"to ring changes", sexual, 1736

[Jonathan Lighter]

Before the brawl begins, I should say that "lexicalized" would have been a
better choice of words than the possibly ambiguous "recognized" (i.e.,
established).

JL

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: "to ring changes", sexual, 1736
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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