"schlo[r|n]ger" redux

[Douglas G. Wilson]

A few remarks:

(1) The letter quoted in Lowry's book wasn't footnoted, but it was in the
same paragraph with the subsequent letter-quotation, which had a footnote
-- unfortunately this was (IIRC) of the "personal communication" type and
not followable (by me). Other quotations in this part of the book were one
to a paragraph, suggesting that maybe both letters in this paragraph had
the same attribution (some man in Ohio, I think).

(2) I consulted four dictionaries of Pennsylvania German. I found six
slangy (not "schlangy"!) words for "penis" -- including "Messer" (German =
"knife"/"blade") and "Schpitz" (German "Spitz" = "point"/"tip") (apparently
this PA German orthography is even more "sch"-prone than standard German!)
but no snake/penis-word. German "Schlange" appears as "Schlang" = "snake".
I consulted one other dictionary which either pertains to a different
subdialect or merely employs a different orthography: it uses "sh" instead
of "Sch" routinely and it shows "shlong" for "snake". No real surprises
here, I guess. No "schlorger" -- or "schlonger" -- either. On the Web, I
find in "Black Dutch"/"Chicanere" language (claimed) "schlong" = "snake"
(from PA German) and "schlor" = "dagger" (from ???).

(3) The passage has "she received about 60 big schlorgers". Note that in
animal breeding, "receive" = "be mounted by" or so. "The mare received two
stallions this year" would be normal usage while "The mare received two
penises this year" would not (AFAIK). I don't know whether this usage is
relevant (and I don't know how old this use of "receive" is although I
suspect it's old), but it might have been more apposite 136 years ago than
it would seem nowadays.

-- Doug Wilson