early "gay" cite

Thu Sep 22 12:56:01 UTC 2011

As JK knows, I PUBLISHED an article in Dictionaries a number of years ago that says everything that he says here, except that I also question that the deeply closeted Cary Grant would have made such a slip of the tongue--except that I point out that "gay" as Grant's character is using it is most likely just a reference to the then-current sense of a "gay folies" performance having to do with scantily clad female dancers. The ad lib sarcastically explains why  Grant is wearing Hepburn's sexy dressing gown; homosexuality has nothing to do with it. As for SCARLET PANSY, the term is indeed in a novel about the gay subculture, but the word "gay" is not used in a way there that is markedly different from the way it is used in the general population's slang in the 1930s, as I have noted here before.  Just because a gay novelist uses the word "gay" that does not mean that a pun on 'homosexual' was intended.

The 1941 cite that JL mentions is the earliest clear reference.

This has all been discussed on ADS-L many times, by the way.
Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4GLTE

------Original Message------
From: Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:00:56 PM GMT-0400
Subject: Re: [ADS-L] early "gay" cite

Joel,

HDAS has a seemingly unequivocal "gay" from 1933 and an absolutely
unequivocal one from 1941. The 1933 source is a sub rosa gay novel. (If the
word had been used more than once at so early a date, I think I would have
noted that.)

Thus no brackets around the Grant quote seemed necessary to ye HDAS editor,
who was reluctant to accept it as a genuine ex., until he and several other
natural-born skeptics (incl. Jesse Sheidlower) could think of no other
convincing explanation.

Of course, HDAS I appeared seventeen years ago, which means it may as well
never have  existed as far as today's scholars are concerned.

The Hollywood censors obviously never thought twice about the word, and of
course the meaning didn't become universally familiar till the '60s. The
possibility, no matter how remote, that the censors *would* have caught it,
is one reason to doubt that Grant intended it that way. But if the quip was
truly spontaneous, he may not have had time to catch himself. The fact that
the director didn't yell "Cut!" indicates just how arcane the usage must
have been.

Regardless, I don't think Grant could have "intended it for those in the
know," though that seems to be a popular assumption. The censors might been
"in the know," and that might have caused problems for him in 1938.  More to
the point, I doubt that Grant was trying to send a  wink-wink nudge-nudge
signal to anybody through the dubious means of a spontaneous quip in the
middle of screen dialogue ("coming out of the closet," so to speak, in front
of ten million filmgoers). I assume it just slipped out because it seemed so
aptly funny to him.

But there's no way to know, is there?

Jon

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: early "gay" cite
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jon,
>
> If this from 1932/1933/1937 can be confirmed as really referring to
> homosexuality, will you consent to removing the square brackets
> surrounding the OED's 1938 quotation from "Bringing Up Baby"?   :-)
>
> And perhaps they could be removed from some of the other 1922 to 1941
> OED quotations as well.  (I don't have HDAS on line or shelf.)
>
> (I note that Ron Butters once wrote "1. The remark was an ad lib,
> made up by Grant himself." and "3. Thus the audience in the late
> 1930s would certainly not have known GAY = 'homosexual' (except maybe
> some gay people themselves, who at the time preferred QUEER or THAT
> WAY as terms of self-reference."
>
> (What the audience would not know is not evidence of Grant's intended
> meaning, *particularly* if it was an ad lib.  And it does not have to
> be a pun; it could be simply intended for those in the know.)
>
> Joel
>
> At 9/21/2011 05:50 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >Worth checking. HDAS quotes earlier McAlmon writings, however, none of
> which
> >appeared to me to use the word in the given sense.
> >
> >The word he preferred in _A Companion Volume_ (1923) was "queer."
> >
> >
> >JL
> >
> >On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC <
> >Bill.Mullins at us.army.mil> wrote:
> >
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > -----------------------
> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > Poster:       "Mullins, Bill AMRDEC" <Bill.Mullins at US.ARMY.MIL>
> > > Subject:      early "gay" cite (UNCLASSIFIED)
> > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> > > Caveats: NONE
> > >
> > > Natalie Galustian's "Catalogue of Early Gay Fiction"
> > > http://www.nataliegalustian.com/theyWereWhatTheyWere.pdf
> > > includes four editions of "Scarlet Pansy" by Robert Scully (probably a
> > > pseud. for Robert McAlmon), published as far back as 1932.
> > >
> > > The catalogue quotes Hugh Hagius as saying "McAlmon is, I believe, the
> > > first writer to use 'gay' in the sense of same-sex orientation."  And
> > > Fred Shapiro in a Jul 15 2003 ADS-L posts quotes part of a Gary Simes
> > > article which has citations from "Scarlet Pansy" which support this.
> > >
> > > The citations are not given any significant context by Simes, and the
> > > auction catalogue doesn't elaborate either, but it is clear that the
> > > book is full of gay content.
> > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> > > Caveats: NONE
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
> truth."
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org