I am aware of the vulgar origins of this term when used in the sense "American beer sucks", and thus the word's etymology is not what interests me.

What does interest me is how quickly the word has changed its meaning from that of a "vulgar" act, to a person or thing who perpetrates a vulgar act, to a person or thing that offends in an extreme manner.

The expression is still rarely heard in the UK but it now seems to be very common parlance in the US when the user wishes to express the thought that a particular item, person or situation is especially offensive.

One thing that I note particularly, and which might explain the word's rapid adoption, is that there are no equivalent way of expressing particular disgust simply by using a transitive verb.

In the UK we might say that something annoys, offends, irritates or even disgusts - but none seems to convey quite the same sense of profound foulness. In the UK to equal the amount of disgust conveyed by the expression "Budweiser sucks" we would need to say something like, "without doubt, Budweiser is probably the worst beer that has ever been allowed to offend the palate".

What do the rest of you think?

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:

offensive.

One thing that I note particularly, and which might explain the word's rapid adoption, is that there are no equivalent way of expressing particular disgust simply by using a transitive verb.
...

What do the rest of you think?

Richard English

---

I think that in this usage the verb "to suck" is intransitive.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

I have also seen "sucky" used, as in "That's a pretty sucky beer you're drinking!"

Interesting thread, Richard. I took it to Onelook and learned more than I ever wanted to know about "suck" from its 4 slang dictionaries. The Macquarie Dictionary actually had 20 different uses of the word "suck", none of them too appealing. Interestingly, the American-Australian Slang Dictionary said the following, which I have never heard before: "'That sucks like an Electrolux', referring to the amazing sucking power of that very early vacuum cleaner."

'That beer sucks' sounds like Beavis and Butthead to my UK ears, and also like my new Nigerian student. Apparanetly, something called Destiny's Child suck.

Has the phrase 'that beer's minging' crossed to your side of the pond yet? It used to mean 'that beer smells', but now is an excellent translatation of 'that beer sucks'.

It seems that UK citizens and beer are inseperable, as witness these many threads that quickly get frothy at the top. Thus the Shakespearian song about the drinkers of US brews, "Where the beer sucks there suck I?"

We used to use the expression "mingy" or "mingey" to describe someone or something that that was somewhat unpleasant - maybe unhelpful or tightfisted.

It's not a common expression now.

Richard English

The verb may have started out as a reference to oral sex (I have no idea either way) but now it is completely removed. Nuns can now say "That sucks" without anyone lifting an eyebrow. That's just the way the language evolves.

Kalleh says:

quote:

---

Interestingly, the American-Australian Slang Dictionary said the following, which I have never heard before: "'That sucks like an Electrolux', referring to the amazing sucking power of that very early vacuum cleaner."

---

Around here, it is a late vacuum cleaner. My Electrolux just died.

Morgan's Electrolux no longer sucks. Strangely, that sucks!

On the Late Show with David Letterman website (reachable through cbs.com) there is a weekly contest to see if the average Joe is clever enough to write a "Top Ten" listing that the show's writing staff deems good enough to air. This week's topic is "Top Ten Ways McDonald's is Improving Their Business" so I entered:

Big Macs are now 27% less McSucky.

They say that they get tens of thousands of entries each week and the ten best get a T-Shirt. Still...

Only thought I'd bring it up here since sucking seems to be the hot topic du jour. This post is not an invitation for anyone to claim Leno's show is better (since it most certainly is not) or for anyone to argue about the correctness of the apostrophe in "McDonald's" (I don't care) or for anyone to go off on a rant regarding how British hamburgers are better than McDonald's since, in keeping with the theme of this thread, we all know that McDonald's sucks!

quote:

---

Has the phrase 'that beer's minging' crossed to your side of the pond yet?

---

Graham, I have never heard of that phrase here in the U.S. I do think our "beer vocabulary" is in its infantile stage, however, compared to that in Europe.
I do rather like the word, though. My AHD defines it as "meager", as in mingy wages or "mean and stingy". I am the treasurer for our local basketball association, and I always call myself "Scrooge" (because they all like to spend like "drunken sailors"!); now I am going to call myself "mingy"!

quote:

---

CJ posts:
The verb may have started out as a reference to oral sex (I have no idea either way) but now it is completely removed. Nuns can now say "That sucks" without anyone lifting an eyebrow.

---

Not around me, they can't.

As to the oral sex aspect: I've often wondered why the word blow is used, since suck would seem more appropriate. (Etymology on-line tells us that this term dates from the 1930's, but gives no further information.)

I don't understand why either suck or blow would relate to fellatio, but then, I used to think that Fellatio was a Gilbert and Sullivan character.

It's fascinating, is it not?

The origins of the verb "to suck" bothered me not at all, as I so clearly stated. My interest was in why this word, having a special and limited meaning, should have so rapidly shifted in sense so as to convey the the meaning "...that thing is especially unpleasant and annoying..."

But what do I get? In depth information on the origins of the term! To use the vernacular, "That sucks"!

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
My interest was in why this word, having a special and limited meaning, should have so rapidly shifted in sense so as to convey the the meaning "...that thing is especially unpleasant and annoying..."

---

Since the mid 1800s,suck up to someone has been British slang meaning “to flatter and cajole; curry favor with” (American Slang, by Robert L. Chapman, Harper and Row, 1987). By the early 1900s, suck, was being used as a noun meaning “a parasite, a toady” (Caselle’s Dictionary of Slang, by Jonathon Green, Cassell & Co, 1998). This was, of course, because a toady “sucked ass” (or “arse”). It’s not hard to see how the term could have expanded from contemptible person to contemptible or unpleasant act. Some would even argue that performing fellatio, or sucking, was an unpleasant act. Receiving…that’s another matter.

This sense of suck may also have arisen from the expression, “He sucks air like a fish out of water”.

Tinman

Sorry, Richard.
I agree with you that it is strange how words change over time. Just yesterday I learned of another. Though the change has been gradual, I had not known that "discuss" originally meant "dispel" or "disperse" from Webster's online: Etymology: Middle English, from Latin discussus, past participle of discutere to disperse, from dis- apart + quatere to shake -- more at DIS-, QUASH
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : DISPEL
It seems to me that there is a lot of difference between "dispel" and "discuss"!

quote:

---

Originally posted by wordnerd:
As to the oral sex aspect: I've often wondered why the word blow is used, since suck would seem more appropriate.

---

I've heard two possible explanations. It may refer to the jazz expression blow, meaning to "play" a wind instrument", as in "He blows a mean horn". In the sexual sense, the "horn" is the penis. Blow can refer to an eruption, literally or figuratively, as in "Mount St. Helens blew her top in 1980", or "He blew his cool." The sexual meaning may refer to the result of the act, when one "blows his wad."

Tinman

The sexual meaning
may refer to the result of the act, when one "blows his wad."
**************************************
Yet the same expression may mean to spend all of his money - even spending it on causing the other meaning.

I would bet money that the term's origination had something to do with the oral sex connotation. Because to many it would be extremely disgusting to suck some guys... well you know.
I however have never understood this since from my personal experience that act usually ends up with all involved being quite happy. It would make more sence if we used the term "that bites" to express the same sentiment. Because if someone "did bite" at that time, it would really suck.

It would make more sence if we
used the term "that bites" to express the same sentiment. Because if someone "did
bite" at that time, it would really suck.
*********************************
Well, that's food for thought, although I'm not sure I swallow it. Still, it's an idea one could get one's teeth into, and not just pay lip service to it. Indeed, it's a seminal thought!

Although I had never made the connection previously, I am now reminded of a meaning for the UK expression "sucker".

It is often used to describe a victim of some kind of hoax or fraud - usually one who is soemwhat simple or innocent and thus easy prey. A "fall-guy" or a "mug".

Wheras this is not a polite term, it is still some way from the offensive verb we have been discussing. However, it is, I suppose, a possible root.

Richard English

Oral sex vs. Marijuana

Considering how surprisingly closed mouthed (no pun intended) everyone seemed to be when I brought up the topic of weedly slang, I'm mildly shocked at how enthusiastically you all jump into a linguistic discussion about oral sex.

Maybe no one ever smoked pot but everybody seems to...

(oh, never mind.)

Nooooot goin there! No way. Can't make me. No sirrrrrrreeeeee. Uh uh!

quote:

---

Considering how surprisingly closed mouthed (no pun intended) everyone seemed to be when I brought up the topic of weedly slang,

---

Okay, I give....Yes, CJ, when I was in college, I tried marijuana. I even inhaled. I was as surprised as you to see the responses in that thread. I am not proud of it, nor did I find it particularly enjoyable. I still think it should remain illegal, with the exception of medicinal uses. It is a strong anti-emetic and quite useful for oncology patients on chemotherapy.

There--I feel better already! Richard's comment previously about posting with the thought that everything you write may appear in the front pages of the newspaper stuck in my mind. Now--I suppose I can never be the president (after all, I did inhale!) or Miss America....

Kudos to Kalleh (another catchy book title idea) for making a clean (you should excuse the expression) breast of it regarding her wanton past. Don't sweat the small stuff, K. You wouldn't like the Oval Office anyway.

A while back R.E. made a point something along the lines of "If your circle of friends is into some activity, you tend to assume that everyone enjoys it." This is undoubtedly true.

BUT in the case of wacky tabacky (to mention yet another synonym for marijuana, keeping the original idea of that other thread in mind) back in the day it seemed like only the very resolute were not partaking. Lawyers, businessmen, educators, stuffy old Englishmen, jocks, cops (ESPECIALLY cops; from personal experience I can state that our men in blue very often had the best weed!), the military, and just about every other sub-group of society you could mention were happily toking away.

And, of course, musicians? Fuhgetaboudit! Most guitarists knew more sources of dope than they knew chords! I mean, "Louie, Louie" speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Unlike Kalleh, however, not only did I inhale deeply and often, I look back on those days with fondness. It's far too late to change the way history has dealt with this particular pleasure BUT, if I had a magic wand, I might be seriously tempted to have alcohol treated in the same way grass has been all these years OR vice versa. Make them both legal, accessible and, within reason, acceptable (as in the Kingdom of Strolinia; I haven't forgotten that project) or, for the sake of consistency, ban them both. The key either way would be to be responsible in whatever pleasures you chose to partake in.

Now, DWIs? They should be publicly flogged!
Anyone giving drugs to minors? Skinned alive for a first offense!
Nymphomaniacs? Should be sent over to my place for a stern talking to! (ahem!)
Eat more than 10 pounds of cheese in a week? Well... I don't know, I suppose that's OK. But 10 pounds?! Jeeze!

The key, of course, is M O D E R A T I O N. "Do unto others," and all that good kinda talk.

OK, that's it for now. Go play.

(and so endeth the Gospell according to Strolin.)

Believe it or not, we also discussed the word "mingy" in this thread--quite early on. Graham had asked if the term, referring to maloderous beer or lousy beer, had crossed the pond. I was perplexed as to how mingy, obviously a portmanteau word combining "mean" and "stingy" could come to mean "foul smelling" or "lousy". I believe the etymologies must be different. Coincidentally, I came across the word "retromingent", meaning that urine is directed posteriorly, as in women. I wonder if the "mingy" root means "urine" since obviously "retro" means "posterior". That would explain the "foul smelling", or "mingy" beer. Interesting!

Man, and I was just about to have a Corona. Kalleh reminds me of the rumors about the Mexicans pissing in the beer vats.

Richard was "reminded of a meaning for the UK expression 'sucker'. It is often used to describe a victim of some kind of hoax or fraud."

That meaning isn't unique to the UK. One of W.C. Fields' finest movies was Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941).

My recall is that that particular phrase comes for P.T. Barnum. AHD's site credits it to one "Otis Criblecoblis, U.S. screenwriter" in connection with the Fields movie, but that name is extremely suspect. Fields was a wordplay addict, was active in his own screenwriting, and often claimed a screen-credit for that writing under some outlandish name. For example, another of his flicks lists a screenwriter (whom AHD is so credulous as to credit) named "Mahatma Kane Jeeves" -- a pun on My hat, my cane, Jeeves!"

The P.T. Barnum quotation you're looking for is "There's a sucker born every minute." The two are often confused for each other.

W.C. Fields's (proud of me, R.E.?) famous line, while being the title of the movie you mention, was also the very last line of the sadly under-appreciated and seldom seen Fields classic film "Poppy." The title character is the daughter of the Fields character who, as he was in most of his movies, is a cheat and a scoundrel BUT, in this case, one who loves his daughter with all his heart. In the end, he sees that to ensure her happiness, he will have to absent himself from her life forever and, in a heart-wrenching effort that nearly kills him, he does so. Truly dramatic stuff, really.

In the final scene, as they're saying goodbye knowing that they will probably never see each other ever again, W.C. fights back the tears to tell his beloved daughter that he has one last piece of fatherly advice for her. "Yes, father?" she asks, her voice cracking. Holding her hands in his, he leans in close to her and whispers "Never give a sucker an even break!"


Ba-BOOM!! Fade to black! Roll the credits!

Was there ever anyone who used the language in quite the way as Mr. W.C?!

Hey, TrossL, you are a member! Hip, hip, hooray!

Hey???!!! How did that happen? How strange and wonderful.
Yippee for me!

[This message was edited by TrossL on Wed Feb 5th, 2003 at 19:04.]

Awwww, darn, Morgan saw it first. And, I was waiting for you to become a "member", TrossL, so that I could be the first to congratulate you. Well, anyway, CONGRATULATIONS!

Hey, TrossL, you are a member! Hip, hip, hooray!
-----------------------------
Gosh, the last time somebody called me a "member," they were insulting me. They used a different term than "member," however. I suppose context has a lot to do with meaning.

If one does not follow the rules on this board would they be dis-membered?

Or, in John Bobbit's case, following his surgery he was fondly remembered.

Enthusiasstic congratulations!

Or, in John Bobbit's case, following his surgery he was fondly remembered.
________________________________________
I hear he's a real cheapskate. At a restaurant he recntly stiffed the waitress.

Oh, c'mon. Don't be so hard-on the guy!

I think I saw him today! Isn't he the guy who drives the Oscar Meyer Weiner Mobile?

With all these puns, don't we risk being mistaken for a Lewis Carroll website?


(heh, heh)

There has been a media uproar here about whether newspapers will accept Friday's Doonesbury which contains the word "suck". The editor of our Chicago newspaper will publish it. In his column, explaining why, he defines "suck" as "bummer", though he says it has a "far more of a negative, deploring implication and less of an air of sunny, California insouciance." Recently, the Los Angeles Times refused to publish a "Zits" comic with the word "suck" in it, so the author changed the term to "stinks". However, Garry Trudeau won't budge. The LA Times asked the advice of Chicago editor, Don Wycliff, who urged the LA Times to go with it. Wycliff said that the word is "... crude, vulgar, coarse and inelegant, but not, I think, obscene. Or not any longer."

So, there you have it from a newspaper's point of view!

This was all in a column explaining why the Chicago Tribune chose to print those gruesome pictures of Hussein's boys, albeit on the last page. I was impressed that the Seattle Times refused to print the pictures and even refused to publish the Web site where they could be found (which is what many papers did). The Seattle Times said that the pictures didn't meet the test they apply: that the image must serve an important journalistic purpose. Way to go Seattle Times! A pox on the house of the Boston Globe which published the pictures on page 1 (decidedly unusual treatment).

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Thu Jul 31st, 2003 at 11:19.]