[Ads-l] snatch 'female pudenda'

[Mark Mandel]

:-(  I wish I hadn't read this thread.

Mark Mandel

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> When this is submitted to the OED, include the surrounding sentences,
> which make it clear that "snatches" were vital body parts, not
> something like a wampum belt or even a top-knot:
>
> "White Antelope, War Bonnet and a number of others had Ears and
> Privates cut off.  Squaws
> snatches were cut out for trophies.  You would think it impossible
> for white men to butcher and
> mutilate human beings as they did there ..."
>
> Joel
>
> At 12/2/2014 02:45 PM, Mullins, Bill CIV (US) wrote:
> >Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> >Caveats: NONE
> >
> >Here:
> >
> http://www.kclonewolf.com/History/SandCreek/sc-documents/sc-soule-to-wynkoop-12-14-64.html
> >
> >is a transcript of the letter.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> > > Behalf Of Charles C Doyle
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:51 AM
> > > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > > Subject: snatch 'female pudenda'
> > >
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header ---------------
> > > --------
> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > Poster:       Charles C Doyle <cdoyle at UGA.EDU>
> > > Subject:      snatch 'female pudenda'
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------
> > >
> > > =0A=
> > > An article in the recent (Dec. 2014) _Smithsonian_ magazine, vol. 45,
> > > no. 8=
> > > , pp. 50-57, "Massacre at Sand Creek," by Tony Horwitz, quotes a
> > > dispatch w=
> > > ritten by Capt. Silas Soule, regarding the 1864 massacre of a thousand
> > > Chey=
> > > ennes and Arapahos (men, women, and children) by the U.S. army near
> > > Sand Cr=
> > > eek, Colorado:=0A=
> > > =0A=
> > > "Squaws [sic] snatches were cut out for trophies" (p. 54).=0A=
> > > =0A=
> > > The OED's earliest citation for that sense of the word (snatch n.14) is
> > > fro=
> > > m 1904, in the _English Dialect Dictionary_.=0A=
> > > =0A=
> > > I wonder if the American instance from 1864 or 1865, as given in the
> > > quotat=
> > > ion, is credible.=0A=
> > > =0A=
> > > --Charlie=
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> >Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> >Caveats: NONE
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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