Navy slang (1927)

[Benjamin Zimmer]

On Fri, 6 May 2005 13:49:42 -0400, Sam Clements <SClements at NEO.RR.COM> wrote:

>Could it possibly have been "buoys?"    I don't mean that you mistyped
>it, just that it's possible the writer made a mistake.

Ah, now that would make a little more sense, especially since the other
term  given for girls is "blimps".  Both are inanimate objects that are
associated with, uh, buoyancy.

Then again, "buoy" would still be confusing for anyone who pronounced it
as a near-homonym of "boy" (see last month's discussion).  I'm also
reminded of the lavatory signs for nautically themed restaurants: "Buoys"
and "Gulls".


--Ben Zimmer




>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Benjamin Zimmer" <bgzimmer at RCI.RUTGERS.EDU>
>To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:38 AM
>Subject: Re: Navy slang (1927)
>
>
>> On Fri, 6 May 2005 03:31:01 -0400, Benjamin Zimmer
>> <bgzimmer at RCI.RUTGERS.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>>There might be some useful antedatings in here, e.g. "joe" for 'coffee'
>>>(HDAS 1930, OED 1941... but MWCD11 already has 1927).
>>>
>>>(One oddity: "'girls' are boys"?  Huh?)
>>
>> Sorry, that should read "girls are 'boys'"...  The other way around
>> would have made some sense, feminizing young men, but masculinizing
>> young women?  I don't get it, unless it's some sort of code to confuse
>> outsiders.
>>
>>
>>>-----
>>>(Danville, Va.) _Bee_, May 27, 1927, p. 3, col. 1
[...]
>>>For instance, the cooks are "grease balls;" the kitchen workers
>>>"scullery maids;" yeomen are "pen pushers;" an old sailor is a
>>>"grandpaw;" a young sailor a "chicken;" girls are "boys" or "blimps;"
[...]