"Cock"

Tue Aug 16 18:22:07 UTC 2011

>there must have been at least some speakers for whom
"cock" was unisex.

But - if there were - were they statistically significant? Or lone
eccentrics?

I'm not even sure that there *were* any (though of course there is always
the truly odd and historically inconsequential exception).  It all depends
on the dialectal distribution of the contrasting pairs. For a genuine
tradition of unisex usage, you'd need not a community where the terms were
generally accepted as interchangeable.  If anyone has any evidence of a
speech community of that sort at any time on the history of English, please
post.

People who merely *know* of the synonymy under discussion (e.g., everybody
on this thread), don't count unless they unselfconsciously use the word in a
unisex manner. In other words, conceive of it as having a single meaning:
"the male or female genitals: used indiscriminately."

Euphemisms like "privates" don't count, because they *are* euphemisms: in
other words, learned as tactful replacements for the basic terms. The basic
terms are what we're talking about, no?

"Limb" is hardly comparable. Arms and legs are more similar in terms of
everyday perceptions and emotive associations than penises and vaginas. And
those are what we're talking about.

Of course, that's only my opinion.

JL

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:04 PM, 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"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         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
>

--
"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