aput said, "f-word: I thought the first printed occurrence was in Dunbar's The Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy (1508): "wan fukkit funling". Of course this was technically in Scots so you could say it wasn't in English, though I claim it as such."
Typo, aput? OED gives as appearance in "about 1503". Of course, if one were to check earlier publications for possible usage, the most-fertile types of publications are perhaps the types to which OED's researchers would not be giving high priority.
How odd that OED says "intr. To copulate. trans.(rarely used with female subject.)To copulate with; to have sexual connection with." I'd disagree with the part I've put in red.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,
quote:Originally posted by shufitz: I'd disagree with the part I've put in red phrase.
I'm not so sure, shu. It ties in with the cultural idea that the male is active during sex while the female is passive: the man f***s; the woman is f***ed.
(Particularly if he gets her pregnant then leaves).
I have heard young girls use the word in the same way as young men do.
That, and their propensity to talk about the topic loudly in public (which is how I know that's what they say) seems to be quite a modern development.
And Cat, I am sorry to spoil your young innocence, but I can assure you, from my personal experience, that passivity is not an invariable female trait!
Richard English
Posts: 5988 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Just out of curiousity, what word did they use before 1503?
Oh, they used the same word we do, it's just that the first instance of it in print is 1503. My favorite synonym from Chaucer's time is swiven, related to our word swivel.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: jheem,
Hm, I'm not sure. It looks like Dunbar has both the first recorded use (1503: Be his feiris he wald haue fukkit) and the first printed use (1508, in the Flyting).
So how did swiven become swivel and change its meaning?
Swivel, the noun, is derived from the OE verb swífan 'to couple, have intercourse' > ME swiven. The -l is probably a diminutive suffix. The -en in the verb was the infinitival desinence. A swivel is a coupling device; doesn't seem to great a stretch of the imagination ...
And Cat, I am sorry to spoil your young innocence, but I can assure you, from my personal experience, that passivity is not an invariable female trait!
quote:My favorite synonym from Chaucer's time is swiven, related to our word swivel.
Actually, no: my research indicates that they are not precisely synonymous.
As I understand it, older English had two separate transitive verbs, depending on whether the sentence was "He ________s her," or "She ________s him." In the former case the verb would be "to swive"; in the latter case it would be "to quim". [I put the latter in white, on the understanding that in today's british slang it is still used as a noun and is extremely offensive.] The modern verb, of course, can be used in either way, and is not specific to either partner's point of view.
And Cat, I am sorry to spoil your young innocence, but I can assure you, from my personal experience, that passivity is not an invariable female trait!
Amen!
I, too, can attest to that . . . but I believe that Cat is referring to the cultural myth that women are always taken. Now, I think it would be interesting to figure out which cultures promoted that myth and which boldly denounced it.
******* "Show your true colors. Mine is Yellow." ~Big Bird
quote:Originally posted by jheem: Do you have any references you could point me at?
Here's what I have. They are secondary sources only, since I can't find much Middle English on the net, but at least I have more than one source. Not proof, of course, but suggestive.
1. Apparently John Money noted the distinction in To Quim And To Swive - Linguistic And Coital Parity, Male And Female, 1982 Journal Of Sex Research 18(2):173-176. The article is referenced here (scroll down the left column to item 581). I don't have the full text of that article, but this site explains Money thus:
Sexologist John Money recommends two transitive verb forms for the activity indicated by the noun "coitus" since none exist excepting for the socially unacceptable "fuck." These should be "swive," and "quim," which are obsolete early English. Men would "swive" women, whereas women would "quim" men. Both verb forms for coitus are active and are not indicative of a power imbalance relationship between the sexes engaging in this activity.
2. In the discussion here (continuing here) between Rueckert, McKenna, Waugh (respectively indicated by black, blue and red type below), the last two gents seem to seem to take the same position. The relevant parts, amid a morass of much more, are:
"Not that it shockes me that much, but in Dutch "kutmusic", "kutmuziek", means very, very lousy music, "kut" being the most dirty word for the female genital organ..." [and later] "PS No English word comes anywhere close to the Dutch word for the actual deed ..." "Really? Neither to quim nor to swive?" "both of which are valid english words. even if swive is quite obsolete except in dialect. though they don't mean the same thing in english." "Yes. Both valid, both archaic as verbs. In the sense that each verb is gender specific, you are correct to distinguish difference between them - but they do indeed "mean" to the same thing (application of one or the other differ depends upon who's doing the thing)."
These should be "swive," and "quim," which are obsolete early English. Men would "swive" women, whereas women would "quim" men. Both verb forms for coitus are active and are not indicative of a power imbalance relationship between the sexes engaging in this activity.
Thanks, wordnerd, for the references. It is not clear to me from the above quote that what Money is doing is describing how swive and quim (which is a noun for the female pudend) were used rather than his suggested normative usage. I'll try to find the article and get back to you.
Partridge suggests that quimming for sexual intercourse is a 19th century usage. Hardly Middle English.
I looked in my Old English dictionary and find that swifan meant 'to come to course' and our word swift is from the past particple. No mention of its sexual use. Nothing sexual under cwim either, except that it's a variation of comen whence our to come; it's related to Skt gam. 'to go', Latin venio 'to come', and Gothic qiman 'to come'. The use of the verb for come as a synonym for the climax of sexual intercourse is found in Hittite (don't have the word at hand).
Anyway, I'm still sceptical, but will reserve further opinion until I've read Money's article.
Does this thread remind anyone else of that well-known preoccupation of schoolboys: looking up the dirty words in a dictionary?
At least it involves looking up words and discussing them, rather than some of the other non-curricular (polling) activities on the board. Sheesh, I blush.
quote:Originally posted by arnie: Does this thread remind anyone else of that well-known preoccupation of schoolboys: looking up the dirty words in a dictionary?
Maybe in YOUR day it was just the boys . . . but I distinctly remember looking up dirty words with my girlfriends (of course, I was very sheltered, we didn't do it til college).
******* "Show your true colors. Mine is Yellow." ~Big Bird
IMHO, words aren't "dirty" unless they are so in the minds of those who proscribe them, and then they're only dirty to them. Hey, if Dick Cheney can tell someone to "fuck off," we've come (pun not intended) a long way!
