when "intercourse" got funny

[Jonathan Lighter]

I believe the answer to Arnold's question is yes.  But I think "intercourse" is funnier than the other words mentioned because not only does it have two recognized meanings, they share ceratin semantic features, the one sense being originally a narrowing of the other.

  That makes puns, intended and otherwise, a lot easier.

  My suspicion is that "intercourse" became really funny only when the sexual sense had become truly primary and the wider sense familiar to fewer and fewer speakers. Such speakers would almost have to start laughing or squirming when they heard the word used in a nonsexual way because

  a) the sexual sense could fit the context hilariously and/or

  b) since the sexual sense was the only one they knew, they would be laughing nervously with embarrassment, surprise, puzzlement, etc.  Witnessing this could confirm onlookers in the belief that "now" the word "really" had a sexual meaning only; all but the bravest would then desist from using it in other contexts, thus making the sexual sense even more primary.

  This hasn't happened with "congress" because the governmental sense is predominant enough to keep the word from narrowing.  One might contrast the career of "occupy," which eighteenth-cenury writers allegedly began avoiding in droves because it had become sexualized; there was no social counterbalance to keep the word innocent.  But eventually everybody forgot the sexual meaning, which seems remarkable in itself.

  Since Paul Fussell served in WWII, his observation is good evidence that "intercourse" was funny by then. As for the 1920s - well, the documentation isn't in yet.

  George P. Elliott (culturally quite conservative, BTW) also served in WWII; awareness of the intellectual readership of the _Virginia Quarterly_ evidently did cloud his mind at the critical moment.

  Which is our gain.

  JL

  "Arnold M. Zwicky" <zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: "Arnold M. Zwicky"
Subject: Re: when "intercourse" got funny
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sep 27, 2006, at 8:21 AM, John Baker wrote:

> I think we have to start with the non-innocent meaning of
> "intercourse." "Sexual intercourse" (or "carnal intercourse,"
> etc.) has
> referred to coitus for a long time, but it became the dominant polite
> reference in the later years of the 19th century, and it seems to have
> been during this period that coitus became the default meaning of
> "intercourse" without an adjective.

i was just about to post on this very point. the early OED cites of
"intercourse" in the sexual sense are in scholarly, medical, or legal
contexts (and are modified, by "illicit", "promiscuous", and
"fleshly"); "erection" and "ejaculation" are similarly context-
restricted.

the turning point is when these words enter into general use as
polite references to sexual matters. once that happens, the sexual
meanings will tend to drive out the non-sexual ones, and then the
words are set up for double meanings, and humor, except in special
contexts.

the movement of sexual terms from scholarly/medical/legal use to
general polite use seems to have been widespread in the late 19th/
early 20th century: "masturbation", "penis", "testicles", "vagina",
and a number of others seemed to have made the move. is this a sign
of a greater willingness to talk about sexual topics in polite company?

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org