USA Today on "sucks "

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/29/05 4:49:05 PM, bgzimmer at RCI.RUTGERS.EDU writes:


> USA Today has two articles on the shifting semantic status of "X sucks",
> including commentary from Ron Butters. My only quibble is that the writers
> imply that "sucks" *always* had an obscene connotation, when the evidence
> (AFAIK) shows that the presumed sexual meaning only developed after the
> expression had gained some popularity.
>

Well, David Fertig (quoted at the beginning of one of the stories) seems to
agree with your view (as do I, though you'd never know it from reading the
article--and I sent them a copy of my DICTIONARIES article).

We have had a lot of discussion of this very point here. I don't want to get
into it again, except to say that the USAToday articles do not do justice to
the complexity of the etymological histories, nor of course could we expect
them to. Basically, they just assume that a lot of people will associate SUCK
with fellatio if push comes to shove, which seems pretty likely. And that a lot
of people will construct such an etymology in their minds, if requested to do
so, which also seems pretty likely.

What has always been interesting to me is that SUCK occurs in so many other
expressions, including pejorative ones, in which no one ever thinks of
fellatio--so why do they often think of the connection in the environment, "Yankees
Suck"?