any case); in contrast, indicating a woman to be his "ho" implies ownership of another sort, as in "I'm a pimp. This is my ho." The differences are subtle, but assuredly they do indeed exist.
The issue of monetary exchange also relates to the usage of the words, though in this case, the difference are far less subtle. Referring to someone as a "ho" implies that the target can be tempted into unsavory deeds by a transfer of money. Though use of the word "bitch" could likewise be interpreted with the same meaning, generally speaking it leans towards indication of the subject's decidedly unattractive personality rather than any corruptible characteristics.
To fully utilize the power of these two terms, one must understand that they lie within their own lofty realm; they cannot be compared with such sophomoric phrases as "dumbass" or "dipshit." Far too many unenlightened speakers attempt to wield the two as a crude bludgeon, when in fact they should be treated as a surgeon's scalpel. And of course, it can never be over-emphasized that the two are wholly distinct words, each complete in their meaning; wrongly interchanging one with the other is a crime against all of the literary world.