The dogs bollocks
David Bryant
Can anyone shed any light on the origination of this rather vulgar
phrase.
David Bryant
Stuart R. Leichter
In article <3253844C...@ic.ac.uk>, David Bryant
<d.n.b...@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
Two golf balls on or near the fringe within inches of one another have
been called "dog's nuts" around here, Western Pennsylvania. Can't speak of
the origins, though.
--
Stuart R. Leichter
Markus Laker
Caution: don't read on if you're easily offended.
[Right. That should ensure everyone's attention. :-) ]
slei...@nb.net (Stuart R. Leichter):
Um, that may be so, but it isn't what 'the dog's bollocks' means.
To start at the beginning, 'bollocks' is rather vulgar slang for
testicles: it's perhaps a bit stronger than 'balls'. It's normally
(always?) used in the plural, for understandable reasons. One can also
receive a bollocking: that's a severe telling-off. I think the implied
metaphor is some punishment of (perhaps a kicking in) the testicles.
I'm led to believe that 'bollocks' isn't widely used in the US; that's
why I've laboured the point.
'The dog's bollocks' means the bee's knees, the cat's whiskers. It
denotes excellence. One might argue that the bee's knees and the cat's
whiskers are particularly fine; what can be claimed for a dog's
genitalia I'm not sure. Perhaps the phrase was a simple imitation of
its cleaner cousins.
Markus Laker.
--
In order to thwart programs that harvest email addresses from newsfeeds,
my address is deliberately wrong. Delete the final X.
"There were 30,000 smoking-related deaths last year, and
only four new CJD cases -- yet not a single tobacconist
has been culled." -- Carl Boyd.
Martin A. Mazur
In article <325d3282...@news.tcp.co.uk>,
la...@tcp.co.ukx (Markus Laker) wrote:
>'The dog's bollocks' means the bee's knees, the cat's whiskers. It
>denotes excellence. One might argue that the bee's knees and the cat's
>whiskers are particularly fine; what can be claimed for a dog's
>genitalia I'm not sure. Perhaps the phrase was a simple imitation of
>its cleaner cousins.
>
>Markus Laker.
>
saying "That's great!")?
--
Martin A. Mazur | 3rd Century thoughts on MTV:
Representing only himself | "There is no public entertainment which
http://www.personal.psu.edu | does not inflict spiritual damage"
/faculty/m/x/mxm14/ | - Tertullian
Lee Rudolph
la...@tcp.co.ukx (Markus Laker) writes:
>To start at the beginning, 'bollocks' is rather vulgar slang for
>testicles: it's perhaps a bit stronger than 'balls'. It's normally
>(always?) used in the plural
Dual.
Lee Rudolph, who has seen this claim made in apparent seriousness
by some scholar (who may, however, have been unserious anyhow)
Keith C. Ivey
la...@tcp.co.ukx (Markus Laker) wrote:
>I'm led to believe that 'bollocks' isn't widely used in the US;
>that's why I've laboured the point.
You are led correctly, but we do have a verb derived from it,
usually spelled "bollix" and most often used in the phrase "all
bollixed up" (meaning confused or bungled). It's informal, but
not generally considered offensive. Many if not most Americans
who use the word wouldn't see any anatomic reference in it.
Similarly, the British noun "cock-up" (meaning a blunder) is, I
believe, not nearly so offensive as "cock" by itself. (But I
see in Partridge's Concise Dictionary of Slang that "cock-up"
may have a nonsexual derivation.)
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
Lee Lester
Similarly, the British noun "cock-up" (meaning a blunder) is, I
believe, not nearly so offensive as "cock" by itself.
Depends. Thus 'How're you doing, old cock?' would be friendly greeting,
mainly used by Cockneys.
Incidentally, I have never heard nuts used in the UK as a term for
testicles.
Paul Bogrow
Markus Laker <la...@tcp.co.ukx> wrote:
>I'm led to believe that 'bollocks' isn't widely used in the US
To the point where an argument could be made for its being milder than
"balls" in the U.S., at least when used in a context that permits the
hearer to remain ignorant of its literal anatomical meaning.
Patrick Gillard
In article <325d3282...@news.tcp.co.uk>, Markus Laker
la...@tcp.co.ukx> writes
<snip (which, in this context, might be rather unpleasant)>
>
>> Two golf balls on or near the fringe within inches of one another have
>> been called "dog's nuts" around here, Western Pennsylvania. Can't speak of
>> the origins, though.
>
<snip again>
>'The dog's bollocks' means the bee's knees, the cat's whiskers. It
>denotes excellence.
Absolutely! It does have a purely positive meaning. for example:
"The new Yamaha XPTwhatsisname, it's the dog's bollocks isn't it!
There's another phrase related to canine genitalia, which is less
common. When something is particularly obvious (and especially if your
interlocuter does not seem to appreciate its obviousness), you can say:
"It's as obvious/plain as the balls on a tall dog!"
The derivation is, well..obvious.
--
Patrick Gillard
Donald Adaway
In message <96101102...@guildnet.org>
lee.l...@guildnet.org (Lee Lester) writes:
> Incidentally, I have never heard nuts used in the UK as a term for
> testicles.
It's quite common as in the old joke:
A bent old man with stick walks into shop
Old man- "An ice-cream please"
Assistant- "Certainly sir, crushed nuts?"
Old man- "No, it's my back"
--
Don <don.a...@zetnet.co.uk>
Markus Laker
lee.l...@guildnet.org (Lee Lester):
> Similarly, the British noun "cock-up" (meaning a blunder) is, I
> believe, not nearly so offensive as "cock" by itself.
I think you're right.
> Depends. Thus 'How're you doing, old cock?' would be friendly greeting,
> mainly used by Cockneys.
The OED has an interesting article on 'cock', which it says is
figuratively applied to men. The most relevant-looking meaning is 'one
who fights with pluck and spirit; hence a familiar term of appreciation
among the vulgar'.
> Incidentally, I have never heard nuts used in the UK as a term for
> testicles.
I have; I remember puerile schoolboy jokes about nutcrackers and the
like. Perhaps the anatomical use of 'nut' is less common than it used
to be. I remember seeing a use of it in reference to something
extremely expensive, which would 'cost an arm, a leg and a left nut'.
It's interesting to observe that, if the writer had said 'a right nut',
the meaning would have changed completely.
Keith C. Ivey
>> Similarly, the British noun "cock-up" (meaning a blunder) is, I
>> believe, not nearly so offensive as "cock" by itself.
>I think you're right.
I wrote the sentence beginning with "Similarly"--not Lee Lester.
>I remember seeing a use of ["nut"] in reference to something
>extremely expensive, which would 'cost an arm, a leg and a left nut'.
>It's interesting to observe that, if the writer had said 'a right nut',
>the meaning would have changed completely.
Do you mean that "a right nut" would be interpreted as "a
complete lunatic"? I thought "nutter" was the usual UK word.
N.R. Mitchum
Keith C. Ivey wrote:
----------
> usually spelled "bollix" and most often used in the phrase "all
> bollixed up" (meaning confused or bungled). It's informal, but
> not generally considered offensive. Many if not most Americans
> who use the word wouldn't see any anatomic reference in it.
Just as often however we do say "all balled up," and say it with a
vague awarenes of its mildly vulgar nature. It wouldn't surprise me
to hear that many people consider "bollix"a euphemism for "balls"
rather than an American version of the British "bollocks ... which
spelling is itself a polite avoidance of the original "ballocks."
(When Sex walks in the door, sense flies out the window.)
Here's a small coincidence for you. Between writing the above
paragraph and hitting the Send button, I finally read the text of
"Eskimo Nell," which includes the lines,
Back again to where men are men,
to the Terra Bollicum
On the marge of Lake Lebarge,
Nathan Mitchum [Post&Mail]
Bill Bonde
N.R. Mitchum <aj...@mail.lafn.org> wrote in article
<325FE4...@mail.lafn.org>...
> Keith C. Ivey wrote:
> ----------
> > You are led correctly, but we do have a verb derived from it,
> > usually spelled "bollix" and most often used in the phrase "all
> > bollixed up" (meaning confused or bungled). It's informal, but
> > not generally considered offensive. Many if not most Americans
> > who use the word wouldn't see any anatomic reference in it.
> >..........
>
> Just as often however we do say "all balled up," and say it with a
> vague awarenes of its mildly vulgar nature. It wouldn't surprise me
> to hear that many people consider "bollix"a euphemism for "balls"
> rather than an American version of the British "bollocks ... which
> spelling is itself a polite avoidance of the original "ballocks."
> (When Sex walks in the door, sense flies out the window.)
>
Ok, but what about 'Bullock' as in Sandra?
Markus Laker
In another of his articles that haven't reached my newsreader, Keith
Ivey writes:
> la...@tcp.co.ukx (Markus Laker) wrote:
> >lee.l...@guildnet.org (Lee Lester):
> >> Similarly, the British noun "cock-up" (meaning a blunder) is, I
> >> believe, not nearly so offensive as "cock" by itself.
> >I think you're right.
> I wrote the sentence beginning with "Similarly"--not Lee Lester.
My apologies. That sentence appeared in Lee's article without any sign
that it was quoted and -- you guessed it -- I haven't seen the article
in which you wrote it.
This is all a bit frustrating. There are certain articles on a.u.e that
I would happily forgo; yours are not among them. Could someone be
censoring them because of their title?
> >I remember seeing a use of ["nut"] in reference to something
> >extremely expensive, which would 'cost an arm, a leg and a left nut'.
> >It's interesting to observe that, if the writer had said 'a right nut',
> >the meaning would have changed completely.
> Do you mean that "a right nut" would be interpreted as "a
> complete lunatic"?
Yes.
> I thought "nutter" was the usual UK word.
'Nut', 'nutter' and 'nutcase' are all frequently used and readily
understood here in the UK. 'Head case' is almost as common; that, of
course, is a more literal rendition of 'nutcase', since 'nut' is a slang
word (perhaps obsolescent) for 'head'.
Bob Bridges
> la...@tcp.co.ukx (Markus Laker) writes:
> >To start at the beginning, 'bollocks' is rather vulgar slang for
> >testicles: it's perhaps a bit stronger than 'balls'. It's normally
> >(always?) used in the plural
Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in article <53jvnu$2...@panix.com>...
> Dual.
>
> Lee Rudolph, who has seen this claim made in apparent seriousness
> by some scholar (who may, however, have been unserious anyhow)
Well, if English *had* a dual number "bollocks" would usually be in it. As
far as I know, though, we have only one truly dual word (not counting
explicit words like "pair" which somehow don't seem to me to count) and
it's an adjective, not a noun.
Colin Fine
In article <96101102...@guildnet.org>, Lee Lester
<lee.l...@guildnet.org> writes
>Incidentally, I have never heard nuts used in the UK as a term for
>testicles.
I have. I'm thinking particularly of one of the initiation rituals to
which engineering apprentices may get subjected: one of them is to go to
the stores for 'a pair of greased nuts'. According to the story, on
asking for the said items the unfortunate is grabbed, immobilised with a
broomstick through the arms of his donkey-jacket. Then trousers down and
a big dollop of grease is applied.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK |
| Tel: 01274 592696/0976 436109 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk |
| "We're all in a box and the instructions for getting out |
| are on the outside" -K.B.Brown |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Gawley
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Lee Lester wrote:
> Similarly, the British noun "cock-up" (meaning a blunder) is, I
> believe, not nearly so offensive as "cock" by itself.
>
It is not really offensive at all: it is a printers' term.
> Depends. Thus 'How're you doing, old cock?' would be friendly greeting,
> mainly used by Cockneys.
>
Markus Laker
"N.R. Mitchum" <aj...@mail.lafn.org>:
> Just as often however we do say "all balled up," and say it with a
> vague awarenes of its mildly vulgar nature.
And *we* -- or some of us, anyway -- talk about things being ballsed up.
The extra ess makes it uglier in two ways: the grammar's 'orrible and
the reference is more direct.
Bill Bonde
Colin Fine <co...@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<dfYeIFAs...@kindness.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <96101102...@guildnet.org>, Lee Lester
> <lee.l...@guildnet.org> writes
>
> >Incidentally, I have never heard nuts used in the UK as a term for
> >testicles.
>
> I have. I'm thinking particularly of one of the initiation rituals to
> which engineering apprentices may get subjected: one of them is to go to
> the stores for 'a pair of greased nuts'. According to the story, on
> asking for the said items the unfortunate is grabbed, immobilised with a
> broomstick through the arms of his donkey-jacket. Then trousers down and
> a big dollop of grease is applied.
>
And then he sues the college for millions and doesn't need to even
graduate. This must just happen in the UK. I can't imagine going to the
Home Depot and having this occur. Or walking into Eagle Hardware and Garden
and finding out they really do have MORE OF EVERYTHING.
John Innes
Right well I'd agree with the postings saying that "The Dog's Bollocks" is
a slightly crude way of saying "it's great". Viz Comic published their
collection of issues 26 - 31 under the title "The Dog's Bollocks (not
suitable for children, old farts or guardians of public morals" in the
late 80's - it's now on it's 10th printing.
Nuts is indeed your testicles
A Nut can be something that fits on a bolt, something that squirrels
hoard, or someone who is crazy (who can also be a nutter - "you nutter",
or nuts - "you're nuts!")
At the Viz net site we've put together a Sweary Dictionary - there are
lots of alternative definitions to swear words there
(http://www.viz.co.uk/) - go have a look.
John
--------------------------------------------------------------
The statements made in this e-mail are not necessarily the opinion of John Brown Publishing, and should not be attributed to the company.
John Innes
Electronic Publisher, John Brown Publishing
Viz Comic http://www.viz.co.uk/
Fortean Times http://www.forteantimes.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Fine
In article <01bbbae1$3c083780$0deb...@billb.halcyon.com>, Bill Bonde
<bi...@halcyon.com> writes
College? What? I'm not talking about academia, cock. I'm talking about
the hard real world of engineering sites. [Hearsay only, I admit: I'm
not exactly an habitue' of such places]
Bill Bonde
Colin Fine <co...@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<j0$hyIA13...@kindness.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bbbae1$3c083780$0deb...@billb.halcyon.com>, Bill Bonde
> <bi...@halcyon.com> writes
> >
> >
> >Colin Fine <co...@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> ><dfYeIFAs...@kindness.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <96101102...@guildnet.org>, Lee Lester
> >> <lee.l...@guildnet.org> writes
> >>
> >> >Incidentally, I have never heard nuts used in the UK as a term for
> >> >testicles.
> >>
> >> I have. I'm thinking particularly of one of the initiation rituals to
> >> which engineering apprentices may get subjected: one of them is to go
to
> >> the stores for 'a pair of greased nuts'. According to the story, on
> >> asking for the said items the unfortunate is grabbed, immobilised with
a
> >> broomstick through the arms of his donkey-jacket. Then trousers down
and
> >> a big dollop of grease is applied.
> >>
> >And then he sues the college for millions and doesn't need to even
> >graduate. This must just happen in the UK. I can't imagine going to the
> >Home Depot and having this occur. Or walking into Eagle Hardware and
Garden
> >and finding out they really do have MORE OF EVERYTHING.
>
> College? What? I'm not talking about academia, cock. I'm talking about
Cock? Don't be a git.
> the hard real world of engineering sites. [Hearsay only, I admit: I'm
> not exactly an habitue' of such places]
Oh, yea, engineering sites are hard. They generally beat each other to
death with mallets.