--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > Barry, > > It appears that you've done a lot of research in this word. Why?
No, I just stumbled upon a link to this article today, on (I think) Huffington Post. I posted it just to see who came out of the woodwork judging it. :-) I'm a big fan of words that have a significant cultural history. And of how those words are perceived at different ages of that cultural history. The most I have to say on the subject of the C word is that -- based on observation of British tourist in France and Spain -- there seems to be a bit of a hypocritical difference in how Brits use that term (and react to it), depending on whether it's applied to a male or a female. Male, OK...just chums having it on with one another. Female, maybe OK, maybe not, depending on whether we know the woman in question. Other than that, I don't think I have any feelings one way or another on that particular word. It's just a word. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Who knew that an etymologist could be so funny? > > The Infamous C-Word By Anatoly Liberman for the OUP Blog, > > Oxford Etymologist <http://blog.oup.com/2012/01/origin-of-the-c-word/> > > Like all word columnists, I keep receiving the same questions again and > > again. Approximately once a month someone asks me about the origin of > > the F-word, the C-word, and gay. > > > > Well, the C-word has been investigated in great detail, and a few > > conjectures are not so bad. By way of introduction, I should note that, > > judging by the examples in the OED, the English C-word was not > > offensive or at least not always offensive in Middle English. No > > combination of sounds appeals to our prurient instincts because of their > > intrinsic qualities. > > > > To shock or make us blush, they need a certain attitude on our part. > > Hoochie-coochie may be funny or indecent, but by itself it is neither > > "good" nor "bad." In such matters, everything is a > > matter of agreement. "I am a woman of an unspotted reputation," > > protests Clelia, featured in Spectator No. 276, "and know nothing I > > have ever done which should encourage such insolence; but here was one, > > the other day,and he was dressed like a gentleman, toowho > > took the liberty to name the words lusty fellow in my presence" > > (quoted by Fitzedward Hall in his book Recent Exemplifications of False > > Philology. New York, 1872). The protagonist in Virginia Woolf's > > Orlando fainted at seeing a woman's ankle. Keep reading and > > don't faint. > > > > Words for the genitals and sexual activities have always been tabooed, > > but not necessarily out of prudery. Throughout history people have > > believed that pronouncing the name of a thing aloud can have practical > > consequences; hence universal belief in curses and charms. Therefore, > > for example, the Germanic word for "bear" (= "a brown > > one") is the product of taboo. If you disguise the animal's > > real name, the brute, which, of course, knows what it is called (the > > name was taken for an integral, natural part of everybody and > > everything that exists), may not come. > > > > All kinds of prohibitions connected with sex are of the same nature: > > being too open with words may have deleterious effects on health, sexual > > power, and childbearing. People would intentionally garble words > > (transpose sounds in them, coin a rhyming synonym, and so forth; compare > > gosh, golly, and other euphemisms for god). Perhaps also thanks to > > taboo, the same word may designate the buttocks and the vagina (there > > is less fear to offend the backside than the genitals), though other > > reasons are not unthinkable: both the anus and the vagina are hollows; > > compare the much-discussed history of fanny. In addition, contiguous > > organs and body parts are sometimes called the same. For instance, Latin > > vulva meant both "vagina" and "womb." To complicate > > matters even more, words in question are often borrowed from other > > languages. For instance, the origin of poontang is debatable, but it is > > almost certainly a "loan" from abroad. All this makes an > > etymologist's task hard, sometimes even hopeless. > > > > Finally, there are innumerable descriptive and playful names for the > > genitals. Is our C**t one of them? I have looked at Classical Greek, > > Elizabethan, Modern German, and American students' names for > > "vagina, vulva" and compared them with a list collected from > > the Samoyeds, a Ural-Altaic people inhabiting the tundra lands of the > > north, and another list from Italian dialects, that is, words used by > > people having minimal contact with book culture. The repertory is rich > > but similar the world over. The vagina can be "a hole" (with > > positive or depreciating epithets), any type of orifice, "a > > slit," "a crack," "a sack,", "a hill" > > (alluding to the mons Veneris), "a house," "a vessel" > > (numerous varieties, including "cup"), "a stove" (a > > veritable Freudian feast), "a berry," "a hair house" > > (hence hairy Mary, bush, and beaver hunting), and "a penis" > > (with or without reference to the clitoris). However, having the same > > metaphor or even the same word for both "penis" and > > "vagina" is not typical. I have excluded from my survey such > > descriptive terms as rosebud and love box and silly formations like > > fuzzy-muzzy. Whether all of them have been invented by men is a moot > > question. It has been observed that the words for "vagina" > > hardly ever refer to what comes out of it, but only to what enters it; > > the thought process is directed toward coitus, not procreation. > > > > The most common words for "vagina" in the Germanic languages > > sound approximately like put, fut, and kut ~ kunt (u frequently > > alternates with o in them). An unsolved question is whether they are in > > any way connected, that is, whether we are dealing with some sort of > > rhyming slang, taboo, or even variants of fuzzy-muzzy. As a rule, they > > are looked upon as three independent words, each of which needs an > > etymology. > > > > A related question is whether n in kunt belongs to the original root. > > Numerous words in Germanic have so-called nasalized variants, that is, > > n is secondary in them. Dutch kont (which, incidentally, means both > > "buttocks" and, in dialects, "vagina") has a synonym > > kut. Engl. cut, now obsolete or dialectal (mainly northern), was defined > > in the OED as an opprobrious term for women (its synonym is cutty). This > > cut ended up as one of the senses of the noun cut "something cut > > (off)," but it is almost certainly a different word. The path from > > cut ~ kut to kunt ~ kont is easier to imagine than from kunt ~ kont to > > cut ~ kut. If n is secondary, comparison with Latin cunnus > > "vulva" (known to English speakers from cunnilingus) becomes > > impossible. > > > > Also, double n in cunnus needs an explanation. It has been suggested, on > > the strength of Greek and Lithuanian cognates, that cunnus goes back to > > kus-nus. Regardless of the origin of -nn-, Latin k- should have > > corresponded to English h-. However, this may not be an insurmountable > > obstacle in dealing with kunt, because if the protoform began with sk-, > > the k ~ k correspondence is possible, on condition that both Latin and > > Germanic or one of them lost s- along the way. Initial s- is unstable in > > Indo-European, and there is even a special term for it, namely s mobile > > (movable s). With so many undocumented steps, an ancient tie between > > the Germanic and the Latin noun begins to look rather improbable. > > > > The Old English for kin was cynn, with y from u by umlaut (some related > > words are kind "variety," kind "generous, warmhearted," > > kindred, and German Kind "child"). Kunt can be related to cynn, > > only if its -t is a suffix, and Lithuanian gimtis "sex" gives > > some support to this reconstruction, but there are hardly any examples > > of a word for "sex" or "birth" yielding the name for > > "vagina." > > > > Besides this, it seems preferable not to separate the kut ~ kot group > > from kunt, thus taking -t for part of the root. Most likely, the initial > > form of the word we are exploring was kut- or kot-. Dutch kut ~ Engl. > > cut, as noted, mean the same or practically the same as the C-word. > > > > Therefore, I gravitate toward the conclusion that Germanic kunt is > > indeed a nasalized variant of kut (because of taboo or for expressive > > purposes). Given this etymology, kin, along with Latin cunnus, fades out > > of the picture. The origin of cut ~ kut may not be too obscure. It is > > probably related to Engl. cot (cottage is the same word with a French > > suffix added). Dutch kot means "sheep pen; dog kennel; pigsty," > > and the English dovecote (which should not be fluttered) belongs with > > them. Obviously, we have here the name of an animal house, an enclosure > > or some elevation above the ground. If so, our word may once have meant > > "hole" or "little house," both being among the most > > common designations for "vagina" in various languages. The > > distant origin of the root need not bother us here. Dutch kuit > > "fish roe, spawn," presumably from "soft mass," should > > also stay outside our picture. The history of Germanic fut ~ fot and put > > ~ pot is a special story. > > >
