1947 citing in Archie Comic of "butthole." What did it mean?

[Jonathan Lighter]

This reinforces my earlier hunch that the reported meat-packing use of
"butthole" is probably not lexicalized.

Because pork butts are not holey.

JL

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: 1947 citing in Archie Comic of "butthole." What did it
> mean?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's more complicated yet. As Alton Brown loves pointing out, a pork
> butt is not the rear of the carcass, but the upper shoulder, roughly
> corresponding to blade chuck in cows (blade & chuck in British
> cuts)--it's the butt end of the fore-ham, with the other end being the
> shank. Nor is rump the hindquarter on a cow, but rather its back. On a
> pig, the hindquarter cut is the leg or leg ham; on a cow, it's the
> round; on a lamb or mutton, it's the leg; on a rabbit, it's just
> hindquarter. To the best of my knowledge, none of these have ever been
> referred to as "butt". Butt is not a currently recognized cut of beef
> either in US or in British or Australian processing system. If it were,
> it most likely would have been the part of other cuts that's closest to
> the skin and is thus covered by a substantial layer of fat, such as the
> rump cover. Rump had been taboo in US meat cuts unlit the early 2000s.
> Now it's become ubiquitous, as the industry is rebranding a large number
> of inferior cuts (e.g., "chuck tenders") in an attempt to extract
> premium prices from them. But "butt" is still only reserved for pork
> shoulder.
>
>     VS-)
>
> On 5/10/2012 9:34 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> > Here's what's problematic about the OED def.:
> >
> > As Wilson observes, it defines "butt" as 'a buttock.'  Certainly this is
> > one meaning (I've heard "the left [or right] butt"), but  even more
> > certainly it is less frequent than 'the buttocks.'
> >
> > Second, it isn't clear at all whether the c1450 ex. refers to the human
> > anatomy or to a loin of meat (I assume the latter, but I can't tell).  If
> > it's a loin, there's no evidence of application to the buttocks till five
> > centuries later. That seems to me inadequate. HDAS has a couple before
> > 1859, but not before 1720, a three-century gap.
> >
> > If "butt" originally referred solely to beef and pork, its later
> > application to humans is rhetorically marked to the point of slanginess
> > (IMO).
> >
> > Though moot today, the U.S. label _colloq._ was prob. less accurate than
> > the _Century's_ label _Vulgar_.  At least, the experience of seventy
> > years  later (including its absence from newspapers) strongly suggests
> > this.
> >
> > 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