groinal and loinal

Joel S. Berson Berson at ATT.NET
Fri Dec 3 13:42:41 UTC 2010

At 12/2/2010 06:52 PM, Ronald Butters wrote:
>I don't suppose that the ordinary user of American English gives a
>fecality about Anglo-Saxon versus Greco-Latin,. Though "ordinary"
>versus "learned" is closer to the mark, which is also about the same
>thing that I was getting at with "technical" versus "nontechnical."
>But I would not say that "groin" is thought of as "learned" but
>"polite" or even "euphemistic," to be used instead of the more
>vulgar "crotch." Nobody says "crotchal."
>I think Larry is right about pronunciation being a factor as well,
>which is why we get an  /r/ in the environment after /l/ (alveolar,
>velar), though I don't see how "vestal" would influence "chestal."
>There are few bvody parts other than the groin that  have /oi/ as
>the main vowel. I'm not sure that "loin" is a real body  part, only
>a kind of archaic meteonym (?), but "loinal" does not sound anywhere
>nearly as weird as "cuntal" or "chestal" or "butthole-ar").

In one episode of "Golden Girls", Rose doesn't know that humans have
loins too, or where they are.  (Having grown up in the farming
community of St. Olaf, Minn., she associates loins only with cuts of
meat.)  Perhaps this proves Ron's distinction  of "ordinary" vs. "learned".


The American Dialect Society -

More information about the Ads-l mailing list