weenie, wonkie (1955), wonk (1956)

[Dennis R. Preston]

larry,

I'm not so sure about the *ing of "that poor jerk..." while I
generally agree with the others, although I am surprised at how the
frame "you poor X" considerably widens the acceptability for me.

dInIs



>At 8:48 AM -0500 2/23/05, Dennis R. Preston wrote:
>>Doesn't this "dull tool" more directly derive from the other, much
>>older derisive sense of tool, meaning "something [therefore someone]
>>that can be easily manipulated"?
>>
>>I don't mean to suggest that these tools did not contaminate one another.
>>
>>
>>                  tool=instrument
>>                     /\
>>                    /  \
>>                   /    \
>>                penis  easily manipulated person
>>                 /        \
>>                /          \
>>               /            \
>>           jerk<-influence->stupid person
>>
>And the 'jerk' meaning doesn't ameliorate toward the pathetic.
>There's a distinction between those "jerk"-type words (jerk, putz,
>prick, asshole) that don't have such a meaning and the ones (schmuck,
>bastard) that do:
>
>the poor {bastard/schmuck}, what could he do?
>     (cf. "the poor sap", "the poor shlemihl", etc., which don't have
>the "obnoxious" use)
>vs.
>#the poor {jerk, asshole, putz, prick, tool}, what could he do?
>
>larry


--
Dennis R. Preston
University Distinguished Professor of Linguistics
Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages
A-740 Wells Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Phone: (517) 432-3099
Fax: (517) 432-2736
preston at msu.edu