Antedating of "Suck"

Wed Jun 30 18:05:55 UTC 2010

It would clearly be too fine a distinction for synchronic lexicography.

Diachronically, however, we have the interesting, if perhaps factitious,
reali

Two issues here: the meaning of "sexual sense" and the minutiae of semantic
history.

By "sense" I mean "dictionary definition."  Though Fred's ex. is obviously
sexual, the literal meaning is subsumed by the usual denotation of trans.
"suck."  Given both the universality of "suck" as an English word and the
nature of the action alluded to, any insistence on an additional, narrower
def. to treat such exx. seems perverse.

Of course, Joel wasn't insisting on that: I just threw it in to fend off
others.

If we had any circa 1776 exx. of a sexual "suck" with "a whole person as a
direct object," I'd feel better about lumping the two constructions
(organ/person) together. But we don't find a personal direct object with
"suck" till nearly a century later. This may or may not be significant of
something semantic or psychological.

It may (or may not) be even more interesting that the intrans. sexual sense
of "suck" doesn't show up till the mid 20th C., despite the zillion words
of text in sources like _The Romance of Lust_ and _The Pearl_. Here's a case
where it isn't clear whether absence of evidence is good evidence of absence
or not. (On the one hand,  fewer than a half-dozen writers could have been
responsible for the totality of _TROL_ and _TP_; on the other, you'd think
their basic sexual vocabulary would have been as broad as anyone's.)

One might formulate a comprehensive and adequate diachronic def. of "suck"
in various ways, but I prefer to err on the side of the evidence.

JL

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:03 AM, 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: Antedating of "Suck"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jon, are you arguing that the transitive "explicitly sexual sense"
> has to have a whole person as the direct object ("sucked him/her"),
> and disallowing that a part of the person be the direct object
> ("sucked it", as in the quotation provided)?  Seems too fine a
> distinction for my tastes.
>
> Joel
>
> At 6/27/2010 02:19 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >A sexual context but not specifically a "sexual sense."
> >
> >An explicitly "sexual sense," to my way of thinking, would have to be
> either
> >intransitive or have a personal direct object. Cf.:
> >
> >ca1866 _The Romance of Lust_ 26 (rpt. N.Y.: Grove Press, 1968) : To try
> >again to fuck her as well as suck her.
> >1975 Joseph Wambaugh _The Choirboys_ 301 (rpt. N.Y.: Dell, 1976) : Look,
> do
> >you suck or not?
> >
> >HDAS files has an intrans. ex. from 1951.
> >
> >
> >JL
> >
> >On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Shapiro, Fred <fred.shapiro at yale.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > -----------------------
> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>  > > Poster:       "Shapiro, Fred" <fred.shapiro at YALE.EDU>
> > > Subject:      Antedating of "Suck"
> > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > A website at www.londonlives.org has a very interesting searchable
> corpus
> > > of manuscripts and printed materials relating to "Crime, Poverty,
> > and Social
> > > Policy in the Metropolis" between 1690 and 1800.  Here is a
> > citation for the
> > > verb "suck" in its sexual sense, much before the 1928 first use in the
> > > Oxford English Dictionary (but note 1891 citation in OED s.v.
> > _cocksucker_):
> > >
> > >
> > > 1772 _Old Bailey Proceedings_ 9 Sept. (www.londonlives.org)   John
> Gray <
> > > no role > . Crook was brought to our watch-house, in Swan-yard, on
> Monday
> > > morning, by Dennis; Crook said that on the 3d of September he left off
> work
> > > in the evening, about seven o'clock; went to the Red Lion in
> Moorfields, to
> > > drink a pint of beer; that just as he had drunk the beer, Gibson
> > came in and
> > > sat down by him; that Gibson asked him to drink with him; that when he
> > > called for another pint, he asked him if he knew Dick that had lived
> there;
> > > said he, he had a fine - fit to do Mrs. - ; he said after that, he went
> out
> > > at the door to make water, and Gibson followed him, and said,
> > what sort of a
> > > c - k have you got? Dick was just such another slim young man as
> > you; let me
> > > teel it; which he did; he said it was not so big as his; that then he
> took
> > > him down to the vault, forced him down on the seat, onbuttoned
> > his breeches,
> > > then worked him till he made it come, and then sucked it; that he
> worked it
> > > again s!
> > >  ometime; that then he pressed him very close, called him his dear,
> hugged
> > > him and squeezed him and sat down, put his hand behind him, and put it
> into
> > > his b - e, and worked up and down till he hurt him vastly, and he
> believed
> > > made him bleed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Fred Shapiro
> > > Editor
> > > YALE BOOK OF QUOTATIONS (Yale University Press)
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>  > > 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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