"Cock"

[Baker, John]

        When I first asked the question whether "cock" might be unisex
for these speakers, it was out of curiosity and without a view as to
what the answer would be.  As I think about it further, however, it
seems to me that there must have been at least some speakers for whom
"cock" was unisex.  After all, we know that the term crossed the gender
barrier, and it's hard to see how else that could have happened, even
though the evidence seems to be that, for most speakers, "cock" is
specifically masculine or feminine.  The existence of unisex terms such
as "privates" shows that we don't have to reach too far to find terms
for genitalia that do cross the gender line.


John Baker



-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Lighter
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:55 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: "Cock"

Larry, I meant we can't know about this particular example. But as
acculturated native speakers of English we have a right to guess, and I
think most all of us would guess the same.

"Genitalia" and "genitals" are apposite but different. As you say,
they're
technical terms, which means they're employed (if you'll pardon the
expression) dispassionately, and quasi-euphemistically.

More to the point, I think: It's difficult for me to imagine any parent
or
similar natural language-source (who is a native speaker of English and
is
other than Humpty Dumpty) teaching an infant to use one word (any word)
for
both organs routinely and consistently as the proper designator of both.
(Yeah, in some postmodern household somewhere it must be happening:  but
will it catch on?)

JL

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Laurence Horn
<laurence.horn at yale.edu>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: "Cock"
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>
> > I don't see how we could know.
>
> In principle we could, if we had a reference to "their/our two cocks"
in an
> unambiguously hetero context.
> >
> > But isn't the assertion that it has a truly unisex denotation (as
was
> > suggested a while back) still merely speculative?  Except, perhaps,
in
> the
> > minds of some poststructuralists, the real-life distinction between
male
> and
> > female physiology seems incontrovertible.
> >
> > I've never met or heard of anybody who used the word that way,
which,
> from
> > the point of view of the known history of English sexual terms,
would, I
> > believe, be unprecedented. (I'm not counting intentionally vague
> euphemisms
> > with inclusive standard meanings like "thing" and "business.")
>
> or technicalia like "genitals" or "genitalia" itself and euphemisms
like
> "privates" or "pudenda" (the latter of which I assume started out
unisex).
>
>
> LH
>
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:05 AM, 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: "Cock"
> >>
> >>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >>
> >>       Do we know if "cock" here means the vulva or vagina, as
opposed
> >> to masculine or feminine genitalia generally?
> >>
> >>
> >> John Baker
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> Behalf
> >> Of Jonathan Lighter
> >> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 9:50 PM
> >> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> >> Subject: Re: "Cock"
> >>
> >> Here is an  unquestionable English ex., from a centuries-old bawdy
song
> >> sung
> >> in 1978 by Danny Brazil, a Traveller in Gloucestershire. Brazil
seems to
> >> have been born around 1910. He is described as "illiterate." He
learned
> >> many
> >> songs from his father:
> >>
> >> "She run downstairs for to piddle in the pot.
> >> Up jumped the little crabfish and caught her by the cock."
> >>
> >> http://www.mustrad.org.uk/articles/brazils.htm#fam
> >>
> >> I've seen dozens of variant texts of this song, dating back to
Bishop
> >> Percy's ms.,  but this is the only one that has this rhyme.
Presumably
> >> the
> >> couplet originated in the nineteenth century.
> >>
> >> JL
> >>

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