when "intercourse" got funny

[Wilson Gray]

A related question is why "conversation" did not get funny. Back in
the '50's, a colleague, using an old Funk & Wagnalls, proved to me
that, at one time, the primary meaning of "conversation" was "sexual
intercourse." According to the OED On Line, this meaning has now
fallen to no.3, used primarily in the legal phrase, "criminal
conversation."

-Wilson

On 9/28/06, Baker, John <JMB at stradley.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Baker, John" <JMB at STRADLEY.COM>
> Subject:      Re: when "intercourse" got funny
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         So how did "occupy" get desexualized?  I can understand it with
> a word like "jape," which ISTR fell out of use because of its sexual
> connotations and, much later, was rediscovered in its earlier innocent
> sense.  "Occupy" seems like a less likely case.
>
> John Baker
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Lighter
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:57 AM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: when "intercourse" got funny
>
> The  allegations about "occupy" appear to be true.  The latest OED
> revisions include relevant comments about "occupy" from both Shakespeare
> and Jonson - most remarkable !
>
>   Jonson complained that "many" had quit using the word "nature" because
> of their own "obscene Apprehensions."
>
>   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 9:48 AM, Jon Lighter wrote:
>
> > ... 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.
>
> that has always seemed astonishing to me. if the standard story is to be
> believed, the word was desexualized, an event that is, i think, quite
> rare in language history. i can devise a story that would allow this to
> happen, but it would require a competitor word that came into fashion
> and swamped "occupy" in the sexual meaning, so freeing the word up for
> non-sexual meanings. unfortunately, i'm deeply ignorant of word
> histories in the 18th and 19th centuries.
>
> arnold
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>


--
Everybody says, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange
complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
-----
Whoever has lived long enough to find out what life is knows how deep
a debt of gratitude we owe to Adam, the first great benefactor of our
race. He brought death into the world.

--Sam Clemens

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