Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
This was prompted a thread where Proofreader notes the sexual meaning of the term daisy chain”. With tongue in … (ahem) “cheek”, he says, When I checked this term in OED, thinking to try to antedate their cite, I was surprised to see that OED mis-defines it. Furthermore, they do so even though their own citation makes it clear that their definition cannot be correct.¹ A second example of OED’s “oddity” on sexual matters is their entry for rape (see here). A third is their entry for sixty-nine. They don’t give it its own lemma; they bury it in a sub-sub-sub-entry under “sixty”. They misplace the sub-sub-sub under adjectival use (not noun). They further bury the term as only a part of the sub-sub-sub (which combines sexual 69 with “sixty-six”, a card game). And even then they refuse to give it a clear definition, instead, cross-referencing you to a less-well-known synonym, under which you can finally find a definition.² What do you think? ¹ Quoting in pertinent part: “2.b. Sexual activity involving three or more persons. slang. 1977 a group sex activity called the daisy chain has been invented.” [The cite shows that it means not “group sex,” but rather a particular form thereof.] ² Quoting in pertinent part: “sixty – The cardinal number equal to six times ten A.. adj. 2. a. Followed immediately by a lesser numeral, as sixty-one, etc. 2. b. sixty-six, a card-game in which a point is gained by scoring sixty-six; sixty-nine, 69 = SOIXANTE-NEUF.” | ||
|