SUX

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>I started this thread to dredge up evidence concerning the early career of
>a now salient Americanism.  Are Wilson, Ron, and I really the only ones
>aged enough to have something to contribute?

I'm a young dude, so I can remember this sort of thing only back to ca.
1960 (maybe a little hazy, too).

I'm inclined to agree with JL, in general. As for "proof", well, this
word-history stuff isn't like chemistry and absolute proof is hard to come by.

One question which may be germane is how the history of "sucks" relates to
the histories of superficially comparable expressions "blows" and "eats
[it] [raw]".

Certainly "He eats it [raw]" (= "He is despicable" or so) was conventional
as early as I can remember (1960 or maybe a little earlier). Presumably "It
eats [it] [raw]", which is nonsense on its face if the "it" which eats
refers to an inanimate thing, is simply a generalization, = "It is
despicable" or so. If this predates "he/it sucks" in the same sense then it
may be presumed that "sucks" appeared as a synonym for "eats" in the same
(oral sex) sense, IMHO. If there was an earlier distinct "sucks" (e.g.,
"sucks wind"), presumably it was assimilated. There is also the question of
whether "eats it" assimilated a parallel expression "eats shit" or so.
"Blows" seems pretty unambiguous, and I recall this as more common than
"sucks" in this context from the early 1960's (my experience of course not
necessarily representative).

Just my casual notions.

-- Doug Wilson