Re: Re: SUX

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/26/04 8:55:35 PM, wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM writes:


> Even in the early to mid-90s when "suck"'s explosive force had been greatly
> weakened, some conservative parental groups objected to its occurrence on TV
> as just too vulgar for their homes. Members of these groups, I feel certain,
> were not thinking that it referred to "suckers," "sucker punches," "sucking
> hind tit," or anything so bland as that.
>

Precisely. But this sort of retro-association is not evidence of ORIGIN, any
more than any other folk etymology would be. Parents in general tend to assume
the worst about the practices of the young, if only to protect their
offspring from any possible infelicity.

Similarly, putative etymologies based on it-stands-to-reason logic and hazy
remembrances of what one's reactions may have been to "as-I-recall" writings on
public toilet walls are interesting as expressions of opinion, but they don't
really constitute scientific evidence, do they? The burden of proof, it seems
to me, must lie with those who would dismiss any connection with the
pejorative uses of SUCK that were already in the language in favor of assertions of an
exclusive connection with fellatio. I certainly admit that such evidence
might be hard to come by, given the taboo nature of the proposed origin and the
difficulty of finding evidence for early uses of ANY slang term. But the fact
that such evidence is not readily available is certainly not a valid reason to
conclude that it certainly must exist.