virginibus puerisque
Stipan
Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who never done
it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
Joe Fineman
> Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who
> never done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
The OED has quotations going back to the 14th century, including one
in which no less a person than Chaucer applies the word to no less a
person than Jesus.
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: Marriage is the most estimable of the sexual perversions. :||
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented Joe Fineman
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
JF> "Stipan" <sti...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who
>> never done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
JF> The OED has quotations going back to the 14th century, including
JF> one in which no less a person than Chaucer applies the word to no
JF> less a person than Jesus.
And in the past, "virgin" did not invariably mean "sexually innocent,"
but sometimes only "never married."
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Break out of the faceless masses: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/ftp/faq.html
The last thing one discovers in composing a work is what to put first.
--Blaise Pascal
Robert Lipton
Lars Eighner wrote:
>
> In our last episode, <wkr8ye6...@TheWorld.com>,
> the lovely and talented Joe Fineman
> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
> JF> "Stipan" <sti...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >> Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who
> >> never done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
>
> JF> The OED has quotations going back to the 14th century, including
> JF> one in which no less a person than Chaucer applies the word to no
> JF> less a person than Jesus.
>
> And in the past, "virgin" did not invariably mean "sexually innocent,"
> but sometimes only "never married."
A condition more honored in the breach than in the observance.
Bob
mplsray
"Joe Fineman" <j...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:wkr8ye6...@TheWorld.com...
> "Stipan" <sti...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who
> > never done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
>
> The OED has quotations going back to the 14th century, including one
> in which no less a person than Chaucer applies the word to no less a
> person than Jesus.
>
Not quite as old, but the first edition of the Dictionnaire de L'Académie
française (1694) has an entry for _vierge,_ "virgin," at
http://duras.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/quick_look.new.sh?word=vierge
in which is says that _vierge_ is used as both a masculine and feminine
adjective, and it gives as an example of the first _Ce garçon est vierge,_
"This boy is a virgin"--literally, "This boy is virginal."
It is also used as a noun, it says, but only to describe females.
Modern usage is the same, it appears. _The Oxford-Hachette French
Dictionary,_ translates the English noun _virgin_ as "un homme
vierge"--literally, "a virginal man"--in formal use. It does, however, have
an informal noun for a male virgin: _un puceau,_ the male version of the
informal noun for a female virgin _pucelle,_ although when used as a noun,
_pucelle_ itself is dated: one of the terms for Joan of Arc is _La Pucelle
(d'Orléans),_ "The Maid of Orleans."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Richard Fontana
> "Stipan" <sti...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who
> > never done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
>
> The OED has quotations going back to the 14th century, including one
> in which no less a person than Chaucer applies the word to no less a
> person than Jesus.
Chaucer was an American. He used the expression "i gesse" all the time.
Mark Raymond
<86y9sllqn...@dumpster.io.com>:
>In our last episode, <wkr8ye6...@TheWorld.com>,
>the lovely and talented Joe Fineman
>broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
>JF> "Stipan" <sti...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>> Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who
>>> never done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
>
>JF> The OED has quotations going back to the 14th century, including
>JF> one in which no less a person than Chaucer applies the word to no
>JF> less a person than Jesus.
>
>And in the past, "virgin" did not invariably mean "sexually innocent,"
>but sometimes only "never married."
>
>
... and now we begin to undserstand the phrase "the Virgin Mary" ...
Mark Raymond
>My Latin is very bad :)
>
>Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who never
>done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
>
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but your post seems to be based on
"virginibus puerisque" meaning something like "virginal boys".
My (very rusty) Latin would translate the phrase as "On[1] girls and boys".
[1] ie "about".
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented Mark Raymond
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
MR> sti...@my-deja.com (Stipan) wrote in <9cbp5c$6d0i$2...@as121.tel.hr>:
>> My Latin is very bad :)
>>
>> Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who
>> never done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
>>
MR> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but your post seems to be based on
MR> "virginibus puerisque" meaning something like "virginal boys".
MR> My (very rusty) Latin would translate the phrase as "On[1] girls
MR> and boys".
MR> [1] ie "about".
Yes, I get it as "of girls and boys" but perhaps Wendy will rescue us.
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Break out of the faceless masses: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/ftp/faq.html
I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the
formula for failure--which is: Try to please everybody. --Herbert B. Swope
Robert Lieblich
I believe the prophecy of the so-called (in English) virgin birth is
traced to Isaiah, which is of course in Hebrew. I'm no scholar of
Biblical Hebrew (or modern, for that matter), but I believe that the
Hebrew term that appears as "virgin" in most Christian versions of
the text can better be translated into English as "maiden" -- which
can mean nothing more than "young woman." What went on in the
translations of Isaiah into Greek and Latin is beyond my ken.
Bun Mui
> virginibus puerisque
My idol!
Virgin boss, Sir Richard Branson has done it all.
Bun Mui
Robert Lieblich
[attributions screwed up by the Bun]
> >Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who never done
> >it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
> My idol!
> Virgin boss, Sir Richard Branson has done it all.
If he's done it all, he's no virgin.
R H Draney
news:3aea...@news.alphalink.com.au...
> >but sometimes only "never married."
>
> ... and now we begin to undserstand the phrase "the Virgin Mary" ...
When my niece was in her early teens, she brought around a collection of
rebus puzzles and asked everyone to try them out...one was:
Mary++
After we'd all had a try at it, she said it was Mary [Tyler] Moore....
Since I'd just been working on some C code (and for unrelated reasons,
buying olive oil), I read it as "extra virgin"....r
--
"Mom, look! I traded the Lamborghini for these magic beans!"
mplsray
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3AEADD99...@erols.com...
[snip]
>
> I believe the prophecy of the so-called (in English) virgin birth is
> traced to Isaiah, which is of course in Hebrew. I'm no scholar of
> Biblical Hebrew (or modern, for that matter), but I believe that the
> Hebrew term that appears as "virgin" in most Christian versions of
> the text can better be translated into English as "maiden" -- which
> can mean nothing more than "young woman." What went on in the
> translations of Isaiah into Greek and Latin is beyond my ken.
_Maiden_ can mean nothing more than "young woman," but in an early form it
appears to have been _the_ English word for "virgin."
from
http://www.bartleby.com/61/92/M0039200.html
[quote]
maiden
[...]
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old English mægden. See maghu-.
[end quote]
From
http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE293.html
[quote]
maghu-
[...]
Young person of either sex. Suffixed form _*magho-ti-._ a. MAID, MAIDEN,
from Old English mægden, virgin_[....]
[end quote]
Hence the word _maidenhead_ for the hymen:
From
http://www.bartleby.com/61/95/M0039500.html
[quote]
maidenhead
[...]
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English _maidenhed, maiden,_ maid, See MAIDEN. +
_-hed,_ -hood.
[end quote]
Stipan
To quote Gide:
"Je jurerais qu'il est puceau". (Robert)
However, I was more interested in the word virgin itself and its everyday
use and abuse.
In Croatian if you use it to describe a man it sounds antiquated and funny.
It is translated as "maiden". Ay, there's the rub! :) Would any of you guys
like to be called maidens? Actually there is a masculine version for it but
I have never heard it used except as a joke.
Stipan
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3AEADD99...@erols.com...
Stipan
Well, I ripped it off another post :)
My Latin stopped at Vulpes et Uvae and quite honestly I am too lazy to go
digging for this one. I am sure someone will give you an exact translation.
Stipan
NON BENE PRO TOTO LIBERTAS VENDITUR AURO
:)
"Lars Eighner" <eig...@io.com> wrote in message
news:863datks2...@dumpster.io.com...
Joe Fineman
> Chaucer was an American. He used the expression "i gesse" all the
> time.
According to Fowler & Fowler (_The King's English_),
..._I gesse_ is a favourite expression of Chaucer's, and the sense
he sometimes gives it is very finely distinguished from the regular
Yankee use. But though it is good old English, it is not good new
English. If we use the phrase..., we have it not from Chaucer, but
from the Yankees, and with their, not his, exact shade of
meaning....
I have never found out what the difference is.
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: To do good is virtuous, and to wish good to be done is :||
||: amiable, but to wish to do good is as vain as it is vain. :||
Woody_E...@alt-usage-english.org
>Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>
>> Chaucer was an American. He used the expression "i gesse" all the
>> time.
>
>According to Fowler & Fowler (_The King's English_),
>
> ..._I gesse_ is a favourite expression of Chaucer's, and the sense
> he sometimes gives it is very finely distinguished from the regular
> Yankee use. But though it is good old English, it is not good new
> English. If we use the phrase..., we have it not from Chaucer, but
> from the Yankees, and with their, not his, exact shade of
> meaning....
>
When dealing with a quotation from _The King's English_ it's well to
keep in mind that the passage may have been written anywhere from 70
to 95 years ago, depending upon which edition it first appeared in.
>I have never found out what the difference is.
Chaucer may have used it to really mean he was guessing. An American
who says "I guess" may not be guessing at all. For example, when I
say "I guess I'll go have a beer," it should leave no doubt in a
listener's mind that that's most definitely what I'm going to do.
On the other hand, an American might say "I guess he went out for a
beer." Here "guess" means the same as "assume," and it's probably
correct to think that the American may be really guessing to some
unknown extent.
_The New Shorter Oxford_ has no definition of "guess" that fits my
first example. The closest it comes is with an obsolete meaning
that's dated "Middle English to mid 16th century":
<obs>2 v.i. Take aim (foll. by to); purpose to do.
Maybe that's the Chaucer meaning of "gesse" the Fowler's were thinking
of. The dates bracket Chaucer's time.
But _The Oxford English Dictionary_ has a quotation from Chaucer under
the definition "To form an approximate judgement of [...] without
actual measurement or calculation; to estimate":
No man coulde preyse or gesse of hem the valewe or richesse.
Strange to see, I can't find the meaning of "guess" that I used in my
first example in any American dictionary. It's good, idiomatic,
standard American English. The dictionaries have some catching up to
do, as usual.
Woody_E...@alt-usage-english.org
>Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>
>> Chaucer was an American. He used the expression "i gesse" all the
>> time.
>
>According to Fowler & Fowler (_The King's English_),
>
> ..._I gesse_ is a favourite expression of Chaucer's, and the sense
> he sometimes gives it is very finely distinguished from the regular
> Yankee use. But though it is good old English, it is not good new
> English. If we use the phrase..., we have it not from Chaucer, but
> from the Yankees, and with their, not his, exact shade of
> meaning....
>
When dealing with a quotation from _The King's English_ it's well to
keep in mind that the passage may have been written anywhere from 70
to 95 years ago, depending upon which edition it first appeared in.
>I have never found out what the difference is.
Chaucer may have used it to really mean he was guessing. An American
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented Joe Fineman
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
JF> Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>> Chaucer was an American. He used the expression "i gesse" all the
>> time.
JF> According to Fowler & Fowler (_The King's English_),
JF> ..._I gesse_ is a favourite expression of Chaucer's, and the
JF> sense he sometimes gives it is very finely distinguished from the
JF> regular Yankee use. But though it is good old English, it is not
JF> good new English. If we use the phrase..., we have it not from
JF> Chaucer, but from the Yankees, and with their, not his, exact
JF> shade of meaning....
JF> I have never found out what the difference is.
And Chaucer is not old English as in Old English, but Middle English.
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Break out of the faceless masses: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/ftp/faq.html
"If writers were good businessmen, they'd have too much sense to be
writers." --Irvin S. Cobb
Tsippi Jelingold
news:3AEADD99...@erols.com...
>
> I believe the prophecy of the so-called (in English) virgin birth is
> traced to Isaiah, which is of course in Hebrew. I'm no scholar of
> Biblical Hebrew (or modern, for that matter), but I believe that the
> Hebrew term that appears as "virgin" in most Christian versions of
> the text can better be translated into English as "maiden" -- which
> can mean nothing more than "young woman." What went on in the
> translations of Isaiah into Greek and Latin is beyond my ken.
The word you refer to in Isaia 7,14 is "alma". Its modern usage is as a
title to an unmarried woman, same as "miss". In the bible it's thought to
mean a maid, a young woman, usually unmarried. Nothing is said about
virginity, unless it went without saying that all unmarried women were (they
couldn't have been that naive, could they?)
The masculine form of this word is "elem", which means a young man with no
regard to marriage or virginity.
The word appears 6 more times in the bible, my concordance says:
Genesis 24,43 - referring to Rebecca who was then (according to tradition) 3
years old and definitely unmarried
Deuteronomy 2,8 - referring to Moses' sister Miriam who was then about
10-12. Marital status unknown but she was still living with her parents.
Psalms 68,26
Song of Songs 1,3 and 6,8
And another one for which I don't know the Latin name (Mishlay - may be
Ecclesiastes)
In at least two of the last four references it *could* mean also young
married women.
BTW the word "virgin" appears 50 times (37 of those clearly having the
modern meaning) and the word "virginity" 10 times, so they must have known
what they wanted to write. Right?
However, all these references represent a period of hundreds of years, so
the usage could have changed. I'll try and do some more research.
Regards, Tsippi Jelingold
--
I have an intuitive grasp of languages
(Intuition (n): an uncanny sixth sense which tells people
that they are right, whether they are or not).
J. W. Love
It's dative, so better: 'for maids and boys':
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
favete linguis. carmina non prius
audita Musarum sacerdos
virginibus puerisque canto.
I hate the uninitiated crowd and keep them away.
Keep sacred silence. For maids and boys,
I, the Muses' priest,
sing songs not heard before.
Horace, Odes III.i.
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <3AEAEE9A...@erols.com>,
> Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> posted:
Careful, Herr Doktor. People are watching.
Mike Oliver
>> And in the past, "virgin" did not invariably mean "sexually innocent,"
>> but sometimes only "never married."
> ... and now we begin to undserstand the phrase "the Virgin Mary" ...
Understand it how? The phrase is used primarily by Catholics (and
perhaps Orthodox?) who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
They certainly do *not* believe that she was never married, as I believe
it is rather clearly stated that Joseph was her husband.
You might possibly have a point with regard to Biblical-literalist
Protestants, who do *not* believe Mary was a virgin all her life
(there are Biblical references to siblings of Jesus), but who
do believe she was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. At that
time she was not strictly speaking "married" but only "betrothed",
a condition which I believe is rather stronger than "engaged".
However such Protestants are unlikely to use the phrase "the Virgin Mary",
so it would seem strange to rely on their beliefs in explaining
the phrase.
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <3AEB7A56...@erols.com>,
>
> Who, the lynch-mob thugs? When the Net Nazi blows his cool, he
> starts using German words!
Isn't "Nazi" a German word, Dr. M? Didn't you use it against me
before I started with "Herr Doktor"? Do you own a mirror?
This is tiresome. Feel free to carry on without me.
Mark Raymond
<20010428211206...@ng-ck1.aol.com>:
Thanks for that ... context is all in this case (pardon the pun).
Mind you, could not the passage you quote be translated as "I ... sing
sings _about_ girls and boys"? The text could be taken as ablative (as I
did originally).
Paul Wolff
That would (should? could?) be _de_ virginibus puerisque.
--
Paul Wolff
Mark Raymond
I think you're probably right there, actually. Indeed, the first draft
my previous post included just such a postulation. Perhaps I should not
have edited it out after all ....
P. Schultz
> <...>
> "Net Nazi" and "Nazi" are terms of reference for those of your ilk.
> They have to be used, <...>
So, you imagine that your urges are outside of your control. Ok.
\\P. Schultz
Rainer Thonnes
Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> writes:
>In our last episode, <wkr8ye6...@TheWorld.com>,
>the lovely and talented Joe Fineman
>broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
>>> Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who
>>> never done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
>
>JF> one in which no less a person than Chaucer applies the word to no
>JF> less a person than Jesus.
>
>but sometimes only "never married."
But in the past, the two would have meant the same thing. The thought
that anyone would ever "do it" other than in wedlock was quite
frankly unthinkable, or at least unmentionable, even if it did actually
happen.
They may have been less tolerant then than now, but they had the decency
not to gossip about it.
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented Rainer Thonnes
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
RT> In article <86y9sllqn...@dumpster.io.com>, Lars Eighner
RT> <eig...@io.com> writes:
>> In our last episode, <wkr8ye6...@TheWorld.com>, the lovely and
>> talented Joe Fineman broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>
JF> "Stipan" <sti...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>>> Um am I wrong or is it only an American thing to call a guy "who
>>>> never done it" a... gulp a virgin? :)
>>
JF> The OED has quotations going back to the 14th century, including
JF> one in which no less a person than Chaucer applies the word to no
JF> less a person than Jesus.
>> And in the past, "virgin" did not invariably mean "sexually
>> innocent," but sometimes only "never married."
RT> But in the past, the two would have meant the same thing.
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that "the past" went
back further than the 19th century.
RT> The
RT> thought that anyone would ever "do it" other than in wedlock was
RT> quite frankly unthinkable, or at least unmentionable, even if it
RT> did actually happen.
RT> They may have been less tolerant then than now, but they had the
RT> decency not to gossip about it.
I think you will find, upon reviewing history before the Victorian
age, that there were more candid times.
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Break out of the faceless masses: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/ftp/faq.html
Ideally a book would have no order to it, and the reader would have to
discover his own. --Raoul Vaneigem
mplsray
> In our last episode, <9cmh6q$k2b$5...@kane.dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
> the lovely and talented Rainer Thonnes
> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
> RT> In article <86y9sllqn...@dumpster.io.com>, Lars Eighner
> RT> <eig...@io.com> writes:
> >> In our last episode, <wkr8ye6...@TheWorld.com>, the lovely and
> >> talented Joe Fineman broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> >>
[...]
> >> And in the past, "virgin" did not invariably mean "sexually
> >> innocent," but sometimes only "never married."
>
> RT> But in the past, the two would have meant the same thing.
>
> I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that "the past" went
> back further than the 19th century.
>
> RT> The
> RT> thought that anyone would ever "do it" other than in wedlock was
> RT> quite frankly unthinkable, or at least unmentionable, even if it
> RT> did actually happen.
>
> RT> They may have been less tolerant then than now, but they had the
> RT> decency not to gossip about it.
>
> I think you will find, upon reviewing history before the Victorian
> age, that there were more candid times.
>
I apologize for not having a cite for the following, but I'll throw it out
here in the hope that someone else has read the passage in question, or has
heard something similar from another source.
I read an author who argued that the idea that important authors in
Elizabethan times were quite candid, compared to authors of a similar status
today, is a myth. Two examples were given: First was Shakespeare, who the
author insisted must have known the word _fuck_ but never used it in any of
his works. The other was Samuel Johnson, who was quoted by an acquaintance
as using the word _fuck,_ but never used in in any of his writings.
As for at least one previous author, Chaucer, (and this is not taken from
the above-mentioned article) I am under the impression that his variations
of _cunt_ and _shit_ were probably in standard educated usage, and thus were
in no way taboo words. Some of the subjects which he handled in Canterbury
Tales would, however, very definitely not be touched by most Victorian
authors.
Robert Lipton
You seem to assume the taboo words were the same as they are now.
Bob
mplsray
"Robert Lipton" <bobl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AEF7076...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> mplsray wrote:
> >
[snip]
Eh, there's some kind of misunderstanding involved here, because _I_
certainly don't understand what you're trying to say.
Concerning the Elizabethans, the examples I gave were from the original
author, and I will leave it at that.
The comments about Chaucer were my own. To restate what I said in other
words: I am under the impression that _cunt_ (or the form that it took in
Chaucer's time) was the educated man's word for _vagina,_ and the word
_shit_ (or the form that it took in Chaucer's time) was the educated man's
word for _defecate._
I don't know whether I was correct about the word _shit,_ but I can offer
the following, from sources on the Internet:
From
http://www.bartleby.com/61/16/G0171650.html
[Under the entry for _gobshite_] "Middle English _shiten,_ to defecate"
From
http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE464.html
[under the entry for skei-] "Old English _*scitan,_ to defecate"
Usage labels are not given, so I cannot prove from the above that the word
was the ordinary word for "to defecate" in Chaucer's time (Middle English),
but it may have been.
As for _cunt,_ the AHD4 gives an etymology saying only "Middle English
_cunte._ " Merriam-Webster adds "akin to Middle Low German _kunte_ female
pudenda." Again, no usage label is given, so I cannot prove from the above
that the word was the ordinary word for "vagina" or "female pudenda."
In fact, according to the following, I may indeed have been wrong about the
status of the word _cunt_ in Chaucer's time:
From
http://members.tripod.co.uk/mathunt/dissertation.html
[quote]
It is clear that the word 'cunt' is a taboo within contemporary Western
society, and has been so for over five hundred years, though there is also
evidence that at one time it was a word with no social prohibitions or
negative connotations. The word's medieval uses in surnames, such as that of
Bele Wydecunte in 1328 (Donald, 1994:84), and streetnames, such as
Gropecuntelane in c. 1230 (_OED,_ 1989), indicate that it was once a
publicly acceptable term. Chaucerian disguising of the term ('queynte'), and
Shakespearian punning references, are evidence of the word's later taboo
status.
[end quote]
That cite does, however, back up what was referred to above about
Shakespeare _not_ being candid in his use of language.
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented mplsray
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
m> "Lars Eighner" <eig...@io.com> wrote in message
m> news:86g0epf1r...@dumpster.io.com...
>> I think you will find, upon reviewing history before the Victorian
>> age, that there were more candid times.
m> I apologize for not having a cite for the following, but I'll throw
m> it out here in the hope that someone else has read the passage in
m> question, or has heard something similar from another source.
m> I read an author who argued that the idea that important authors in
m> Elizabethan times were quite candid, compared to authors of a
m> similar status today, is a myth. Two examples were given: First was
m> Shakespeare, who the author insisted must have known the word
m> _fuck_ but never used it in any of his works. The other was Samuel
m> Johnson, who was quoted by an acquaintance as using the word
m> _fuck,_ but never used in in any of his writings.
This overlooks the possibility of being candid without being crude -
an art for which, I must admit, we have little evidence in the 20th and
21st centuries.
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Break out of the faceless masses: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/ftp/faq.html
"Books are men of higher stature; the only men that speak aloud for
future times to hear." --E.S. Barrett
Jacqui
> The word's medieval uses in surnames, such as that of
> Bele Wydecunte in 1328 (Donald, 1994:84), and streetnames, such as
> Gropecuntelane in c. 1230 (_OED,_ 1989), indicate that it was once a
> publicly acceptable term.
Tangent: after a piece of "guided independent research" at school (aged
14 or 15) most of my class started using "magpie" as a term of abuse.
This came from discovering that Magpie Lane in Oxford (which we all
knew) was previously Gropecunt Lane. The teachers hadn't realised the
source material they were sending us to was quite so explicit... ;)
Jac
Mike Lyle
Ticklecunt Creek: I mentioned it on aue, but got no response. (The Tetons, of
course, are "The Tits".)
Mike.
Peter Moylan
According to rumour the Western Australian island of West Innercourse
Island, formerly known as West Intercourse Island, formerly bore the
proud name of West Fuck.
I've never found any proof or refutation of that story, and the island
itself is too small to show up on most atlases. What I do know for
certain is that sailors had the naming privileges for many of
Australia's coastal features.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au