I used "yiff" on my exam today:)
David Caveney
furrydom:) Well, I'm a scally really (electrum dragon), but in my human
form (irl) i'm quite a bit furry:) Oh, and my love is furry too... cute
feline... Fraisala:)
Anyway, I just had a Historical Linguistics exam (took me over 3 hours
and i STILL didnt finish, ick!) and for the question on semantic change,
I used "yiff" as an example:) I basically said that furries are more
open and accepting of sexual matters and more prone to discussing them.
Hence, since "fuck" has derogatory and negative connotations, there was
a gap where an unmarked word was needed for sexual intercourse. And so,
yiff, a word used to describe a foxcall, semantically changed and became
an unmarked synonym of "fuck". My professor is a middle-aged Jewish
guy... so who knows how he's gonna take it. Ah, furriness forever!
One thing I didnt write about tho but that I';ve noticed is a second
semantic change involving yiff. On certain mucks (like Tapestries and
Furcadia), when I've used yiff to refer to irl sex, people look at me
confused like I'm using the word wrong. Apparently, people come on there
and hear the word "yiff" only in the context of on-line cyber sex. And
so people who just knwo furries there take "yiff" to mean "cyber", but
with less techie connotations. I correct people, but there seems to be a
semantic change going on based on this misinterpretation.
Since there is no word for cybersex that doesnt sound cheesy and
negatively marked, it could be that yiff could catch on in this new
meaning. I really dont want this to happen, since I really like the word
yiff in its present meaning and the new meaning kinda cheapens it. But,
from my study of linguistics, if yiff does change semantically to mean
only online sex, then likely another word will move into yiff's old
place as an unmarked furry term for "fuck". PEople will need a word, so
possibilities will be used, and eventually one will catch on.
Still, let's try to stop this change of yiff if we can:) Perhaps we can
create a new word and use it only in referring to cybnering? something
that doesnt sound do cheesy? Also, educate people ya meet on mucks that
yiff refers to any kind of furry sex, not just online.
Anyway, hi!:)
ilr
> and i STILL didnt finish, ick!) and for the question on semantic change,
> I used "yiff" as an example:) I basically said that furries are more
> open and accepting of sexual matters and more prone to discussing them.
Uh oh, and here I was hoping all you did was pull your
pants down in class and dry-hump your test papers.
-Ilr, who's too tired to try and defend THAT word today.
DishRoom1
Hello. Mind if I ask you one question? What does furry fandom mean to you? I'm
just curious.
John Shughart
David Caveney
>
> Hello. Mind if I ask you one question? What does furry fandom mean to you? I'm
> just curious.
>
> John Shughart
Wow, now that's a question. Hmm. To me? Well, briefly, furryism is about
appreciating animals and feeling some sort of a connection with them,
often knowing that you are an animal in some way. Furryism is about
acceptance of all was of life and about know judging people just because
they do things different from you. It's a recognitiion that following
your heart generally will lead to happiness and fufillment. It's also
about not blindly accepting societal and culural norms but instead
getting in touch with your instincts, even if that means doing things
that are looked down upon by others in society. It's about being playful
and carefree... about being yourself. It's furry. And of course, it's
about loving animals, as brothers and sisters or even lovers.
Now that is one jumbled up definition of furryism! Oh well, all came off
the top of my head:)
Cerulean
hot, and where common belief is that sex is the root of all problems,
people have already been seen saying things like "yiff you, asshole,"
wasting the word to redundancy. At about the same time, there were
objections to the very existence of the word "yiff" because it _is_ a
happy-sounding word and therefore trivializes something that
(according to the complainant) _should_ only be represented by an
angry-sounding word.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( S>J37) - ,,'a)ew!J6 ay+ 77!> ue) 6u!y+oN,,
Cerulean
The nearest (vaguely) safe place is this way. --> alt.lifestyle.furry
Sarenthalanos
Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote in message
news:3af8f0b0...@news.fur.com...
> Oh dear. That was very pretty, but you'd best start running now.
> The nearest (vaguely) safe place is this way. --> alt.lifestyle.furry
Yup, either that or asbestos underwear time.
Someone unwittingly stuck their fingers in one of the most dangerous tar
babies on this NG. Of course, I won't rule out the possibility of someone
trolling under a puppet, but that's merely speculative on my part as it's
running under the 850,000 on the Scoville Unit-type material here.
-Sar, political discussion, @line_killfile (subj), done and gone.
Bahumat
Yiff has nothing to do with fox calls, that's merely an urban myth
that's sprung up in furry.
Yiff is actually an acronym, Y.I.F.F, originating (as so many aspects in
furry do) from the queer community of the 1970's.
Young Immediately Fuckable Fag
Learning that one was a shocker. One day explaining furry to a
notoriously queer friend of mine, the instant I dropped the word 'Yiff'
he immediately replied with the above phrase, and explained that it had
been in use with the general gay community for the past 20 or 30 years.
That's a fact not too many in furry knew about.
Bahumat
David Caveney
>
> I think you're a bit late. Here on alt.fan.furry, where tempers run
> hot, and where common belief is that sex is the root of all problems,
> people have already been seen saying things like "yiff you, asshole,"
> wasting the word to redundancy. At about the same time, there were
> objections to the very existence of the word "yiff" because it _is_ a
> happy-sounding word and therefore trivializes something that
> (according to the complainant) _should_ only be represented by an
> angry-sounding word.
>
So this isn't a furry newsgroup I take it? And an angry word doesnt
trivialize it more? Oi.
Where have all the furries gone...
David Caveney
Huh???? political discussion? Where? Someone asks what my view of furry
is... i gave my own personal view. Whats wrong with that? We're furries,
damn it, not Dragonlance fans. This is a happ
David Caveney
>
> Also, you're wrong.
>
> Yiff has nothing to do with fox calls, that's merely an urban myth
> that's sprung up in furry.
>
> Yiff is actually an acronym, Y.I.F.F, originating (as so many aspects in
> furry do) from the queer community of the 1970's.
>
> Young Immediately Fuckable Fag
>
> Learning that one was a shocker. One day explaining furry to a
> notoriously queer friend of mine, the instant I dropped the word 'Yiff'
> he immediately replied with the above phrase, and explained that it had
> been in use with the general gay community for the past 20 or 30 years.
>
> That's a fact not too many in furry knew about.
>
> Bahumat
Wow, fascinating! Tell me know, did the gay community use it as a verb
or did the furries start that? If yiff drops outa usage, itd be funny if
yarf or something came in to take its plance... thatd be by folk
etymology, basically.
Have any references on the y.i.f.f. thing so i can check it out?
Dragonoix
Hmmmmm.. I always thought that yiff was a acronym that originated in
Albedo which meant 'Young Insatiable Fuckable Foxes" ;)
--
Dragonoix- Advocate for truth, justice and the pursuit of a good yiff.
ICQ- #7063935
"Bahumat" <bah...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3AF94EB0...@telusplanet.net...
Kai
news:3AF96971...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> Huh???? political discussion? Where? Someone asks what my view of furry
> is...
No. You were asked what your view of furry fandom was, not your description
of "furryism."
> i gave my own personal view. Whats wrong with that? We're furries,
> damn it, not Dragonlance fans.
Thank Christ. But you're still wrong.
There's nothing inherently happy or warm and fuzzy about furry fandom. It's
just a collection of comics, animation, art, literature, and all physical
miscellany in the scope of anthromorphic interest. That's it.
If playing an animal on a MUCK brings you acceptance and happiness and
fulfillment, more power to you. But understand that we're not all here for
that, and in fact the very concept of "acceptance" is repulsive to some
people. That's just something you have to deal with, likely by keeping a
low profile.
Hope this helps.
-KR
Kai
news:9dbq0c$2lf$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> Greetings,
> Hmmmmm.. I always thought that yiff was a acronym that originated in
> Albedo which meant 'Young Insatiable Fuckable Foxes" ;)
It was actually an acronym used to help people remember how to put on pants.
You Insert Feet First.
Cerulean
>So this isn't a furry newsgroup I take it?
Oh, it is. But Usenet is like Douglas Adams's Babel Fish, which, by
removing all barriers to communication, has caused more and bloodier
wars than anything else in the history of creation. Furry fandom has
grown big enough that its members are increasingly distracted from
enjoying what they have in common by discovery after scandalous
discovery that they are all in some way different. I am frankly amazed
that until now you have been blissfully unaware of the political
infighting going on.
Dishroom's question of "What does furry mean to you?" was a trick
question. You're supposed to say "Nothing! It's just a hobby." If you
admit furry concepts have any personal meaning to you beyond easy
entertainment or a poor choice of money-making scheme, you're one of
the "gatecrashers" who have "attached" your "delusions" to the fandom.
Our history has been rewritten to turn a schism into an invasion.
And if you admit to having sexual attraction to anything that isn't
completely human, or even merely to having no hatred for those who do,
it is my duty to tell you that you are the scapegoat for everthing
that has ever gone wrong. You are held responsible for weak art sales,
unemployment, lowering standards of quality, the persecution of
"normal" furries, the eruption of Krakatoa, and the heartbreak of
psoriasis, and it is assumed that you have told the national news
media that all furries are like you. There are people in this fandom
who literally wish you dead (and since you're studying the ways word
meanings degrade, I should clarify that I don't mean figuratively
literally; I mean literally literally). By using your real name,
there's a possibility that your uncautious yet admittedly poetic
statement of your personal beliefs might have gotten you banned from
attending some conventions in the future.
That's your crash course in furry. I hope it wasn't too much of a
shock to your sheltered scope of experience, but it's cake compared to
being exposed the reactions yet to come without having been prepared
thus.
David Caveney
to be at that con anyway. Oi! What the hell is wrong with the people you
describe? We're FURRIES!
DishRoom1
>> Hello. Mind if I ask you one question? What does furry fandom mean to you?
>I'm
>> just curious.
>Wow, now that's a question. Hmm. To me? Well, briefly, furryism is about
>appreciating animals and feeling some sort of a connection with them,
>often knowing that you are an animal in some way. Furryism is about
>acceptance of all was of life and about know judging people just because
>they do things different from you. It's a recognitiion that following
>your heart generally will lead to happiness and fufillment. It's also
>about not blindly accepting societal and culural norms but instead
>getting in touch with your instincts, even if that means doing things
>that are looked down upon by others in society. It's about being playful
>and carefree... about being yourself. It's furry. And of course, it's
>about loving animals, as brothers and sisters or even lovers.
>
>Now that is one jumbled up definition of furryism! Oh well, all came off
>the top of my head:)
Ummm, OK. I just came into furry fandom because of the cartoons, comic books,
animation, stories, and stuff like that. Nothing involving sex. :x)
John Shughart
David Caveney
>
> Ummm, OK. I just came into furry fandom because of the cartoons, comic books,
> animation, stories, and stuff like that. Nothing involving sex. :x)
>
> John Shughart
Reread my post. I didnt talk about sex... I talked about acceptance. I
dont know what you are referring to.
Reagan
(insert anything else you've been saying recently along with this)
>Wow, fascinating! Tell me know, did the gay community use it as a verb
>or did the furries start that? If yiff drops outa usage, itd be funny if
>yarf or something came in to take its plance... thatd be by folk
>etymology, basically.
>
>Have any references on the y.i.f.f. thing so i can check it out?
O.o
Um. Dude, learn to not take the fandom too seriously, it can be EXTREMELY bad
for your health.
*goes back to Lurkland*
"I am a dead man, please bring me a toothpick."
Kyle L. Webb
David Caveney wrote:
>
> If anyone bans me from a con for what I said, I am glad. I wouldnt want
> to be at that con anyway. Oi! What the hell is wrong with the people you
> describe? We're FURRIES!
I wouldn't worry. The ones who would ban you from a con for saying that
(or just about anything not threatening violence or illegality) have
pretty much zero input into running of the cons, though they may loudly
proclaim that they are the core of everything. It's sorta like the
chihuahua that tries to make up for its lack of size with volume of
barking.
Translation: There are a number of jackasses who are pissed off at the
world on this newsgroup. Take all you read with a grain of salt.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Dave Huang
>It was actually an acronym used to help people remember how to put on pants.
>You Insert Feet First.
It stands for "Young Individualistic Freedom-Minded Few"--aka. the "baby
buster" generation. The first FurryMUCKers were in college in the late
80s to early 90s, and hence would've been YIFFies.
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@azeotrope.org | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 25 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
David Caveney
Sheesh, most places only do this in late march and early april. Hmm.
I've checked every slang dictionary i could find... even a brit slang
one etc, even online ones... no mention of the word yiff. Hmm. And alot
of other gayslang word, so I was wondering...
Btw, i was thinking about it. Telling someone to "yiff off" wouldnt make
any sense at all... to me, at most it could be telling somoen to go have
some nice sex with someone to relieve stress. Thats wha tit sounds like.
I dont think yiff as a curse will stick... itsjust not part of the
meaning. It'snot a synonym for fuck since we dont have a word "fucky" or
the like... its just its own nice little unmarked word. I like it:)
ilr
> Reread my post. I didnt talk about sex... I talked about acceptance. I
> dont know what you are referring to.
Acceptance? In this forum? HA! HAHA! Oh shit homes, you sure
fell off boat at the wrong time.
And what's that stuff about "lovers"?
Most Furry "Fans" hate z00philes worse than Hitler.
This is Alt.Flame.Furry, not Alt.Furry.Lifestyle.
We ain't here to be accepted, we function just fine out there in the
real world when we feel like it, we don't come here for brotherhood,
we just come here find out what's happening in the cross-over of
Furry stuff and mainstream society. No one's handed anyone else
here a cookie in 2 months. And scritching's illegal.
-Ilr
ilr
"David Caveney" <cav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:3AF9B525...@ix.netcom.com...
> If anyone bans me from a con for what I said, I am glad. I wouldnt want
> to be at that con anyway. Oi! What the hell is wrong with the people you
> describe? We're FURRIES!
>
Is that the only word you know?
Does Lycanthropy or Theriomorphism ring a bell to you?
How about Cartoon Animals or Anthropomorphic Characters?
The point is, the less vocabulary you show, relying solely on slang
terms that can only be reinforced with stereotypes, the less respect
you command in a group that doesn't have a Herd-Mentality and
need for clique-ish words. The only Us-VS.-Them mentality here
is between those who seek safety in numbers and those that don't.
The rest of the stuff on here is just about hobby stuff, art, comics,
writing or anything that actually counts as a craft or art. We make
stuff in this end of "furriness". If you wanna make Yiff-buddies,
try a few doors down.
-Ilr, Maker of fine porno and disgusting smut.
Robert Alley
The word "acceptance" is one of those, what did you call them, "unmarked
synonyms" for personal lifestyles some may find objectionable. If your
professor wants you to do your exam over again on this question, you can
use this word instead.
David Caveney
>
> Is that the only word you know?
Nope, but its the word that was asked about. Hence I replied telling my
feelings about that word.
>
> Does Lycanthropy or Theriomorphism ring a bell to you?
Sure, but I sasnt talking abotu them.
> How about Cartoon Animals or Anthropomorphic Characters?
Of course. I'm not really much of a muck/mush person... I posted those
examples cause when i have gone there... ive noticed when i try to talk
about irl sex with the term yiff, people look at me funny.
> The point is, the less vocabulary you show, relying solely on slang
> terms that can only be reinforced with stereotypes, the less respect
> you command in a group that doesn't have a Herd-Mentality and
> need for clique-ish words. The only Us-VS.-Them mentality here
> is between those who seek safety in numbers and those that don't.
Um, this newsgroup IS alt.fan.FURRY. HEnce, its safe to say, we all are
into some form of furryism. Thats why I said it.
> The rest of the stuff on here is just about hobby stuff, art, comics,
> writing or anything that actually counts as a craft or art. We make
> stuff in this end of "furriness". If you wanna make Yiff-buddies,
> try a few doors down.
>
> -Ilr, Maker of fine porno and disgusting smut.
And my original post, if you note, was looking at a furry word from a
linguistic point of view. I wasnt trying to make yiff-buddies (im
happily married) nor even fur-buddies (id go to a chat area) but merely
wanted to share a furry linguistic thing that I thought people might be
interested in.
Again, the onyl reason I brought up what furryism was was cause someoen
asked me what the fandom meant to me. I dont have any sorta agenda here.
*sigh*
David Caveney
>
> > Reread my post. I didnt talk about sex... I talked about acceptance. I
> > dont know what you are referring to.
>
> The word "acceptance" is one of those, what did you call them, "unmarked
> synonyms" for personal lifestyles some may find objectionable. If your
> professor wants you to do your exam over again on this question, you can
> use this word instead.
Silly me for thinking it was just about not judging people and accepting
people for who they are:) Would "tolerance" be better?
Akal Ashata Alis
I think the point is, over all, from what I've read from all of you,
that this gent should
get, is that there is no firm definition of furry, beyond an enjoyment of
the art featuring
said beings - which is why I continue to read this flame-bait of a news
group. Yes, I
attend a convention or two, and yes, I buy artwork and draw, and even Muck
from time to time.
Does any of that make for me being some kind of pervert? Probably in
someones
mind out there.
Soe may say that it brings them closer to animals, or to nature, and
while for them,
that is probably true. Me? I'd much rather go out on a long hike or visit a
zoo to get
close to nature. I don't consider those events remotely furry - even if
other furs accompainy - but I do think they help me appreciate nature more.
As for acceptance - I've been around here long enough to see that
acceptance is a mixed bag here at best, and at worst, non-existant. I've
seen people targeted for personal beliefs, relegious beliefs, sexual
orientation, and weather or not the color blue
makes for a good fur color. Thankfully, I haven't been targeted for such
(although with this, I probably will be) juvinile reasons.
Where ever people of any kind of sentiant nature are, politics will
follow, as will
sides of lines be drawen - simply because they believe themselves to be
right. It is
part of human nature, I think, in many ways to do this.
Regardless, I've said my peace, and probably won't read reponses to this as
the entire
concept of judgements sickens me. And before someone reads this and says I'm
being judgemental, I'm not. I merely stating what I see from past
experiance. Me? I'm in this
fandom to draw and enjoy artwork. I dunno about the rest of you.
AkAl
s
h
Alis
t
a
ilr
"David Caveney" <cav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> Nope, but its the word that was asked about. Hence I replied telling my
> feelings about that word.
Uh, no one asked you if we were all "FURRIES!"
> > Does Lycanthropy or Theriomorphism ring a bell to you?
>
> Sure, but I sasnt talking abotu them.
You're getting off-track and arguing in miscomunnication already,
there might be hope for you yet to fit in here.
> Of course. I'm not really much of a muck/mush person... I posted those
> examples cause when i have gone there... ive noticed when i try to talk
> about irl sex with the term yiff, people look at me funny.
People are looking at you funny over here too.
> Um, this newsgroup IS alt.fan.FURRY. HEnce, its safe to say, we all are
> into some form of furryism. Thats why I said it.
This is a very old News Group. Fans and Lifestylers have largely gone
their seperate ways over the years since it's inception. The word itself
is no longer Gospel here. In fact it avoided when possible.
> And my original post, if you note, was looking at a furry word from a
> linguistic point of view. I wasnt trying to make yiff-buddies (im
> happily married) nor even fur-buddies (id go to a chat area) but merely
> wanted to share a furry linguistic thing that I thought people might be
> interested in.
There's only 2 kinds of topics here, Dead Horses, and Advertisements.
Any contraversial term or idea linked with "furry" has already been
beat to death here and dragging it out again won't make any newbies
very popular to the group. All eveidence has mostly been admitted,
there is no court of appeals.
> Again, the onyl reason I brought up what furryism was was cause someoen
> asked me what the fandom meant to me. I dont have any sorta agenda here.
> *sigh*
Do you always try to answer trick questions?(hint: this is a trick question too)
-Ilr
ilr
> acceptance is a mixed bag here at best, and at worst, non-existant. I've
> seen people targeted for personal beliefs, relegious beliefs, sexual
> orientation, and weather or not the color blue
> makes for a good fur color. Thankfully, I haven't been targeted for such
> (although with this, I probably will be) juvinile reasons.
You ever been targeted for Bad Text formatting? ;)
Hey, we've all been targeted, more times than I can count myself,
it all depends on how well you can shake it off, learn from it, and
get back to making sense of life after it. I.Ei don't take it too hard
or worse, dismiss it as juevinile without a second thought.
-Ilr
Terry Whittier
Point two: Sounds like someone just volunteered to start a definitive Furry
dictionary.
David Caveney <cav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3AF8DEDA...@ix.netcom.com...
> Anyway, I just had a Historical Linguistics exam (took me over 3 hours
> and i STILL didnt finish, ick!) and for the question on semantic change,
> I used "yiff" as an example:) I basically said that furries are more
> Still, let's try to stop this change of yiff if we can:) Perhaps we can
Daniel Fox
> >So this isn't a furry newsgroup I take it?
>
> Oh, it is. But Usenet is like Douglas Adams's Babel Fish, which, by
> removing all barriers to communication, has caused more and bloodier
> wars than anything else in the history of creation. Furry fandom has
< Snip an excellent if depressing description of the state of furry
politics. >
I think that one should go in the FAQ, Kevin :)
Nebulous
ilr wrote
> And what's that stuff about "lovers"?
> Most Furry "Fans" hate z00philes worse than Hitler.
>
--
Nebulous Rikulau
My furcode
FFCs4a A- C* D H+ M- P++ R+ T+++ W Z+ Sm RLRB/AT a+ cn++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j+
p+ sm-
David Caveney
>
> Wonderful. And I don't mean that sarcasticly. Creative and brave.
>
> Point two: Sounds like someone just volunteered to start a definitive Furry
> dictionary.
>
Thanks for actually commenting on what I said rather than trying to play
a joke on me or nitpick on my view of furryism (which i always said was
only my view).
A furry dictionary? Fascinating... I can see it now, different dialects
for the difgferent areas... hmm. I'll think about it when I start going
to furcons and start getting into the scene more... if I feel like it, I
might go around interviewing people whove been in the fandom a long time
and hunting through ancient issues of furry literature to see how words
were used:)
Hmm, what WOULD be a good term for cyber... if we wanna let yiff stay
where it is? I guess one probably would be that they're kinda the same
thing and people would still use yiff. Hmm, still, a specialty term for
just cyber would help for people who want to use it specifically.
Something that doesnt sound cheesy or techy... something that doesnt
belittle the act or make it sound cheap. "neff" < net yiff? "Well, I was
kinda lonely when I went on Tapestries but I found a really nice wolf
guy there and we neffed a bit... he was pretty good." or..
"So, I was yiffin Amanda the other day." "neffing?" "yeah, we were
neffing"
Basicaly, yiff could be used for either, but when specificing, neff
would be used.
Thoughts?
Or maybe we need another word for phone sex? Maybe somethign that
focuses on the vocal sound of it... yarf? Could we use yarf for phone
sex?
Felyne32k
> -Ilr, who's too tired to try and defend THAT word today.
>
You're in luck. I'm too tired to try and attack it. At least for today.
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster is known to experience judgement
lapses brought by sleep deprivation. Take note of posting
time: anything beyond 11:30 PM, Pacific Standard Time is
likely to be influenced by this condition.
Felyne32k
says...
> Hey everyone here... I'm new to this newsgroup... tho not new to
> furrydom:) Well, I'm a scally really (electrum dragon), but in my human
AD&Der, I'll assume?
One interesting thing I've noticed about Furry is the incredible
perponderance of 'power' creatures. Predators and huge powerful
herbivores. I'm wondering if it has something to do with deep-rooted
psychological reactions to a lack of RL power. Maybe I've been listening
to my psych-major friend too much.
Anyhow: some proofs:
Tigers, panthers, etc: predators. Typically high-level ones, too.
Wolves, canids: Particularly interesting here. Not only are these
predators, but also highly social animals. This could be a manifestation
of desires resulting from a lack of social contact.
Horses: Anyone who thinks a horse is a gentle, harmless animal has
obviously never been kicked by one.
Dragons: the ultimate predators.
Minks, ferrets, rodentia: These things can be surprisingly vicious
when they're angry. Also related to the wolverine, which is the Prime
Example of huge-animal-in-a-not-so-huge-animal's-body.
Just a thought.
> form (irl) i'm quite a bit furry:) Oh, and my love is furry too... cute
> feline... Fraisala:)
>
> Anyway, I just had a Historical Linguistics exam (took me over 3 hours
> and i STILL didnt finish, ick!) and for the question on semantic change,
> I used "yiff" as an example:) I basically said that furries are more
> open and accepting of sexual matters and more prone to discussing them.
> Hence, since "fuck" has derogatory and negative connotations, there was
> a gap where an unmarked word was needed for sexual intercourse. And so,
> yiff, a word used to describe a foxcall, semantically changed and became
> an unmarked synonym of "fuck". My professor is a middle-aged Jewish
> guy... so who knows how he's gonna take it. Ah, furriness forever!
>
You know what? I'm too damn tired today to comment on this, outside of my
hope that you were writing on the incredible progression of stupidity and
insipidness into an otherwise beautiful language. Go to GoogleGroups and
do a search for a huge argument a while back that I had with ilr, et al.
I'll keep the rest of this light (relatively).
<snips>
> Since there is no word for cybersex that doesnt sound cheesy and
> negatively marked, it could be that yiff could catch on in this new
> meaning. I really dont want this to happen, since I really like the word
> yiff in its present meaning and the new meaning kinda cheapens it. But,
> from my study of linguistics, if yiff does change semantically to mean
> only online sex, then likely another word will move into yiff's old
> place as an unmarked furry term for "fuck". PEople will need a word, so
> possibilities will be used, and eventually one will catch on.
>
Why use an exclusively furry term? It's not a furry pasttime. If it were,
humanity would never have gotten far enough to have furries to begin
with.
Variations on sexual intercourse:
"They made love under a delicate blanket of glittering stars."
"They had sex."
"They screwed each others' brains out."
"He fucked her."
"They passed the night in the warm, intimate embrace of lovers."
ad nauseum.
As is, you can already describe virtually any mood you need. I seriously
doubt that furry has developed to such an enlightened psychospiritual
plane that it needs a word all its own for an experience none of the
countless masters of the English language that came before it and
continue to come outside of it have experienced or can possibly explain.
I've said this before: you should at least have some advanced level of
competence in formal English before you try adding stuff onto it. You
have to know the rules in order to break them well.
> Still, let's try to stop this change of yiff if we can:) Perhaps we can
> create a new word and use it only in referring to cybnering? something
> that doesnt sound do cheesy? Also, educate people ya meet on mucks that
> yiff refers to any kind of furry sex, not just online.
>
'Yiff', even such as it is, doesn't have much by way of definition. I
think, if anything, it's better suited to MUCKish frivolity; there are
millions of better ways of describing a real encounter.
David Caveney
>
> AD&Der, I'll assume?
Well, D&Der now with 3e, but yes. More on that below.
> One interesting thing I've noticed about Furry is the incredible
> perponderance of 'power' creatures. Predators and huge powerful
> herbivores. I'm wondering if it has something to do with deep-rooted
> psychological reactions to a lack of RL power. Maybe I've been listening
> to my psych-major friend too much.
> Anyhow: some proofs:
> Tigers, panthers, etc: predators. Typically high-level ones, too.
> Wolves, canids: Particularly interesting here. Not only are these
> predators, but also highly social animals. This could be a manifestation
> of desires resulting from a lack of social contact.
> Horses: Anyone who thinks a horse is a gentle, harmless animal has
> obviously never been kicked by one.
> Dragons: the ultimate predators.
> Minks, ferrets, rodentia: These things can be surprisingly vicious
> when they're angry. Also related to the wolverine, which is the Prime
> Example of huge-animal-in-a-not-so-huge-animal's-body.
>
> Just a thought.
*giggles* This, of course, doesn't really apply to electrum dragons:)
According to the description written by Ed Greenwood (FR guru), Electrum
dragons are pretty philosophical in nature and hang around and are more
interested in objects of beauty than material wealth. They love magic
and find beauty in magic and love magical items. Etc Etc. They are about
the phsyically weakest dragon in the AD&D game:)
Well, when I read the description of an electrum dragon, i knew right
then that I WAS a draogn. I saw dragons in a whole new light and
realized that alot of the things i do are draconic. I didnt really
understand what this meant, cause i had never heard of furries or the
dragon culture (afd and stuff) but i KNEW I was a dragon.
Later, I discovered dragon fandom people (whom i in gneral dont really
get along too well with) and furries. Kinda was disappointing that so
many other people felt the same way as me... kinda less special. But, i
have found cool things like SeHT's poem, The Call of the Wind. Wow.
Exactly how I feel. Sometimes, when there is a breeze, I can feel where
I'd have wings. Cant really explain it to people who dont feel it.
> You know what? I'm too damn tired today to comment on this, outside of my
> hope that you were writing on the incredible progression of stupidity and
> insipidness into an otherwise beautiful language. Go to GoogleGroups and
> do a search for a huge argument a while back that I had with ilr, et al.
> I'll keep the rest of this light (relatively).
>
I happen to quite like the furry vocabulary, and "yiff" is one of my
favcorite words in English. English aint a very beautiful language,
really:)
> Why use an exclusively furry term? It's not a furry pasttime. If it were,
> humanity would never have gotten far enough to have furries to begin
> with.
> Variations on sexual intercourse:
>
> "They made love under a delicate blanket of glittering stars."
> "They had sex."
> "They screwed each others' brains out."
> "He fucked her."
> "They passed the night in the warm, intimate embrace of lovers."
> ad nauseum.
> As is, you can already describe virtually any mood you need. I seriously
> doubt that furry has developed to such an enlightened psychospiritual
> plane that it needs a word all its own for an experience none of the
> countless masters of the English language that came before it and
> continue to come outside of it have experienced or can possibly explain.
> I've said this before: you should at least have some advanced level of
> competence in formal English before you try adding stuff onto it. You
> have to know the rules in order to break them well.
All of the examples you give are quite marked. All have negative or
medical or such connotations with them. "Yiff" gives a basic,
noneuphemistic way of describing the act. No other word in english is
like that. There was a need among furries, and so the word took on that
meaning. It's a beautiful word:) Again, there is a big differenc between
an unmarked word and euphemisms and circumlocutions. It is the furry
community's (or part of the furry community's, or former furry
community's) open view towards sex that requires a new word, without any
of the bagage the other ones have.
> 'Yiff', even such as it is, doesn't have much by way of definition. I
> think, if anything, it's better suited to MUCKish frivolity; there are
> millions of better ways of describing a real encounter.
It does have a definition. No other word is quite like it:) A word is
defned by its usage, and it is used in a normal way that could easily be
defined. And well, even if it did semanticly shift to mean that, a new
word would take its place because the need for such a word is tehre
among furries.
I think we have very different views on "yiff" and what it means to be
"furry", oh well.
Cerulean
>Hmm, what WOULD be a good term for cyber... if we wanna let yiff stay
>where it is?
People often call it "Tinysex" or "TS" based on TinyMUCK. But I don't
particularly like that term because it sort of makes it sound
necessarily meaningless and cheap.
Dave Farrance
<cav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Silly me for thinking it was just about not judging people and accepting
>people for who they are:) Would "tolerance" be better?
Nope. The reactionaries here really are *that* screwed-up.
Felyne32k
Fely...@softhome.net says...
> In article <9daotk$vnl$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, i...@rof.net says...
>
> > -Ilr, who's too tired to try and defend THAT word today.
> >
> You're in luck. I'm too tired to try and attack it. At least for today.
I stand corrected. Caffeine. Man's best friend.
Felyne32k
says...
> Felyne32k wrote:
> > One interesting thing I've noticed about Furry is the incredible
> > perponderance of 'power' creatures. Predators and huge powerful
> > herbivores. I'm wondering if it has something to do with deep-rooted
> > psychological reactions to a lack of RL power. Maybe I've been listening
> > to my psych-major friend too much.
>
<snip proofs>
> > Just a thought.
>
> *giggles* This, of course, doesn't really apply to electrum dragons:) \
<snip ED description>
Psychologically speaking, I don't really think the little details matter
terribly much. Even if EDs are the 'weakest of dragons', they're still
really damn powerful animals. As archetypes go, dragons of virtually any
variety are universally symbolic of power; it doesn't change whether
you're studying European mythology or Asian myths, or even Native
American folktales (the big snake-spirits... forget what exactly they're
called). AD&D doesn't cut it for archetypal figuring.
> understand what this meant, cause i had never heard of furries or the
> dragon culture (afd and stuff) but i KNEW I was a dragon.
>
Awww, man... another one of you guys?
> Later, I discovered dragon fandom people (whom i in gneral dont really
> get along too well with) and furries. Kinda was disappointing that so
> many other people felt the same way as me... kinda less special. But, i
> have found cool things like SeHT's poem, The Call of the Wind. Wow.
> Exactly how I feel. Sometimes, when there is a breeze, I can feel where
> I'd have wings. Cant really explain it to people who dont feel it.
>
> > You know what? I'm too damn tired today to comment on this, outside of my
> > hope that you were writing on the incredible progression of stupidity and
> > insipidness into an otherwise beautiful language. Go to GoogleGroups and
> > do a search for a huge argument a while back that I had with ilr, et al.
> > I'll keep the rest of this light (relatively).
> >
>
> I happen to quite like the furry vocabulary, and "yiff" is one of my
> favcorite words in English. English aint a very beautiful language,
OED is the definitive guide of English. Last time I checked, "yiff" is
neither present in the OED'd or constructible by adding conventional
prefixes and suffixes. Therefore "Yiff" is not English but slang. In my
opinion, poor slang. But I'm tired and not going to retype several pages
of arguments. Go to GoogleGroups.
> really:)
In interest of civility, I'm not going to say anything right now.
Except that I think your scope of literature must be greatly limited.
>
> All of the examples you give are quite marked. All have negative or
> medical or such connotations with them. "Yiff" gives a basic,
They're also, from a literary standpoint, more elegant. Emotionally
Involved Sex is, at least in my view, a beautiful expression of the
culmination of emotional and physical love, and should be accorded
respect as such.
Hence,
> > "They passed the night in the warm, intimate embrace of lovers."
or
> > "They made love under a delicate blanket of glittering stars."
Physical Only Sex, on the other hand, is animalistic.
Hence,
"He fucked her."
and
"They screwed each others' brains out."
Fuck, particularly, implies the expression of dominance (which some would
have you believe is the entire point of sex to begin with)
And then you do have almost clinical descriptions:
"They had sex".
> noneuphemistic way of describing the act. No other word in english is
> like that. There was a need among furries, and so the word took on that
> meaning. It's a beautiful word:) Again, there is a big differenc between
My opinion is that if this was the case, the Furry community lacked the
ability to express itself well enough to begin with.
> an unmarked word and euphemisms and circumlocutions. It is the furry
But in this case, the word does an even poorer job than the existing
vocabulary. Even this miniscule community can't really decide what the
hell it expresses. You've said yourself that there's the cybersex-only
definition, the any-sexual-act definition, the loving-carefree-sexual-act
definition, ad nauseum (though, to me, MOST uses of the word are ad
nauseum already).
And especially when dealing with sexuality, 'euphemism and
curcumlocution' is often the most effective way of approaching it. Read
classical-era Chinese erotica (or translations). It was actually illegal
to use the 'mundane' names for organs, acts, etc in such work, and
punishable by death. And to tell you the truth, it's really good stuff. A
hell of a lot better than anything I've ever seen on FSE or any of the
archives. And even in the translations, they DO describe the carefree-
loving-sexual-act. And never have to invent words for it.
I've said this before: Learn the rules, THEN break them. You'll often
find that there isn't a need to.
> community's (or part of the furry community's, or former furry
> community's) open view towards sex that requires a new word, without any
> of the bagage the other ones have.
>
> > 'Yiff', even such as it is, doesn't have much by way of definition. I
> > think, if anything, it's better suited to MUCKish frivolity; there are
> > millions of better ways of describing a real encounter.
>
> It does have a definition. No other word is quite like it:) A word is
> defned by its usage, and it is used in a normal way that could easily be
> defined. And well, even if it did semanticly shift to mean that, a new
So? I made up the word "Frehju" last time this argument came about. It
meant "to make an incredible fool of oneself". There isn't another word
quite like it, and the diction was perfectly normal.
Doesn't mean it's a good word.
> word would take its place because the need for such a word is tehre
> among furries.
And furries, on the whole, don't seem to be able to pick up on the
elegant use of language.
>
> I think we have very different views on "yiff" and what it means to be
> "furry", oh well.
<shrug> That's the nature of the beast. But I don't think that
ideological/lingusitic differences really change whether or not something
is good or not.
For example: /Journey to the West/ is a literary masterpiece in
Chinese, so much so that it is considered one of the four greatest
literary works ever produced in the language. If you get a good
translation, it's *still* a literary masterpiece.
Conversely, "Battlefield Earth" is crap in English. I'm told it's
just as bad in other languages.
David Caveney
>
> Psychologically speaking, I don't really think the little details matter
> terribly much. Even if EDs are the 'weakest of dragons', they're still
> really damn powerful animals. As archetypes go, dragons of virtually any
> variety are universally symbolic of power; it doesn't change whether
> you're studying European mythology or Asian myths, or even Native
> American folktales (the big snake-spirits... forget what exactly they're
> called). AD&D doesn't cut it for archetypal figuring.
You're not one for details, are ya.
>
> > understand what this meant, cause i had never heard of furries or the
> > dragon culture (afd and stuff) but i KNEW I was a dragon.
> >
>
> Awww, man... another one of you guys?
Yes, a furry. How odd in a place like alt.fan.furry. Wow.
> OED is the definitive guide of English. Last time I checked, "yiff" is
> neither present in the OED'd or constructible by adding conventional
> prefixes and suffixes. Therefore "Yiff" is not English but slang. In my
> opinion, poor slang. But I'm tired and not going to retype several pages
> of arguments. Go to GoogleGroups.
OED is the definitive guide to English as used in literature. It is not
the definitive guide to spoken English, which as any linguist will tell
you, is the primary form of a language. Yes, yiff is a slang word
currently, restricted to the furry community (but spreading). It is,
however, english slang. Languages change and yiff provides a perfect
example of a semantic change. That's why I used it on my exam.
>
> In interest of civility, I'm not going to say anything right now.
> Except that I think your scope of literature must be greatly limited.
Yeah... my scope of literature is so limited that it includes not only
English lit but the lit of other languages that to me are more
beautiful. Ancient Aeolic Greek is a beautiful language, and one poet
who wrote in that language, is, in my opinion, one of the most
influential and fantastic poets in the history of the western world. The
Ancients enjoyed her writings and were greatly influenced by them.
Unfortunately, copies of her work do not survive to the present day so
all we have left is what other writers quoted of her... 1 full poem, a
few mostly complete poems, and tons of scraps. And ya know why? Cause
around 1200 something, I believe, the Catholic church decides that her
work was too dangerous and sinful (they obviously hadnt read it) because
it might in fact mention women having emotions and sexual reactions and
or encounters with otehr women. Atleast the Greeks, although a highly
patriarchal society, were intelligent enough to recognize genius.
So yeah, I am not too keen on intolerance. The burning of those books
probably influenced all of modern cultural history.
>
> >
> > All of the examples you give are quite marked. All have negative or
> > medical or such connotations with them. "Yiff" gives a basic,
>
> They're also, from a literary standpoint, more elegant. Emotionally
> Involved Sex is, at least in my view, a beautiful expression of the
> culmination of emotional and physical love, and should be accorded
> respect as such.
Yiff accords it respect, alot more so than "had sex" and "fuck" and
such. And we are talking about the usage of a word in speech, not
literature. It's a good solid word. One of the reasons I like it is
because it DOES accord the act the respect it deserves without bringing
any other silly things in. When a word is basic to conversation and
such, a basic word is needed. If there weren't a need, the word yiff
woulda just been a curiousity only for the peopel who invented it.
Instead, it spread because others needed it to. That is how alot of
semantic change works in language.
> Hence,
> > > "They passed the night in the warm, intimate embrace of lovers."
> or
> > > "They made love under a delicate blanket of glittering stars."
>
> Physical Only Sex, on the other hand, is animalistic.
> Hence,
> "He fucked her."
> and
> "They screwed each others' brains out."
> Fuck, particularly, implies the expression of dominance (which some would
> have you believe is the entire point of sex to begin with)
>
> And then you do have almost clinical descriptions:
> "They had sex".
>
Animalistic sex does not have to be unemotional. None of those words is
good as a basic word for the act, like yiff is. None are really good for
constant use in basic conversation. They all bring baggage. Wouldnt
there be a mess of we just had terms for "IBM" "MAC" "mainfraime"
"SUnSparc" but had no one term for a computer?
> > noneuphemistic way of describing the act. No other word in english is
> > like that. There was a need among furries, and so the word took on that
> > meaning. It's a beautiful word:) Again, there is a big differenc between
>
> My opinion is that if this was the case, the Furry community lacked the
> ability to express itself well enough to begin with.
No. Another term was needed to use as a general, unmarked term. A term
with good connotaions, not taboo or derogarory or clinical or
romancenovelish ones. The need is there, and then teh word yiff changes
from a fox sound to a word for sex. Yes... they lacked the ability to
express something... because there was no word in English for it.
>
> > an unmarked word and euphemisms and circumlocutions. It is the furry
>
> But in this case, the word does an even poorer job than the existing
> vocabulary. Even this miniscule community can't really decide what the
> hell it expresses. You've said yourself that there's the cybersex-only
> definition, the any-sexual-act definition, the loving-carefree-sexual-act
> definition, ad nauseum (though, to me, MOST uses of the word are ad
> nauseum already).
The cybersex definition is a secondary meaning. Yiff includes all sex.
Newbies who come onto a furry mush or muck hear furries use yiff to mean
cyber sex. Since that is what is talked about, they never hear it refer
to irl sex. Also, its a new term to them, and there is the lack of a
good term for cyber, so tehy think yiff must mean that. Currently, it is
a misinterpretation. Hopefully itll stay that way.
At it's root, it is a noun and a verb denoting any kind of sexual
activity, withotu any negative connotations. Definition comes from
usage, and that is how it's used.
> And especially when dealing with sexuality, 'euphemism and
> curcumlocution' is often the most effective way of approaching it. Read
> classical-era Chinese erotica (or translations). It was actually illegal
> to use the 'mundane' names for organs, acts, etc in such work, and
> punishable by death. And to tell you the truth, it's really good stuff. A
> hell of a lot better than anything I've ever seen on FSE or any of the
> archives. And even in the translations, they DO describe the carefree-
> loving-sexual-act. And never have to invent words for it.
It was the most effective in classical China, and in many other
societies. This is a different community, however, which is more open
about talking about sex. We aren't trapped in the old patriarchal-biased
structure (atleastnot as much...) and now have a much more open and less
restricted view of the subject and a better word was needed for the
furry community.
>
> I've said this before: Learn the rules, THEN break them. You'll often
> find that there isn't a need to.
The rules were known. But they wren't furry rules. The whole reason yiff
has survived is because people needed a way to express basic sexual
activity without silly euphemisms or the like. Furries dont look at sex
like something that needs circumlocution or euphemism. A word basically
like "fuck" was wanted, but without the negative connotations. And so
one came in.
>
> > community's (or part of the furry community's, or former furry
> > community's) open view towards sex that requires a new word, without any
> > of the bagage the other ones have.
> >
> > > 'Yiff', even such as it is, doesn't have much by way of definition. I
> > > think, if anything, it's better suited to MUCKish frivolity; there are
> > > millions of better ways of describing a real encounter.
> >
> > It does have a definition. No other word is quite like it:) A word is
> > defned by its usage, and it is used in a normal way that could easily be
> > defined. And well, even if it did semanticly shift to mean that, a new
>
> So? I made up the word "Frehju" last time this argument came about. It
> meant "to make an incredible fool of oneself". There isn't another word
> quite like it, and the diction was perfectly normal.
> Doesn't mean it's a good word.
That's your word. Yiff has aquired a definition by years of use in the
furry community. Yes, if FRehju catches on with others, then itll be a
normal word. However, I dont think its needed. Since people dont need
it, its unlikely that theyll use it. And yiff already existed as a
foxcall... all that happened was its meaning changed. Yiff IS a good
word to alot of us. I happen to not like the word "cybersex". I think
I'll start using neff instead and see if it catches.
>
> > word would take its place because the need for such a word is tehre
> > among furries.
>
> And furries, on the whole, don't seem to be able to pick up on the
> elegant use of language.
Sure they do:) But there was a need for a basic term. You are hugely
confusing literary conventions with speech community conventions.
> <shrug> That's the nature of the beast. But I don't think that
> ideological/lingusitic differences really change whether or not something
> is good or not.
> For example: /Journey to the West/ is a literary masterpiece in
> Chinese, so much so that it is considered one of the four greatest
> literary works ever produced in the language. If you get a good
> translation, it's *still* a literary masterpiece.
> Conversely, "Battlefield Earth" is crap in English. I'm told it's
> just as bad in other languages.
Perhaps, but I imagine it loses atleast something in the translation.
Sappho often loses alot in the translation... but poetry is more
dependent on all of the subtlies of each individual word. On the whole,
poetry rarely translates well. Hell, without knowing more about the
connotations of one word Sappho uses, most people (as I at first) arent
able to get the whole point of it being used. A pitty too, cause it
makes the entire poem pretty amusing and meaningful.
Btw, oftenb, when I said "furries" here, I was talking about the kind of
furries who started using "yiff". For those of you not into those
things, dont take that usage as an affront to your furriness. All the
furries I used to know are what you guys would call "lifestylers" I
think... its only in the last few years that ive seen tons of
nonlifestylers cropping up who call themselves furries. I donno tho, I
wasnt into the scene much back then and I'm still not really.
The first def I ever heard of a furry was a person who is really an
animal or thinks he is an animal.
David Caveney
>
> People often call it "Tinysex" or "TS" based on TinyMUCK. But I don't
> particularly like that term because it sort of makes it sound
> necessarily meaningless and cheap.
Yup. I dont much care for that term myself... doesnt really sound furry.
Plus its not a basic verb like yiff is. Hence, I propose "neff":)
Rainbow 'Roo
wrote:
>In article <3AF8DEDA...@ix.netcom.com>, cav...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>> Hey everyone here... I'm new to this newsgroup... tho not new to
>> furrydom:) Well, I'm a scally really (electrum dragon), but in my human
>
>AD&Der, I'll assume?
>One interesting thing I've noticed about Furry is the incredible
>perponderance of 'power' creatures. Predators and huge powerful
>herbivores. I'm wondering if it has something to do with deep-rooted
>psychological reactions to a lack of RL power. Maybe I've been listening
>to my psych-major friend too much.
>Anyhow: some proofs:
> Tigers, panthers, etc: predators. Typically high-level ones, too.
> Wolves, canids: Particularly interesting here. Not only are these
>predators, but also highly social animals. This could be a manifestation
>of desires resulting from a lack of social contact.
> Horses: Anyone who thinks a horse is a gentle, harmless animal has
>obviously never been kicked by one.
> Dragons: the ultimate predators.
> Minks, ferrets, rodentia: These things can be surprisingly vicious
>when they're angry. Also related to the wolverine, which is the Prime
>Example of huge-animal-in-a-not-so-huge-animal's-body.
Er...how about a kangaroo? O=)
-Rainbow Roo
ICQ the 'roo!: 93127116
Remove the rooness! in my email to email me.. O=)
Furry Code:
FMaK3acm A C++ D+++ H++ M++ P+++ R- T+++ W Z Sf+ RLLW a22 cd++ d++ e+ f++++ h* iw++ j p+ sm-
Dr. Cat
: Most Furry "Fans" hate z00philes worse than Hitler.
Really? How much *did* Hitler hate z00philes, precisely?
: We ain't here to be accepted, we function just fine out there in the
: real world when we feel like it, we don't come here for brotherhood,
: we just come here find out what's happening in the cross-over of
: Furry stuff and mainstream society. No one's handed anyone else
: here a cookie in 2 months. And scritching's illegal.
Silly me, I thought everyone came here for different reasons, rather than
everyone coming here for the same reason. Here, ilr, have a cookie. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: What is the sound of one hand plonking?)
Sarenthalanos
(snip)
> The first def I ever heard of a furry was a person who is really an
> animal or thinks he is an animal.
That's commonly called shamanism or animal spiritualism. It's not the total
definition of "furry" (and a lot don't consider it to be a definition
either, as it's not about the appreciation of furry artworks and more
towards shamanistic and animal spiritualistic beliefs being superimposed
onto a convenient medium and then blurred into), and I suggest you don't
paint in absolutes or insist it's THE definition, as you'll be about as
popular around here as a fart in church. It really depends on the person,
but many have their own definition. From enjoying anthropomorphic and
zoomorphic artwork, to those who take it as meaning shamanism or animal
spiritualism.
Original definition and origin was meaning those who like furry artwork,
i.e. anthrop and zoomorph art and associated things. In transit, it got
blurred. Not saying that's a bad thing or whatever, but don't insist on
your view to be the absolute right one, because people will have a
difference with it. Particularly those who have been around a while or came
into the fandom for what it revolves around.
-Sar
Felyne32k
Rainbowroo@rooness!socal.rr.com says...
> On Wed, 9 May 2001 22:56:37 -0700, Fely...@softhome.net (Felyne32k)
> wrote:
> >One interesting thing I've noticed about Furry is the incredible
> >perponderance of 'power' creatures. Predators and huge powerful
> >herbivores. I'm wondering if it has something to do with deep-rooted
> >psychological reactions to a lack of RL power. Maybe I've been listening
> -Rainbow Roo
>
<laugh>
It's not an absolutist statement, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm
just mentioning something I see.
Cerulean
> Hence, I propose "neff":)
It rhymes with "F" ("eff"), which makes it sound like it's short for
"net-fvck". Also, there's this word I keep hearing from other
English-speaking countries, "naff", and I don't know what it means,
but from context I think it's negative. The sound association between
the two would be unavoidable.
Sarenthalanos
Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote in message
news:3afb15e0...@news.fur.com...
(snip)
> Also, there's this word I keep hearing from other
> English-speaking countries, "naff", and I don't know what it means,
> but from context I think it's negative. The sound association between
> the two would be unavoidable.
Naff means something akin to "cliche" among other possible meanings,
ironically enough... :-)
-Sar
(One of the sources I looked up has this to say:
Word History: In the dual tradition of looking to one's betters for models
of how to use language and American obeisance to British usage, let us look
at two British words spelled naff. One is an adjective, meaning "clichéd,
unstylish" (first recorded in 1969), that may be derived from dialectal
words such as naffhead, "simpleton," or niffy-naffy, "stupid." The other
naff is a verb, usually used in the imperative in combination with off
(first recorded in 1959). This is the delicate injunction that members of
the royal family such as Princess Anne have used in requesting members of
the press to beat it. The origin of naff is unknown, but it has been
suggested that naff may be related to an older English slang term naf,
meaning "the female sexual organ." Naf has been derived from a backward
spelling of fan, from fanny.)
Felyne32k
says...
> Felyne32k wrote:
> >
> > Psychologically speaking, I don't really think the little details matter
> > terribly much. Even if EDs are the 'weakest of dragons', they're still
> > really damn powerful animals. As archetypes go, dragons of virtually any
> > variety are universally symbolic of power; it doesn't change whether
> > you're studying European mythology or Asian myths, or even Native
> > American folktales (the big snake-spirits... forget what exactly they're
> > called). AD&D doesn't cut it for archetypal figuring.
>
> You're not one for details, are ya.
As far as archetypes go, details aren't terribly significant.
Let's drag out my AD&D References...
Let's see... Dragon, Electrum...
ARMOR CLASS: -1 (base)
MOVE: 14, Fl 40 (C), Jp 3
HIT DICE: 13 (base)
THAC0: 7 (base)
NO. OF ATTACKS: 3 + special
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1-8/1-8/6-24 (6d4)
Thirteen hit dice? BASE? I'd say that's a damn powerful animal.
>
> >
> > > understand what this meant, cause i had never heard of furries or the
> > > dragon culture (afd and stuff) but i KNEW I was a dragon.
> > >
> >
> > Awww, man... another one of you guys?
>
> Yes, a furry. How odd in a place like alt.fan.furry. Wow.
Well, I hang out here, and I collect the artwork, so I guess I'm a
furry. But I'm not any sort of non-human animal. I don't "KNOW" I'm a
cat, dog, wolf, or thirty-two-foot flying lizard; I have enough mental
strain. I don't need cross-species belief to add to that.
I personall don't think being able to say "i KNEW I was a dragon" to
be anything other than a sign of severe mental breakdown. If you can shed
a few scales and mail them to me, I might change my mind. Until then...
>
> > OED is the definitive guide of English. Last time I checked, "yiff" is
> > neither present in the OED'd or constructible by adding conventional
> > prefixes and suffixes. Therefore "Yiff" is not English but slang. In my
> > opinion, poor slang. But I'm tired and not going to retype several pages
> > of arguments. Go to GoogleGroups.
>
> OED is the definitive guide to English as used in literature. It is not
> the definitive guide to spoken English, which as any linguist will tell
> you, is the primary form of a language. Yes, yiff is a slang word
And most competent writers, I find, will tell you that language is
constantly degenerating because of this. Until you can show me a good
writer who can use 'yiff' outside of deliberate dialect without coming
off looking like an idiot, I'm going to believe that it's an abomination
in the written form.
> currently, restricted to the furry community (but spreading).
Is it? I think, outside of a few mindless VFair readers, that, outside of
its spread from gaydom, it's stayed pretty much in place.
I swear, the day that "Yiff" makes it into the OED is the day I lose all
hope in the intelligence of the human race.
> It is,
> however, english slang. Languages change and yiff provides a perfect
> example of a semantic change. That's why I used it on my exam.
Now...
If I remember correctly, semantic change is like toilet-the-act-of-
cleaning-oneself to toilet-the-ceramic-end-of-the-sewer-pipe.
Yiff meant a cheap, mindless fuck when it was created (Reference
Bahamut's post), and, really, it means cheap, mindless fuck now.
>
> >
> > In interest of civility, I'm not going to say anything right now.
> > Except that I think your scope of literature must be greatly limited.
>
> Yeah... my scope of literature is so limited that it includes not only
> English lit but the lit of other languages that to me are more
> beautiful. Ancient Aeolic Greek is a beautiful language, and one poet
But you said that English isn't a beautiful language. And that's just
wrong. Now, if you want to argue that there are MORE beautiful
languages... sure, I'll agree with you. But you didn't say that.
I personally think that the Sistine Chapel is more beautiful than a
Jackson Pollock, but that doesn't prevent me from saying that a Jackson
Pollock can be a very beautiful thing.
> who wrote in that language, is, in my opinion, one of the most
> influential and fantastic poets in the history of the western world. The
> Ancients enjoyed her writings and were greatly influenced by them.
> Unfortunately, copies of her work do not survive to the present day so
> all we have left is what other writers quoted of her... 1 full poem, a
> few mostly complete poems, and tons of scraps. And ya know why? Cause
> around 1200 something, I believe, the Catholic church decides that her
> work was too dangerous and sinful (they obviously hadnt read it) because
Now who's not big on details? That's a hundred-year span, there... And
then a charge of judging things without having read them. Typically the
Church has been a lot slower to react. SOMEBODY read them and made the
decision.
Now... here's an interesting question...
If all the works were burned... how can they be really a huge influence
on all of Western poetry, as you suggested? The entire Renaissance would
have missed out on her. While you could say that her influence passed
through the other writers of her time and after, there comes a point when
said influence can be attributed to the other writers, and not her,
because any of her ideas would have become incredibly diluted. It's like
saying that I draw a great influence from whoever it was that might have
had a great influence on Homer. Homer influenced an incredible number of
Greco-Roman era poets, who would in turn influence the beginnings of
English, and would, after some period of neglect, be read by the
influential writers of the Renaissance, who would, in turn, greatly
influence others, up through Emerson and Thoreau, who HAVE influenced me
to a great extent. But should I credit whoever influenced Homer? No; I've
never read them, and their residual impact is next to nil once you get up
through Emerson and Thoreau. I've read Homer, sure, but that's not being
influenced by people who influenced Homer. That's being influenced by
Homer.
> it might in fact mention women having emotions and sexual reactions and
> or encounters with otehr women. Atleast the Greeks, although a highly
> patriarchal society, were intelligent enough to recognize genius.
>
> So yeah, I am not too keen on intolerance. The burning of those books
> probably influenced all of modern cultural history.
>
Balls. I seriously doubt that Wu Cheng'en (1500-1582) or Shi Nai'an and
Lou Guanzhong (1300s) gave a shit one way or the other, being a continent
removed. And their works influenced Chinese culture immensely. I
seriously doubt that even you can say that over a society of over a
billion people doesn't constitute a significant chunk of 'modern
culture'.
> > They're also, from a literary standpoint, more elegant. Emotionally
> > Involved Sex is, at least in my view, a beautiful expression of the
> > culmination of emotional and physical love, and should be accorded
> > respect as such.
>
> Yiff accords it respect, alot more so than "had sex" and "fuck" and
> such. And we are talking about the usage of a word in speech, not
It makes it sound like some childish game you can get the entire family
involved in, like a 'round-the-dinner-table game of Clue or Monopoly.
> such, a basic word is needed. If there weren't a need, the word yiff
> woulda just been a curiousity only for the peopel who invented it.
It is. When's the last time you saw a serious non-furry writer use it?
Hell, when's the last time you saw a serious furry writer use it? I've
never actually seen it used in a story where I didn't instantly think of
better ways to describe the act or situation. I've never seen it used in
an essay of any significant quality except in quotes.
> Instead, it spread because others needed it to. That is how alot of
> semantic change works in language.
>
> Animalistic sex does not have to be unemotional. None of those words is
No, but animalistic sex wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking
about physical-only sex, which tends to be more animalistic. All gold
glitters, but not all that glitters is gold. I'm sure you're familiar
with that topic. In cases like this, clipped, harsh words with hostile
connotations are better than your all-purpose 'yiff'.
> good as a basic word for the act, like yiff is. None are really good for
> constant use in basic conversation. They all bring baggage. Wouldnt
> there be a mess of we just had terms for "IBM" "MAC" "mainfraime"
> "SUnSparc" but had no one term for a computer?
>
<sarcasm>
Why don't we just reduce everything to 'stuff' instead of being able to
say what we mean?
"Stuff did stuff"
"I stuffed stuff"
"Stuff is stuff."
</sarcasm>
Blegh.
> > > noneuphemistic way of describing the act. No other word in english is
> > > like that. There was a need among furries, and so the word took on that
> > > meaning. It's a beautiful word:) Again, there is a big differenc between
> >
> > My opinion is that if this was the case, the Furry community lacked the
> > ability to express itself well enough to begin with.
>
> No. Another term was needed to use as a general, unmarked term. A term
> with good connotaions, not taboo or derogarory or clinical or
> romancenovelish ones. The need is there, and then teh word yiff changes
> from a fox sound to a word for sex. Yes... they lacked the ability to
> express something... because there was no word in English for it.
>
Reference Bahamut's post on the actual origins of the term.
> >
> At it's root, it is a noun and a verb denoting any kind of sexual
> activity, withotu any negative connotations. Definition comes from
> usage, and that is how it's used.
Suppose I find 1000 people (Probably a large enough group of people for
your sake, if you're willing to grant 'yiff' word-status) who are willing
to use "a Caveney" as a synonym for something with the writing ability of
a large brick, but in as positive a way as possible. Are you going to say
that that should be a good word, then, because we don't have a single
word that denotes "something with the writing ability of a large brick,
but in as positive a way as possible"?
I doubt it.
> > classical-era Chinese erotica (or translations). It was actually illegal
> > to use the 'mundane' names for organs, acts, etc in such work, and
> > punishable by death. And to tell you the truth, it's really good stuff. A
> It was the most effective in classical China, and in many other
> societies. This is a different community, however, which is more open
> about talking about sex. We aren't trapped in the old patriarchal-biased
> structure (atleastnot as much...) and now have a much more open and less
> restricted view of the subject and a better word was needed for the
> furry community.
>
Some days I think the classical-era Chinese had a lot of things right. If
you've ever studied classical China, you know that one thing they weren't
was repressive.
> >
> > I've said this before: Learn the rules, THEN break them. You'll often
> > find that there isn't a need to.
>
> The rules were known. But they wren't furry rules. The whole reason yiff
Somehow I think that Strunk and White supercedes anything this
fandom can dream up.
> it, its unlikely that theyll use it. And yiff already existed as a
> foxcall... all that happened was its meaning changed. Yiff IS a good
Read Bahamut's post.
>
> Sure they do:) But there was a need for a basic term. You are hugely
> confusing literary conventions with speech community conventions.
>
Perhaps. But I say that the community that wrought /Civil Disobedience/,
/Walden/, /The love-song of J Alfred Prufrock/, /1984/, /Brave New
World/, /Utopia/, /Stranger in a Strange Land/, /Dracula/,
/Frankenstein/, and so on, ad infinitum, generally takes a huge amount of
linguistic precedence over the community that spawned BoKD and company,
no matter where you're discussing it.
ilr
"Dr. Cat" <c...@sullivan.realtime.net> wrote in message news:3afb0...@feed1.realtime.net...
> ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote:
> : Most Furry "Fans" hate z00philes worse than Hitler.
>
> Really? How much *did* Hitler hate z00philes, precisely?
Are both of ya being smart-asses? Just in case there's any confusion,
it should read:
"Most Furry "Fans" hate z00philes worse than they hate Hitler"
...Or atleast that's the observation I've cam away with over the years,
and there's plenty of other groups hated too, and I think it sux
> : We ain't here to be accepted, we function just fine out there in the
> : real world when we feel like it, we don't come here for brotherhood,
> : we just come here find out what's happening in the cross-over of
> : Furry stuff and mainstream society. No one's handed anyone else
> : here a cookie in 2 months. And scritching's illegal.
>
> Silly me, I thought everyone came here for different reasons, rather than
> everyone coming here for the same reason. Here, ilr, have a cookie. :X)
>
Oh no ya don't, too late for that, you can't buy me off for just a cookie,
it's gonna take a Moon-pie now ;)
> (Disclaimer: What is the sound of one hand plonking?)
WTF does that mean??? I'm not gonna start putting <sarcasm> tags on all
my posts that contain it just because some furries are notoriously one-sided
about Satire. I'm not the only one who's sense of humor leaves a lot of
room for interpretation good Dr.
-Ilr
Charles Melville
David Caveney wrote:
> Cerulean wrote:
> >
> > I think you're a bit late. Here on alt.fan.furry, where tempers run
> > hot, and where common belief is that sex is the root of all problems,
> > people have already been seen saying things like "yiff you, asshole,"
> > wasting the word to redundancy. At about the same time, there were
> > objections to the very existence of the word "yiff" because it _is_ a
> > happy-sounding word and therefore trivializes something that
> > (according to the complainant) _should_ only be represented by an
> > angry-sounding word.
> >
>
> So this isn't a furry newsgroup I take it?
Not as you seem to perceive it. The term 'furry' has different
meanings betwixt here and Alt.Lifestyle.Furry. Around here, we're Furry
Fans. meaning folks who enjoy and/or create furry related art, comics,
stories, games, cartoons, etc.
> Where have all the furries gone...
Speaking for myself, -I- am not a furry.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Charles Melville
David Caveney wrote:
> If anyone bans me from a con for what I said, I am glad. I wouldnt want
> to be at that con anyway. Oi! What the hell is wrong with the people you
> describe? We're FURRIES!
I'm not. I'm a cartoonist who draws funny animals.
Charles Melville
Dragonoix wrote:
> Greetings,
> Hmmmmm.. I always thought that yiff was a acronym that originated in
> Albedo which meant 'Young Insatiable Fuckable Foxes" ;)
We'll have to ask Steve about that, but, frankly, I don't recall the term
ever appearing in ALBEDO.
Dr. Cat
: and in fact the very concept of "acceptance" is repulsive to some people.
Here's a quick peek into how MY twisted brain works. The faint of heart or
queasy of stomach may want to skip past the rest of this post now and go
read the next one.
Hmmm, acceptance is repulsive? How odd a thought, it must be made fun of.
But what do you get if you twist it around backwards, or sideways? Most
immediately obvious are "repulsiveness is acceptable" or "I find the
concept of repulsiveness to be repulsive".
The latter leads to an infinite loop, which is good and loony, but it too
directly and clearly states my political view (people who get repulsed by
acceptance (or just plain get repulsed a lot) really suck), so it's not
devious and insidious enough. My views are supposed to sneak quietly into
your brain while it appears that I'm just making harmless jokes. Much in
the way that Eric Blumrich's ideas simple don't. Plus it just mentions
one of the concepts of repulsive and acceptance, I mention repulsive twice
and acceptance not at all. So it's not as strongly tied to the line I'm
making fun of, nor is it as confusing as I could have made it.
What else are we left with? I could follow up the line like this:
: and in fact the very concept of "acceptance" is repulsive to some people.
Oh? Well I totally accept their repulsion at that concept.
But oh no, now *I* am displaying acceptance! They must find
this repulsive in me! And I accept their repulsion towards
me, as I just said above! They hate me and I like that!
Aieeeeee! This is too complicated, how do all those people
that are repulsed by acceptance accept each OTHER without their
brains leaping out of their heads? AAAAAAAAAAAH!
Now that's sufficiently warped to suit my tastes, so I'll leave it at that.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Actually those people DON'T accept each other. See for
example Ben Bruin, Gabriel Gentile, Squeerat, Hangdog, etc. Those four
won't be playing bridge together any time soon.)
(Disclaimer disclaimer: Only because they don't like playing bridge though.
All kidding aside now, and please don't sue me for slander for what I said
before, or is it libel? Well don't sue me for either! All kidding aside,
the four of them are bestest bosom buddies, will soon be starring on a CBS
sitcom together playing themselves, and Hangdog is currently pregnant with
Ben Bruin's love child.)
Terry Whittier
assignment.
I thought your analysis of the word and the way you presented its usage was
top notch research and presentation work. College level stuff.
Regarding a dictionary, it would be great if someone could take the time to
put a stake in the ground at this point in the fandom's history, and map out
the fandom's specialized language as it exists in use today. No time like
the present.
You would have to pull from a lot of sources, get people to send you
examples of usage, and where they first saw the words used. This kind of
work is called lexicography. Fun work.
Speaking of dictionaries, have you ever heard of the book about the writing
of the Oxford English Dictionary, called "The Professor and the Madman?"
It's about a criminally insane doctor who becomes the most important
contributor to the compilation of the dictionary, while working out of a
study he had built for him in an insane asylum in England. It's a wild
story.
There was an interview with the author of the book on NPR, on the 09-30-1998
program "Fresh Air"
David Caveney <cav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3AFA0BE7...@ix.netcom.com...
Terry Whittier
of someone being banned for saying what you said in your posts. There wasn't
anything I would consider inflammatory in your comments.
David Caveney <cav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3AF9B525...@ix.netcom.com...
> If anyone bans me from a con for what I said, I am glad. I wouldnt want
> to be at that con anyway. Oi! What the hell is wrong with the people you
> describe? We're FURRIES!
>
> Cerulean wrote:
> >
> > Quoth David Caveney:
> >
> > >So this isn't a furry newsgroup I take it?
> >
Bahumat
ago. No idea if they have an online presence, but if I can find the
back-copy, I'll scan it.
Bahumat
David Caveney wrote:
>
> Well dont youjust make me look like a fool:P
>
> Sheesh, most places only do this in late march and early april. Hmm.
> I've checked every slang dictionary i could find... even a brit slang
> one etc, even online ones... no mention of the word yiff. Hmm. And alot
> of other gayslang word, so I was wondering...
>
> Btw, i was thinking about it. Telling someone to "yiff off" wouldnt make
> any sense at all... to me, at most it could be telling somoen to go have
> some nice sex with someone to relieve stress. Thats wha tit sounds like.
> I dont think yiff as a curse will stick... itsjust not part of the
> meaning. It'snot a synonym for fuck since we dont have a word "fucky" or
> the like... its just its own nice little unmarked word. I like it:)
>
> Reagan wrote:
> >
> > (insert anything else you've been saying recently along with this)
> > >Wow, fascinating! Tell me know, did the gay community use it as a verb
> > >or did the furries start that? If yiff drops outa usage, itd be funny if
> > >yarf or something came in to take its plance... thatd be by folk
> > >etymology, basically.
> > >
> > >Have any references on the y.i.f.f. thing so i can check it out?
> >
> > O.o
> >
> > Um. Dude, learn to not take the fandom too seriously, it can be EXTREMELY bad
> > for your health.
> >
> > *goes back to Lurkland*
> >
> > "I am a dead man, please bring me a toothpick."
Wtcher Dragon
ilr wrote:
> > (Disclaimer: What is the sound of one hand plonking?)
>
> WTF does that mean??? I'm not gonna start putting <sarcasm> tags on all
> my posts that contain it just because some furries are notoriously one-sided
> about Satire. I'm not the only one who's sense of humor leaves a lot of
> room for interpretation good Dr.
> -Ilr
Perhaps that was an example of his famous humour ;)
Jen Stantz
> In article <3AFAB95D...@ix.netcom.com>, cav...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
<snip>
>
> > understand what this meant, cause i had never heard of furries or the
> > dragon culture (afd and stuff) but i KNEW I was a dragon.
>
> I personall don't think being able to say "i KNEW I was a dragon" to be anything
> other than a sign of severe mental breakdown. If you can shed a few scales and
> mail them to me, I might change my mind. Until then...
I've heard lots of people say to me "I'm <blank> animal" and all of them are sane
enough to be productive members of society. Saying "I know I'm <animal>" more has
to do with mental-behavioral traits; species are known to have certain
social/mental attributes and one finds these attributes in oneself therefore
identifies with the animal. YMMV, this is just what I've seen/heard/otherwise
noticed.
Dreamstalker Wolf
David Caveney
>
> Er...how about a kangaroo? O=)
> -Rainbow Roo
Um, the evidence he gave was pretty lame:) Rodents are highly
viscious... yeah, and kangaroos kickbox. Oi. ANY animal could be
described as powerful etc by his terms. And what about rabbits and
skunks? Equines, of course, are herbivores. Oh well... he just is
looking for some nutty psych theory cause he has no clue.
Counter-evidence he just calls "details" and doesnt worry about:)
*shakes his head* Hard to understand if ya dont feel it yourself, I
guess.
David Caveney
>
> That's commonly called shamanism or animal spiritualism. It's not the total
> definition of "furry" (and a lot don't consider it to be a definition
> either, as it's not about the appreciation of furry artworks and more
> towards shamanistic and animal spiritualistic beliefs being superimposed
> onto a convenient medium and then blurred into), and I suggest you don't
> paint in absolutes or insist it's THE definition, as you'll be about as
> popular around here as a fart in church. It really depends on the person,
> but many have their own definition. From enjoying anthropomorphic and
> zoomorphic artwork, to those who take it as meaning shamanism or animal
> spiritualism.
>
> Original definition and origin was meaning those who like furry artwork,
> i.e. anthrop and zoomorph art and associated things. In transit, it got
> blurred. Not saying that's a bad thing or whatever, but don't insist on
> your view to be the absolute right one, because people will have a
> difference with it. Particularly those who have been around a while or came
> into the fandom for what it revolves around.
>
> -Sar
I've never given an abolute definition of furry. First, I said what
furryism was to me (and not to the entire world) and then I said waht
definition was given to me the first time I heard about furryism (i
think it as on dalnet or yiffnet or something). I guess i just met up
with a large group that all thought that way... ive seen us referred to
as lifestylers. I guess cause I came in through the dragon group, who
all seem to be lifestylers. I donno... mostly I look at furry art so...
*shrugs*
Nebulous
Felyne32k wrote
> One interesting thing I've noticed about Furry is the incredible
> perponderance of 'power' creatures. Predators and huge powerful
> herbivores. I'm wondering if it has something to do with deep-rooted
> psychological reactions to a lack of RL power. Maybe I've been listening
> Anyhow: some proofs:
> Tigers, panthers, etc: predators. Typically high-level ones, too.
> Wolves, canids: Particularly interesting here. Not only are these
> predators, but also highly social animals. This could be a manifestation
> of desires resulting from a lack of social contact.
> Horses: Anyone who thinks a horse is a gentle, harmless animal has
> obviously never been kicked by one.
> Dragons: the ultimate predators.
> Minks, ferrets, rodentia: These things can be surprisingly vicious
> when they're angry. Also related to the wolverine, which is the Prime
> Example of huge-animal-in-a-not-so-huge-animal's-body.
>
Out of curiosity, what would you consider a 'weak' animal. Especially
since you have classified rodents as 'powerful'.
--
Nebulous Rikulau
My furcode
FFCs4a A- C* D H+ M- P++ R+ T+++ W Z+ Sm RLRB/AT a+ cn++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j+
p+ sm-
Samantha Ann Patterson
commented on the one point that I thought would be perhaps most important.
What kind of grade will this paper receieve? Due to the time, I can only
assume this is a term paper. For such, I would have chose a much more
common word to write about. Perhaps "Cool" and "Hot" meaning the same thing
or "Bad" being "Good" in modern slang.
Odds are, your professor has never heard of "Yiff" or "Furries". How
is he to know you haven't just made something up? I think there's a real
chance for skepticism on his part, which could cause you trouble. A
completely theorhetical case may even have been more acceptable than the
case you presented. Then there's the professor's personal feelings to
consider. What does he think of open talk about sex? What if he is
uncomfortable with these topics? It could influence your grade. Though
if your online writing style represents your essay writing style, I think
you're in trouble long before that.
I suspect that at best you'll receive a C on this paper. When/if
you do, try not to be morally outraged and scream oppression because
this is likely not the case. You simply made a poor choice of topic. If
you receive a poor grade, take the time to privately talk with your
professor about your paper. Perhaps he will give you a chance to defend
or rewrite it. Most instructors are there because they honestly want to
help people learn new things. They are certainly not in it for
the money. All in all, it is your education, and you should take it
seriously. How you communicate will strongly affect peoples' perception
of you throughout the rest of your life.
Best of Luck,
Samantha
David Caveney
word.. if so, then yiff as a foxcall would jsut be a folk etymology:)
Kinda like how belfry got associated with bells! (it comes from a latin
word for war cause it original was a siege tower).
David Caveney
>
> To elaborate -- it was brave of you to use such a word for a class
> assignment.
> I thought your analysis of the word and the way you presented its usage was
> top notch research and presentation work. College level stuff.
Well, research wise, i could be very wrong if it comes from that acronym
in the gay community:) The idea is sound, yes, but the foxcall thing
could just be a folk etymolgy.
>
> Regarding a dictionary, it would be great if someone could take the time to
> put a stake in the ground at this point in the fandom's history, and map out
> the fandom's specialized language as it exists in use today. No time like
> the present.
I just dont have the resources at teh present time. I wanted to do a
work on all of Dragonlance's languages too... going through every book
and such and reconsructing their phonologies, talking to TRacy Hickman
and getting his notes. ITd be a big projec,t but very useful to both
fans and authors alike and would help get more consistancy.
> You would have to pull from a lot of sources, get people to send you
> examples of usage, and where they first saw the words used. This kind of
> work is called lexicography. Fun work.
>
Perhaps, but im not really involved enough in the scene to pull it off
yet.
> Speaking of dictionaries, have you ever heard of the book about the writing
> of the Oxford English Dictionary, called "The Professor and the Madman?"
> It's about a criminally insane doctor who becomes the most important
> contributor to the compilation of the dictionary, while working out of a
> study he had built for him in an insane asylum in England. It's a wild
> story.
> There was an interview with the author of the book on NPR, on the 09-30-1998
> program "Fresh Air"
>
Sounds fascinating.
David Caveney
>
> As far as archetypes go, details aren't terribly significant.
I am what I am. *shrugs* Powerful? Depends on who ya ask. There are
draconic traits, and I have them. I just know I'm a dragon, thats all. I
take "electrum" mostly in tribute to the original entry. Btw,
Electricity got its meaning cause amber looks like the metal electrum
and electricity was first caused by rubbing off on amber.
> Let's drag out my AD&D References...
> Let's see... Dragon, Electrum...
>
> ARMOR CLASS: -1 (base)
> MOVE: 14, Fl 40 (C), Jp 3
> HIT DICE: 13 (base)
> THAC0: 7 (base)
> NO. OF ATTACKS: 3 + special
> DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1-8/1-8/6-24 (6d4)
>
> Thirteen hit dice? BASE? I'd say that's a damn powerful animal.
That's not the stats I'm using. Where'd ya get those from? The entry I
knwo first appeared in an issue of Dragon and was reprinted both in the
Ruins of Myth Drannor boxed set and in the Monsterous Compendium Annual
1.
Here, tehy have 9 hitdice base, 11 thaco, and 2 AC.with damage being
1d4/1d4/3d8. Also that "base" is about adult age category, not a young
age.
Mosrtly tho, its the description that I like:) It appeals to me very
much.
> Well, I hang out here, and I collect the artwork, so I guess I'm a
> furry. But I'm not any sort of non-human animal. I don't "KNOW" I'm a
> cat, dog, wolf, or thirty-two-foot flying lizard; I have enough mental
> strain. I don't need cross-species belief to add to that.
> I personall don't think being able to say "i KNEW I was a dragon" to
> be anything other than a sign of severe mental breakdown. If you can shed
> a few scales and mail them to me, I might change my mind. Until then...
K, I will. Expect to see a couple scales very soon in your mail.
> And most competent writers, I find, will tell you that language is
> constantly degenerating because of this. Until you can show me a good
> writer who can use 'yiff' outside of deliberate dialect without coming
> off looking like an idiot, I'm going to believe that it's an abomination
> in the written form.
Most elitist writers out of touch with true language, you mean. And um,
I donno.. itd come up in dialogue between furres, mostly. It's highly
colloquial, I admit, but that doeasnt mean it isnt great for spoken
language.
> Is it? I think, outside of a few mindless VFair readers, that, outside of
> its spread from gaydom, it's stayed pretty much in place.
> I swear, the day that "Yiff" makes it into the OED is the day I lose all
> hope in the intelligence of the human race.
I think so. Alot of non furries visit Furcadia, and I think its still
used there. Unfort, tehyre misinterpretting the meaning:(
>
> Now...
>
> If I remember correctly, semantic change is like toilet-the-act-of-
> cleaning-oneself to toilet-the-ceramic-end-of-the-sewer-pipe.
> Yiff meant a cheap, mindless fuck when it was created (Reference
> Bahamut's post), and, really, it means cheap, mindless fuck now.
>
Well, im not clear on its gay roots. Id need to see more there. But um,
semantic change is the change in meaning of a word, yes. Also, it can be
viewed as there being sememes (units of meaning) that change in what
words represent them. For example, "thou" used to be the 2nd pers sing
pronoune, then an onomasioligcal change moved "you" into "thou"'s place.
> But you said that English isn't a beautiful language. And that's just
> wrong. Now, if you want to argue that there are MORE beautiful
> languages... sure, I'll agree with you. But you didn't say that.
> I personally think that the Sistine Chapel is more beautiful than a
> Jackson Pollock, but that doesn't prevent me from saying that a Jackson
> Pollock can be a very beautiful thing.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, really. Personally, I prefer the
sound of middle english... I think its a fantastically beautiful
language. I dont like Old English and I dont like French, so go figure.
I love Middle English:) Oh, and Scots English is beautiful too... Burns
is great when he gets goin. Wonderful poet.
> Now who's not big on details? That's a hundred-year span, there... And
> then a charge of judging things without having read them. Typically the
> Church has been a lot slower to react. SOMEBODY read them and made the
> decision.
> Now... here's an interesting question...
>
> If all the works were burned... how can they be really a huge influence
> on all of Western poetry, as you suggested? The entire Renaissance would
> have missed out on her. While you could say that her influence passed
> through the other writers of her time and after, there comes a point when
> said influence can be attributed to the other writers, and not her,
> because any of her ideas would have become incredibly diluted. It's like
> saying that I draw a great influence from whoever it was that might have
> had a great influence on Homer. Homer influenced an incredible number of
> Greco-Roman era poets, who would in turn influence the beginnings of
> English, and would, after some period of neglect, be read by the
> influential writers of the Renaissance, who would, in turn, greatly
> influence others, up through Emerson and Thoreau, who HAVE influenced me
> to a great extent. But should I credit whoever influenced Homer? No; I've
> never read them, and their residual impact is next to nil once you get up
> through Emerson and Thoreau. I've read Homer, sure, but that's not being
> influenced by people who influenced Homer. That's being influenced by
> Homer.
It's like the Homer argument. The main thing is, I think (I have NO
confirmation on this) that Sappho is really the first one to write about
herself and her emotions and her experiences in lyric poetry. She
atleast was the one to popularize it and make it an incredible artform.
I'd much rather read Sappho than about some damn Olympian Athelete, for
example:) Hers is an intereesting bridge too, cause her works often take
Homeric forms and apply them to her own situation and the situation of
women at that time. And she had a wonderful way with words... simply
enchanting. Her imagery is gorgeoes... her double and tripple entendre's
throughout one poem (invoking 2 or 3 whole patters of images) is
absolute genius. To see her clearest influence, check Catullus, but
really, in one way or another on the chain, she influenced most lyric
poets after her. If I had a time machine, the Isle of Lesbos in the 6th
century bc is where id do... actually, perhaps alexandria... copies of
her books would be there too... and i could et tons of other greatstuff.
Still, I'd like to meet Sappho and see what Lesbos was really like at
the time.
> Balls. I seriously doubt that Wu Cheng'en (1500-1582) or Shi Nai'an and
> Lou Guanzhong (1300s) gave a shit one way or the other, being a continent
> removed. And their works influenced Chinese culture immensely. I
> seriously doubt that even you can say that over a society of over a
> billion people doesn't constitute a significant chunk of 'modern
> culture'.
Sorry, I had said "Western" somewhere in there, and I meant it there
too.
>
> It makes it sound like some childish game you can get the entire family
> involved in, like a 'round-the-dinner-table game of Clue or Monopoly.
Sounds fun! Sex IS fun, ya know:) The first def I heard for yiff was
"playful sex". That still captures a bit abotu the word but also about
the act and the people who use the word. I've had sex with but a single
woman for over 3 years, but it's still fun. Yes, it's spiritual, yes
it's emotional, but dammit, it's just plain fun too:)
>
> > such, a basic word is needed. If there weren't a need, the word yiff
> > woulda just been a curiousity only for the peopel who invented it.
>
> It is. When's the last time you saw a serious non-furry writer use it?
> Hell, when's the last time you saw a serious furry writer use it? I've
> never actually seen it used in a story where I didn't instantly think of
> better ways to describe the act or situation. I've never seen it used in
> an essay of any significant quality except in quotes.
>
It's used by MANY furries, not just hte 2 or 3 who first used it. Some
segment of the furry population have a need for this word, and so we use
it. Again, ya focus too much on literature. I'll have to start writing
furry...
>
> No, but animalistic sex wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking
> about physical-only sex, which tends to be more animalistic. All gold
> glitters, but not all that glitters is gold. I'm sure you're familiar
> with that topic. In cases like this, clipped, harsh words with hostile
> connotations are better than your all-purpose 'yiff'.
I disagree with your last statement. I think we just have different
views on yiffing.
> <sarcasm>
> Why don't we just reduce everything to 'stuff' instead of being able to
> say what we mean?
> "Stuff did stuff"
> "I stuffed stuff"
> "Stuff is stuff."
> </sarcasm>
> Blegh.
Already has been reduced. "Stuff" IS a word, and a good useful word. I
never advocated getting red of the terms "IBM" or "MAC", just adding a
more general term "computer". Same thing for yiff
> Reference Bahamut's post on the actual origins of the term.
Investigating that. Other posts on teh topic made it sound like he was
pulling a fast one (I've seen well constructed jokes before) so I wanna
see his source material and other stuff too.
> > >
> > At it's root, it is a noun and a verb denoting any kind of sexual
> > activity, withotu any negative connotations. Definition comes from
> > usage, and that is how it's used.
>
> Suppose I find 1000 people (Probably a large enough group of people for
> your sake, if you're willing to grant 'yiff' word-status) who are willing
> to use "a Caveney" as a synonym for something with the writing ability of
> a large brick, but in as positive a way as possible. Are you going to say
> that that should be a good word, then, because we don't have a single
> word that denotes "something with the writing ability of a large brick,
> but in as positive a way as possible"?
> I doubt it.
Please read what I said. I said IF there is a need for the word.
Currently, I dont think there is a need for tthat word. There was one
for "yiff". That was my entire point all along. And um, whatver its
origins, its teh same. There was a need among furries for an unmarked
sex word. Either tehy borrowed a term from teh gay community to fill
that need or tehy coined one from yiff. The semantic concept is teh
same. But, if people started using "a caveney" for that meaning for a
period of 5 or so years again and again, then yes, it'd be a word.
Wehther its a "good" word or not all depends on who you ask and what
their definition of "good" is. I dont think much of hte word "shag"
myself, for example, but I wont deny its a word.
> Some days I think the classical-era Chinese had a lot of things right. If
> you've ever studied classical China, you know that one thing they weren't
> was repressive.
I wont claim any expertise about classical China. I will say that
euphemism and such isnt good for all communities. Language is tied
intimately with culture... everything about language relies on culture.
Different cultures need different words... its a s simple as that. As a
sub-culture, the furries I speak of might need different words too. That
is the entire origin of jargons and such.
> Perhaps. But I say that the community that wrought /Civil Disobedience/,
> /Walden/, /The love-song of J Alfred Prufrock/, /1984/, /Brave New
> World/, /Utopia/, /Stranger in a Strange Land/, /Dracula/,
> /Frankenstein/, and so on, ad infinitum, generally takes a huge amount of
> linguistic precedence over the community that spawned BoKD and company,
> no matter where you're discussing it.
Linguistic precedence? Language is only relative to the community you
are talking about.. I am talking about the jargon used by furries. If I
were studying colloquial speech in fronteir alaska, I dont think I'd
care much how George Orwell used a word...
Dave Huang
David Caveney <cav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Thanks:) Would be curious to know if this is the actual source of the
>word.. if so, then yiff as a foxcall would jsut be a folk etymology:)
http://groups.google.com/groups?rnum=1&ic=1&selm=6gurvp%249h8%241%40rks1.urz.tu-dresden.de
Sheesh, organized furry fandom hasn't been around that long... the people
who coined these words are still around, you know :)
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@azeotrope.org | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 25 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
Dave Farrance
Patterson) wrote:
> I've watched this debate go on for several days now, and no one has
>commented on the one point that I thought would be perhaps most important.
>What kind of grade will this paper receieve? Due to the time, I can only
>assume this is a term paper. For such, I would have chose a much more
>common word to write about. Perhaps "Cool" and "Hot" meaning the same thing
>or "Bad" being "Good" in modern slang.
> Odds are, your professor has never heard of "Yiff" or "Furries". How
>is he to know you haven't just made something up? I think there's a real
>chance for skepticism on his part, which could cause you trouble. ...
That's right enough. The professor may not assume that David has made
it up but is likely to think that he's focussing to closely on a
personal interest.
Still, if it's just one question in an exam, then no harm done. Just
don't get tempted to base a thesis on it ;)
--
|\ /|
| \'_| Farry
___.-' @ `--o
/// / ____,' fa...@earthling.net
/ / ///~~/ ICQ 8277359
David Caveney
>
> I've watched this debate go on for several days now, and no one has
> commented on the one point that I thought would be perhaps most important.
> What kind of grade will this paper receieve? Due to the time, I can only
> assume this is a term paper. For such, I would have chose a much more
> common word to write about. Perhaps "Cool" and "Hot" meaning the same thing
> or "Bad" being "Good" in modern slang.
Well, it was for an question on the final exam, which was an absolute 3
hour killer, hehe. One of the big essay qs was about semantic change...
I covered lots of things, but I needed to focus on the aspects of what
stimulates semantic change and taboo. Yiff came into my head as a good
example, so I used it. I thought it was a neat example cause it's not
quite exactly like the normal taboo exampls (such as the word for
animals which are hunted changing because its bad luck to say the name
of an animal whom ya want to hunt in many cultures... that's why "bear"
looks nothing like "ursa"... germanic langs lost their Indoeuropean word
for bear a long time ago).
> Odds are, your professor has never heard of "Yiff" or "Furries". How
> is he to know you haven't just made something up? I think there's a real
> chance for skepticism on his part, which could cause you trouble. A
> completely theorhetical case may even have been more acceptable than the
> case you presented. Then there's the professor's personal feelings to
> consider. What does he think of open talk about sex? What if he is
> uncomfortable with these topics? It could influence your grade. Though
> if your online writing style represents your essay writing style, I think
> you're in trouble long before that.
It's too good of an example to be made up:) I wanted to use something
that WASNT just teh same examples he had spit at us the whole time. It
came into my head, so I wrot eit. It was only about 1 paragraph out of
10 pages (again, big exam). It's not like I wrote teh whole paper on
yiff! I actually did have to write a paper on semantic change, but I
opted out of the stuff on yiff because itd be too hard to do research on
it and I thought an entire paper on it might freak him out, LOL. So I
chose Greek chloros instead, whose meaning comes into question heavily
in a favorite sappho poem of mine. And, um, he's a traditional guy, but
he's a nice guy. Most of all, he's a linguist. They tend to be a little
more immunte to getting offended by words... a fellow student once
turned in to a linguistics prof an entire paper she had written
essentually on the word "fuck". I sincerely doubt itll influenec my
grade... probably raised his eyebrows, but it was just one paragrah and
one example. And honestly, if using a furry example lowers my grade,
then I want my grade to be lowered. I'm tired of hiding it.
And what's this about my online writing style??? Sheesh, someone else
here commented positively on my online writing style. What's wrong with
it? Grammatically and puinctuation wise, no, it's not like this. The
purpose of a newsgroup or a chatroom is communication, so I dont care as
much about those things, I just throw my thoughts down at the keyboard.
And um, usually I just respond to things or let my mind wander... I dont
organize my thoughts all that much on line. sometimes I do a little, but
not too terribly much.
> I suspect that at best you'll receive a C on this paper. When/if
> you do, try not to be morally outraged and scream oppression because
> this is likely not the case. You simply made a poor choice of topic. If
> you receive a poor grade, take the time to privately talk with your
> professor about your paper. Perhaps he will give you a chance to defend
> or rewrite it. Most instructors are there because they honestly want to
> help people learn new things. They are certainly not in it for
> the money. All in all, it is your education, and you should take it
> seriously. How you communicate will strongly affect peoples' perception
> of you throughout the rest of your life.
>
> Best of Luck,
> Samantha
I'd be very disappointed in him if he graded low for choosing a good
example. The example fits the topic... he'll see that. If anything,
he'll like the fact that I came up with my own example:) As for my
grade, well, not actually finishing in 3 hours will do more to affect
that than my use of the word "yiff"! I did both essays, but only got
7/10 of the parapgrah long questions. My prof will know that my example
was perfectly in tune with the topic and although he'll think im a
little weird, he wont count off for it. I'm proud of my example. I have
absolutely no regrets about using it. Yiffing is part of life and
language.
David Caveney
Btw, I love that TMBG song in your quote... but I guess most of us
would, hehe.
David Caveney
>
> That's right enough. The professor may not assume that David has made
> it up but is likely to think that he's focussing to closely on a
> personal interest.
>
> Still, if it's just one question in an exam, then no harm done. Just
> don't get tempted to base a thesis on it ;)
>
Actually, it'd make quite an interesting paper, if I used the modern
misunderstanding. Most semantic change is assumed to be the result of
marked usage... using a term in a new way or metaphorical way. The
people who are learning "yiff" as meaning cyber sex are leanring it tha
way due to a misunderstanding because they only ever hear it used one
way. This is pretty radical, as far as linguistics goes, and if "yiff"
does infact change to a general internet term for cybering, I might well
try to publish a paper on it and then dig back through history to look
for other words that coulda been misinterpreted the same sorta way. I
didnt want to being cybersex into my exam or paper tho, hehehe.
Samantha Ann Patterson
David Caveney <cav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It's too good of an example to be made up:) I wanted to use something
>that WASNT just teh same examples he had spit at us the whole time. It
>came into my head, so I wrot eit. It was only about 1 paragraph out of
>10 pages (again, big exam). It's not like I wrote teh whole paper on
>yiff! I actually did have to write a paper on semantic change, but I
Ah.
My mistake then. I was under the impression you'd spent 3 hours
writing a paper on it.
Sorry for the confusion,
Samantha
Felyne32k
says...
> Out of curiosity, what would you consider a 'weak' animal. Especially
> since you have classified rodents as 'powerful'.
>
psychological associations with power, which can manifest itself in many
ways: physical strength, intelligence, viciousness, or other perceived
qualities (Like owls are perceived to be wise, even when they are pretty
stupid, even for birds... those huge eyes take up a lot of braincavity
space).
Anyways, I admit: not all rodents are vicious. But the predatory ones are
evil little bastards. I'm told that wild ferrets bite something awful.
Minks too.
You don't see many penguins, ducks, or the like on Furry. At least I
don't. You don't see many hedgehogs. You don't see many koalas (which at
least are perceived as harmless).
Think about that.
Cerulean
that people who relate more to prey don't feel particularly out of
place in modern society. Therefore, they are less likely to identify
these feelings, formalize them in allegories or beliefs, and seek out
others with similar ideas in such places as the furry subcultures.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( S>J37) - ,,'a)ew!J6 ay+ 77!> ue) 6u!y+oN,,
Kyle L. Webb
Felyne32k wrote:
>
> Anyways, I admit: not all rodents are vicious. But the predatory ones are
> evil little bastards. I'm told that wild ferrets bite something awful.
> Minks too.
Hate to break it to you, but neither of those examples are rodents.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
(Of course you could cite the evil vicious leftover hamburger gobbling
University of Illinois Quad squirrels. ;)
Sarenthalanos
Dr. Cat <c...@sullivan.realtime.net> wrote in message
news:3afb4...@feed1.realtime.net...
(snip)
> All kidding aside,
> the four of them are bestest bosom buddies, will soon be starring on a CBS
> sitcom together playing themselves, and Hangdog is currently pregnant with
> Ben Bruin's love child.)
I can't wait to see the next exciting episode of "As the Fur Burns"...well,
nah it's not that important... Reruns are always of high-quality and are
entertaining enough, namely how Hangdog keeps thinking "published" = "books"
ad nauseum ad infinitum (unfortunately for Hangdog, he has the production
value of "Small Wonder", relying on cheap gimmicks, with the same recycled
storylines). A wonderful mouth-stuffer he is too, just a shame he falls
into juvenile babble once www.thesaurus.com goes down on occasion, but we
really do see the emotional incontinence that roils through his mind and
spews forth from his mouth in it's raw form when he forgets his rabies
shots. Much like this, http://www.wtfman.com/uoevil/images/beerattacks.jpg
-Sar
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>Out of curiosity, what would you consider a 'weak' animal. Especially
>since you have classified rodents as 'powerful'.
Weak animals. Hmmm.
Jellyfish? Nah. They've got those stinging tentacle thingies.
Squid? Nah. They can squirt ink and grab things with their tentacle thingies.
Sheep? Perhaps. They're generally harmless, except when they're in large
numbers, and have been known to devour entire villages with their big wooly
tentacle thingies.
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry
Dr. Cat
: "Dr. Cat" <c...@sullivan.realtime.net> wrote in message news:3afb0...@feed1.realtime.net...
:> ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote:
:> : Most Furry "Fans" hate z00philes worse than Hitler.
:>
:> Really? How much *did* Hitler hate z00philes, precisely?
: Are both of ya being smart-asses?
Comedy? No, we don't get much of that in this part of the country. I
musta been dead serious and kinda stupid back when I wrote that. Yup.
Only plausible explanation. :X)
: Just in case there's any confusion,
: it should read:
: "Most Furry "Fans" hate z00philes worse than they hate Hitler"
Ok, now I understand. How much do z00philes hate Hitler anyway? :XD
: Oh no ya don't, too late for that, you can't buy me off for just a cookie,
: it's gonna take a Moon-pie now ;)
How about chocolate mousse cake? With whipped cream and hot fudge sauce?
Moon pies are SCARY.
:> (Disclaimer: What is the sound of one hand plonking?)
: WTF does that mean??? I'm not gonna start putting <sarcasm> tags on all
: my posts that contain it just because some furries are notoriously one-sided
: about Satire. I'm not the only one who's sense of humor leaves a lot of
: room for interpretation good Dr.
Dang I forgot to put in my sarcasm tags!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Maybe it's really just irony. Naaaaaah, it's sarcasm.)
Dr. Cat
: David Caveney wrote:
:>
:> Reread my post. I didnt talk about sex... I talked about acceptance. I
:> dont know what you are referring to.
: The word "acceptance" is one of those, what did you call them, "unmarked
: synonyms" for personal lifestyles some may find objectionable.
You know, Sigmund Freud once said "Sometimes acceptance just means being
accepting about stuff".
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: On the other hand, that cigar definitely means you want to
sleep with your mother, so just put it down. Come on, drop the cigar fanboy!)
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>This has been discussed before, though perhaps not here. My theory is
>that people who relate more to prey don't feel particularly out of
>place in modern society. Therefore, they are less likely to identify
>these feelings, formalize them in allegories or beliefs, and seek out
>others with similar ideas in such places as the furry subcultures.
I think it has less to do with making up for RL shortcomings and more to do
with choosing an animal that's nice to look at. Tigers are nice to look at.
Horses are nice to look at. Wolves are ferrets and so on are all nice to look
at.
But you don't see too many people playing characters like, say, elephant seals,
or dodo birds, or warthogs, or many-tentacled carniverous sheep.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>I've heard lots of people say to me "I'm <blank> animal" and all of them
>are sane enough to be productive members of society. Saying "I know I'm
><animal>" more has to do with mental-behavioral traits; species are
>known to have certain social/mental attributes and one finds these
>attributes in oneself therefore identifies with the animal. YMMV, this
>is just what I've seen/heard/otherwise noticed.
Possibly of interest:
"The Animal In You" by Roy Feinson
"Discover your animal personality type! Through a simple test, you can
determine which animal (there are 45 in the book) you are. This book is
fascinating, insightful, and uncannily accurate. The publisher of this book is
an elephant; the editor is a rooster; the author is a fox. You'll love THE
ANIMAL IN YOU!"
I saw it in the bookstore a while back. It looked interesting.
See image:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0312180403.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif
Nebulous
ilr wrote
>
> "Dr. Cat" wrote something very close to what Nebulous wrote:
> > ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote:
> > : Most Furry "Fans" hate z00philes worse than Hitler.
> >
> > Really? How much *did* Hitler hate z00philes, precisely?
>
> Are both of ya being smart-asses?
Hey! It's better than being a dumb-ass. :)
> Just in case there's any confusion,
> it should read:
> "Most Furry "Fans" hate z00philes worse than they hate Hitler"
> ...Or atleast that's the observation I've cam away with over the years,
> and there's plenty of other groups hated too, and I think it sux
But a response to that statement wouldn't have been fun.
> Oh no ya don't, too late for that, you can't buy me off for just a
cookie,
> it's gonna take a Moon-pie now ;)
>
How about a key lime pie?
David Caveney
>
> I think it has less to do with making up for RL shortcomings and more to do
> with choosing an animal that's nice to look at. Tigers are nice to look at.
> Horses are nice to look at. Wolves are ferrets and so on are all nice to look
> at.
>
> But you don't see too many people playing characters like, say, elephant seals,
> or dodo birds, or warthogs, or many-tentacled carniverous sheep.
The animal chooses you, not the other way around. Sure, when I'm hanging
around non-scalies, I pick out a furre to be... often just one i feel
suits me or that I like. But actually being a dragon? That wasn't a
choice anymore than choosing what color my eyes were or what color my
hair were or what my sexual preference was. It just is.
Felyne32k
says...
> Um, the evidence he gave was pretty lame:) Rodents are highly
I've qualified my thing about rodents.
> viscious... yeah, and kangaroos kickbox. Oi. ANY animal could be
> described as powerful etc by his terms. And what about rabbits and
> skunks?
I said earlier that it wasn't an absolute. It's impossible (I think...
some pysch guy want to correct me?) to come up with a unified theory
about something as diverse as this fandom. I just think it's a trend.
> Equines, of course, are herbivores. Oh well... he just is
> looking for some nutty psych theory cause he has no clue.
As I've said: Get kicked by one. Then come back (if you're alive) and
tell me that that thing isn't powerful. Horses particularly are good
'strength' archetypes: for centuries, owning a horse was a Major Power
Statement. The fact that we measure work over time by *horse*power is
indicative of the perception of strength. And so on.
Armchair psychology. You've heard of it? I admitted it's not a
particularly well-developed theory. Something I came up with at
> Counter-evidence he just calls "details" and doesnt worry about:)
Counter-evidence from AD&D doesn't seem very psychologically useful. If
someone were to say, for example, that he was a four-toed sloth, it
wouldn't be particularly significant if he suddenly changed to a three-
toed sloth. Or if someone was described as a banana slug, it wouldn't be
important if he were suddenly a large garden slug. Archetypes are broad
categories.
> *shakes his head* Hard to understand if ya dont feel it yourself, I
> guess.
Felyne32k
kyle...@n.o.s.p.a.m.uiuc.edu says...
>
>
> Felyne32k wrote:
>
> >
> > Anyways, I admit: not all rodents are vicious. But the predatory ones are
> > evil little bastards. I'm told that wild ferrets bite something awful.
> > Minks too.
>
> Hate to break it to you, but neither of those examples are rodents.
>
teeth.
Took some Major Exams over the past few days. Brain isn't working up to
par.
Rats, though. Rats are predatory. There are documented cases of rats
attacking infants and the like. That's evil.
Farlo
>Sheep? Perhaps. They're generally harmless, except when they're in
>large numbers, and have been known to devour entire villages with their
>big wooly tentacle thingies.
You may laugh, but much of history can be explained in terms of sexual
politics. Them sheep are downright dangerous beasties - given the
anthropomorphic tendencies of the ancient Greeks, is it too much of a
stretch to imagine that the most be-yootiful Helen of Troy had cloven
hooves? She launched a "thousand ships", ya know. Awful lot of trouble
for a silly sheep. And, let's just not get into that Trojan Horse - the
first constructed equine with a package to deliver. Sort of a proto
-inflatable. Neigh say pez? (That's like, almost French).
Bah! or baaaaahhhhh .... =)
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
m>^_^<m
Farlo
>But you don't see too many people playing characters like, say, elephant
>seals, or dodo birds, or warthogs, or many-tentacled carniverous sheep.
Do not be so silly! Dodo birds are extinct, after all.
They are not real.
Felyne32k
says...
> Pray then, that the next revision of the OED does not include
> Usenet archives as source references. After all, the OED documents /how/
> the word was used by quoting excerpts from the sources -- if Usenet
> archives become a valid source then "yiff" would be a valid candidate for
> inclusion.
>
It would be a candidate, but somehow I doubt that it would be a really
long shot to actually get in.
On the other hand, cynicism is often healthy.
Felyne32k
says...
To begin: For convenience, I have snipped out huge blocks of text that
have interesting information but little if any real value to the debate
at hand.
> Felyne32k wrote:
<snip>
> > Thirteen hit dice? BASE? I'd say that's a damn powerful animal.
>
> That's not the stats I'm using. Where'd ya get those from? The entry I
> knwo first appeared in an issue of Dragon and was reprinted both in the
> Ruins of Myth Drannor boxed set and in the Monsterous Compendium Annual
> 1.
>
> Here, tehy have 9 hitdice base, 11 thaco, and 2 AC.with damage being
> 1d4/1d4/3d8. Also that "base" is about adult age category, not a young
> age.
>
My DM. Talk to him.
> Mosrtly tho, its the description that I like:) It appeals to me very
> much.
>
> > And most competent writers, I find, will tell you that language is
> > constantly degenerating because of this. Until you can show me a good
> > writer who can use 'yiff' outside of deliberate dialect without coming
> > off looking like an idiot, I'm going to believe that it's an abomination
> > in the written form.
>
> Most elitist writers out of touch with true language, you mean. And um,
> I donno.. itd come up in dialogue between furres, mostly. It's highly
> colloquial, I admit, but that doeasnt mean it isnt great for spoken
> language.
I think we've basically established now that we're in a prescriptive v.
descriptive debate. Which means we're going nowhere fast.
>
> I think so. Alot of non furries visit Furcadia, and I think its still
> used there. Unfort, tehyre misinterpretting the meaning:(
Well, you're saying that use determines the meaning... therefore the
'misinterpretation' is now correct, if they're in the majority...
<snip>
> It's like the Homer argument. The main thing is, I think (I have NO
> confirmation on this) that Sappho is really the first one to write about
> herself and her emotions and her experiences in lyric poetry. She
> atleast was the one to popularize it and make it an incredible artform.
And then the Dark Ages rolled around and the whole idea dissapeared until
Petrarch came and reinvented it.
<snip interesting stuff about Sappho>
<snip Western world v. Entire World>
> >
> > It makes it sound like some childish game you can get the entire family
> > involved in, like a 'round-the-dinner-table game of Clue or Monopoly.
>
> Sounds fun! Sex IS fun, ya know:) The first def I heard for yiff was
> "playful sex". That still captures a bit abotu the word but also about
> the act and the people who use the word. I've had sex with but a single
> woman for over 3 years, but it's still fun. Yes, it's spiritual, yes
> it's emotional, but dammit, it's just plain fun too:)
>
> >
> > > such, a basic word is needed. If there weren't a need, the word yiff
> > > woulda just been a curiousity only for the peopel who invented it.
> >
> > It is. When's the last time you saw a serious non-furry writer use it?
> > Hell, when's the last time you saw a serious furry writer use it? I've
> > never actually seen it used in a story where I didn't instantly think of
> > better ways to describe the act or situation. I've never seen it used in
> > an essay of any significant quality except in quotes.
> >
>
> It's used by MANY furries, not just hte 2 or 3 who first used it. Some
> segment of the furry population have a need for this word, and so we use
> it. Again, ya focus too much on literature. I'll have to start writing
> furry...
>
Prescriptive v. Descriptive again.
I'm being an advocate, describing the way I think things should be.
You're describing how things are, and how they got that way. I'm saying
that they shouldn't have gotten there. It'll roll on forever.
The gist of it now is that I say that it should not be used in written
form. And you're saying that it's fine in dialogue. You know what? I'm
saying that it's fine as a colloquialism as long as it stays out of
literature (except as deliberate dialect) where it belongs.
I've often used Walden as a reference, but I think I should use something
else for once, considering the sexual bent of the discussion. If someone
can write the next /The Golden Lotus/ (Wang Xicheng) using 'yiff', THEN
I'll say that it's a good, legitimate word. Until then...
Now... if you're saying that yiff SHOULD be used in lit... I'm going to
have a major problem with it. Unless you're a good enough writer so that
you /can/ write another /The Golden Lotus/.
<snip more stuff>
> Investigating that. Other posts on teh topic made it sound like he was
> pulling a fast one (I've seen well constructed jokes before) so I wanna
> see his source material and other stuff too.
He's gotten that reference.
SilverJain
seals,
or dodo birds, or warthogs, or many-tentacled carniverous sheep. >>
That's it! That's it! I want to be a many tentacled carniverous sheep! That
sounds awesome! Can I be one? Please? If not, does anyone know where I can get
one? They seem like fun pets...... ^_^
--Elin (who doesn't roleplay anymore....... real life is too interesting!)
Selling my collections! Always different stuff! Check out the deals here:
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/silverjain/
Radio Comix Online:
http://www.radiocomix.com
den
> You don't see many koalas (which at
>least are perceived as harmless).
Perceived, yes.
Perceived until you actually have to rescue and handle one. Then you find
out they are biting, scratching, shitting bastards who know how to use all
their sharp bits.
Cute, cuddley, friendly koalas aren't.
den
--
_____________________________________________________________
I know this might sound strange, |http://www.chameleon.net/batty/
but all I want is a normal life |www.ozemail.com.au/~denbat
_____________________________________________________________
NFiltered - This is serious, Mum.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> You don't see many penguins, ducks, or the like on Furry.
Do I count as duck like? And I know a doe and a pearie dog.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> is it too much of a
> stretch to imagine that the most be-yootiful Helen of Troy had cloven
> hooves? She launched a "thousand ships", ya know.
This is a mistranslation, infact she launched a "thousand sheeps".
The greeks where well know for employing sheep-a-pults to fire
IBS (Intercontentall Ballistic Sheep) at there enermies.
Allen Kitchen
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2001 04:44:28 GMT, Farlo <hall...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > is it too much of a
> > stretch to imagine that the most be-yootiful Helen of Troy had cloven
> > hooves? She launched a "thousand ships", ya know.
>
> This is a mistranslation, infact she launched a "thousand sheeps".
> The greeks where well know for employing sheep-a-pults to fire
> IBS (Intercontentall Ballistic Sheep) at there enermies.
Are we sure her name wasn't Wendy? Because hang it all, this sounds
alot like the behavior of another wolf I've heard of...
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Felyne32k
> out they are biting, scratching, shitting bastards who know how to use all
> their sharp bits.
>
> Cute, cuddley, friendly koalas aren't.
>
Platypuses (Platypi?), too. Especially with that poison-spur thingy.
David Caveney
>
> To begin: For convenience, I have snipped out huge blocks of text that
> have interesting information but little if any real value to the debate
> at hand.
We've both done alot of that.. continued discussions with big posts need
lots of pruning:) We um, both seem to be a bit verbose at times.
> I think we've basically established now that we're in a prescriptive v.
> descriptive debate. Which means we're going nowhere fast.
Yup. It's like I said in the private email, this is basically between a
poet/linguist and a "supposed English major".
> >
> > I think so. Alot of non furries visit Furcadia, and I think its still
> > used there. Unfort, tehyre misinterpretting the meaning:(
>
> Well, you're saying that use determines the meaning... therefore the
> 'misinterpretation' is now correct, if they're in the majority...
It isn't. If the hardcore furry lifestylers stop using it tho cause of
its cyber connotations, then the semantic change will be complete. I
think there needs to be a word for furry cybering, but I'd rather it not
be yiff. If yiff does change meaning tho, I havee no doubt another word
will take its place.
>
> And then the Dark Ages rolled around and the whole idea dissapeared until
> Petrarch came and reinvented it.
I'm not sure. Again, it's a theory. I know Petrarch's contributions, but
I dont know much about his influences. Sappho influenced a slew of
poets, both Greek and Roman. I somehow doubt that tradition of lyric
poetry just blinked out, but it certainly could have. I'd have to
research more. Mostly, I just think she's a damn fine poet... probably
the main reason I even studied Greek.
> Prescriptive v. Descriptive again.
>
> I'm being an advocate, describing the way I think things should be.
> You're describing how things are, and how they got that way. I'm saying
> that they shouldn't have gotten there. It'll roll on forever.
>
> The gist of it now is that I say that it should not be used in written
> form. And you're saying that it's fine in dialogue. You know what? I'm
> saying that it's fine as a colloquialism as long as it stays out of
> literature (except as deliberate dialect) where it belongs.
> I've often used Walden as a reference, but I think I should use something
> else for once, considering the sexual bent of the discussion. If someone
> can write the next /The Golden Lotus/ (Wang Xicheng) using 'yiff', THEN
> I'll say that it's a good, legitimate word. Until then...
>
> Now... if you're saying that yiff SHOULD be used in lit... I'm going to
> have a major problem with it. Unless you're a good enough writer so that
> you /can/ write another /The Golden Lotus/.
*shrugs* When I write, I use what words fit. Currently, yiff is pretty
much a furry jargon term, mostly because the concept behind it isnt very
mainstream. This colors the word somewhat, but if I need it, I'll use
it. The one nice thing about english is all the words to choose from...
English easily has the largest vocabulary of any language. Ancient
Greek, of course, has more words than most languages too:) I just like
the sound of Greek better and the way it combines words... very musical
and pretty.
> He's gotten that reference.
Yes... tho hasnt posted the scan, hehe. Also, did you see the other post
showing a document from around 1990 in which yiff had absolutely no
sexual connotations whatsoever? Also, I wonder if "YiffNet" predates
yiff's sexual meaning. Although more research will be needed, it looks
like yiff might well have been a foxcall at one point. Now, of course,
it might also have been an term in the gay community... perhaps the two
combined meanings or influenced each other somehow. The Acronym given
for the gay communities use of yiff doesnt make it sound like itd
beecome a verb. Interesting ground... I look foward to talkign to more
old timers in both the furry and gay communities to get at teh root of
this all.
Here's the reference from the post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?rnum=1&ic=1&selm=6gurvp%249h8%241%40rks1.urz.tu-dresden.de
Dave Huang
David Caveney <cav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Coool! So "yiff" didnt have any sexual meaning whatsoever at that time?
Yeah, that's what I've heard, and that's how I remember it too. On the
one paw, it kinda annoys me when people change the definition of a
word-- I prefer my languages to be mostly stable :) But on the other
paw, I know that languages do change, and are defined by the speakers
of the language. So while "yiff" may not have had any sexual meaning
originally, it certainly does now.
A more mainstream example is "hacker"; some people get all bent out of
shape when someone uses "hacker" to mean "someone who breaks into
computer systems". Well too bad for them, 'cuz that's one of its
meanings now. I don't like that meaning myself, but I'm not gonna go
around screaming how they're _incorrect_ for saying "hacker" instead of
"cracker", because they're not. Another example is using "begging the
question" to mean "raising the question" rather than "committing the
logical fallacy of circular argument."
>Btw, I love that TMBG song in your quote... but I guess most of us
>would, hehe.
I saw 'em in concert a few years ago, and I raised my paw when they got
to the cat part :)
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@azeotrope.org | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 25 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
ilr
Yep >:)
>
> Dang I forgot to put in my sarcasm tags!
In that case, someone's sense of humor here leaves a so much room for interpretation,
it should be regulated by the MIB
-Ilr
Felyne32k
says...
> We've both done alot of that.. continued discussions with big posts need
> lots of pruning:) We um, both seem to be a bit verbose at times.
developed thoughts need big, expansive, well-developed posts.
>
> > I think we've basically established now that we're in a prescriptive v.
> > descriptive debate. Which means we're going nowhere fast.
>
> Yup. It's like I said in the private email, this is basically between a
> poet/linguist and a "supposed English major".
Call a truce for now?
> > Well, you're saying that use determines the meaning... therefore the
> > 'misinterpretation' is now correct, if they're in the majority...
>
> It isn't. If the hardcore furry lifestylers stop using it tho cause of
> its cyber connotations, then the semantic change will be complete. I
Need to take a headcount of the number of people who use it only for
cybersex and the people who use it for anything.
> > else for once, considering the sexual bent of the discussion. If someone
> > can write the next /The Golden Lotus/ (Wang Xicheng) using 'yiff', THEN
> > I'll say that it's a good, legitimate word. Until then...
> >
> > Now... if you're saying that yiff SHOULD be used in lit... I'm going to
> > have a major problem with it. Unless you're a good enough writer so that
> > you /can/ write another /The Golden Lotus/.
>
> *shrugs* When I write, I use what words fit. Currently, yiff is pretty
> much a furry jargon term, mostly because the concept behind it isnt very
> mainstream. This colors the word somewhat, but if I need it, I'll use
> it. The one nice thing about english is all the words to choose from...
> English easily has the largest vocabulary of any language. Ancient
Nuh-uh. No way.
Cantonese or Mandarin. Definitely.
See below.
> Greek, of course, has more words than most languages too:) I just like
> the sound of Greek better and the way it combines words... very musical
> and pretty.
>
You want a lot of words? Cantonese. ANY language that makes distinctions
between your mother's-older-brother's-son-that-is-OLDER than you and your
mother's-older-brother's-son-that-is-YOUNGER than you has (even to me) a
serious overpopulation of words.