"to ring changes", sexual, 1736

[Joel S. Berson]

At 4/5/2010 11:31 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>I mean I haven't encountered it ever except in its S.E. senses. I
>can imagine it *applied* to sexual activities, but I know I've never seen it
>or heard it used in the kind of absolute, unelaborated construction quoted.
>
>Whether it was a recognized idiom in a sexual sense is unclear.

Do you-all think it was used in an absolute sexual construction in my
newspaper item?  Do you-all think it was recognized as such by the
newspaper's readers?

Joel

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