USA Today on "sucks "

Wilson Gray hwgray at GMAIL.COM
Fri Sep 30 19:02:01 UTC 2005


Why doesn't "eat" work this way? "John sucks/blows" doesn't require a
surface object, but "John eats" does. This has only a literal meaning.
But "John eats it" has both a literal reading and a slang reading,
which slang reading is ambiguous. "John eats it" can mean that he
enjoys performing fellatio and/or cunnilingus/cunnilinctus or that
he's into scat.

-Wilson

On 9/30/05, RonButters at aol.com <RonButters at aol.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       RonButters at AOL.COM
> Subject:      =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20=A0=20=A0=20=A0=20Re:=20USA=20Today=20on=20?
>               =
>               =?ISO-8859-1?Q?"sucks=A0=20=A0=20=A0=20=A0=20=A0=20=A0=20=A0=A0=2
>               0"?=
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In a message dated 9/30/05 12:10:07 AM, laurence.horn at YALE.EDU writes:
>
>
> >=20
> > While I agree with Ron's point here, and with his article (which I
> > include in course packets), I would still suggest one quasi-answer to
> > the last quasi-rhetorical (indirect) question above.=A0 Don't most of
> > those other expressions, including pejorative ones, involve
> > *transitive* occurrences of the verb "suck" (e.g. the much-cited
> > "sucks eggs", "suck the hind teat", "suck wind", "suck (one's)
> > thumb")?=A0 The intransitive or absolute occurrence, on the other hand,
> > occurs largely in two constructions: in the "Yankees suck" form (or
> > "Harvard sucks", as it's often pronounced around here) and in "X
> > sucks" as a dispositional predication approximately equivalent to "X
> > is {disposed/known} to perform oral sex [on some male/any male]".=A0 If
> > this observation is right, it would go some toward explaining why, as
> > Ron points out, "a lot of people will associate SUCK with fellatio"
> > even if this is unfaithful to the actual etymological record.
> >=20
>
> I think this is right on the mark. Thanks, Larry. There is nothing inherentl=
> y=20
> sexual about "blows," either--or "swallow," yet their use intranstively,=20
> especially in the right context, can trigger sexual interpretations, as in t=
> he=20
> infamous Duke tee shirt that says, on the front, "State sucks," and on the b=
> ack,=20
> "Carolina swallows."
>


--
-Wilson Gray



More information about the Ads-l mailing list