Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
58. Even though it's completely, and utterly, off-topic,
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 03:51 PM
Jun 2016

and that I know the alerter is likely reading this, they need to see the following:

fuck (v.)
until recently a difficult word to trace, in part because it was taboo to the editors of the original OED when the "F" volume was compiled, 1893-97. Written form only attested from early 16c. OED 2nd edition cites 1503, in the form fukkit; earliest appearance of current spelling is 1535 -- "Bischops ... may fuck thair fill and be vnmaryit" (Sir David Lyndesay, "Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaits"), but presumably it is a much more ancient word than that, simply one that wasn't written in the kind of texts that have survived from O.E. and M.E. Buck cites proper name John le Fucker from 1278. The word apparently is hinted at in a scurrilous 15c. poem, titled "Flen flyys," written in bastard Latin and M.E. The relevant line reads:

Non sunt in celi
quia fuccant uuiuys of heli


"They (the monks) are not in heaven because they fuck the wives of (the town of) Ely." Fuccant is pseudo-Latin, and in the original it is written in cipher. The earliest examples of the word otherwise are from Scottish, which suggests a Scandinavian origin, perhaps from a word akin to Norwegian dialectal fukka "copulate," or Swedish dialectal focka "copulate, strike, push," and fock "penis." Another theory traces it to M.E. fyke, fike "move restlessly, fidget," which also meant "dally, flirt," and probably is from a general North Sea Germanic word; cf. M.Du. fokken, Ger. ficken "fuck," earlier "make quick movements to and fro, flick," still earlier "itch, scratch;" the vulgar sense attested from 16c. This would parallel in sense the usual M.E. slang term for "have sexual intercourse," swive, from O.E. swifan "to move lightly over, sweep" (see swivel). But OED remarks these "cannot be shown to be related" to the English word. Chronology and phonology rule out Shipley's attempt to derive it from M.E. firk "to press hard, beat."

Germanic words of similar form (f + vowel + consonant) and meaning 'copulate' are numerous. One of them is G. ficken. They often have additional senses, especially 'cheat,' but their basic meaning is 'move back and forth.' ... Most probably, fuck is a borrowing from Low German and has no cognates outside Germanic. (Liberman)

French foutre and Italian fottere look like the English word but are unrelated, derived rather from L. futuere, which is perhaps from PIE base *bhau(t)- "knock, strike off," extended via a figurative use "from the sexual application of violent action" (Shipley; cf. the sexual slang use of bang, etc.). Popular and Internet derivations from acronyms (and the "pluck yew" fable) are merely ingenious trifling. The O.E. word was hæman, from ham "dwelling, home," with a sense of "take home, co-habit." Fuck was outlawed in print in England (by the Obscene Publications Act, 1857) and the U.S. (by the Comstock Act, 1873). As a noun, it dates from 1670s. The word may have been shunned in print, but it continued in conversation, especially among soldiers during WWI.

It became so common that an effective way for the soldier to express this emotion was to omit this word. Thus if a sergeant said, 'Get your ----ing rifles!' it was understood as a matter of routine. But if he said 'Get your rifles!' there was an immediate implication of urgency and danger. (John Brophy, "Songs and Slang of the British Soldier: 1914-1918," pub. 1930)

The legal barriers broke down in the 20th century, with the "Ulysses" decision (U.S., 1933) and "Lady Chatterley's Lover" (U.S., 1959; U.K., 1960). Johnson excluded the word, and fuck wasn't in a single English language dictionary from 1795 to 1965. "The Penguin Dictionary" broke the taboo in the latter year. Houghton Mifflin followed, in 1969, with "The American Heritage Dictionary," but it also published a "Clean Green" edition without the word, to assure itself access to the lucrative public high school market.

The abbreviation F (or eff) probably began as euphemistic, but by 1943 it was being used as a cuss word, too. In 1948, the publishers of "The Naked and the Dead" persuaded Norman Mailer to use the euphemism fug instead. When Mailer later was introduced to Dorothy Parker, she greeted him with, "So you're the man who can't spell 'fuck' " (The quip sometimes is attributed to Tallulah Bankhead). Hemingway used muck in "For whom the Bell Tolls" (1940). The major breakthrough in publication was James Jones' "From Here to Eternity" (1950), with 50 fucks (down from 258 in the original manuscript). Egyptian legal agreements from the 23rd Dynasty (749-21 B.C.E.) frequently include the phrase, "If you do not obey this decree, may a donkey copulate with you!" (Reinhold Aman, "Maledicta," Summer 1977). Fuck-all "nothing" first recorded 1960.

Verbal phrase fuck up "to ruin, spoil, destroy" first attested c.1916. A widespread group of Slavic words (cf. Pol. pierdoli?) can mean both "fornicate" and "make a mistake." Fuck off attested from 1929; as a command to depart, by 1944. Flying fuck originally meant "have sex on horseback" and is first attested c.1800 in broadside ballad "New Feats of Horsemanship." For the unkillable urban legend that this word is an acronym of some sort (a fiction traceable on the Internet to 1995 but probably predating that) see here, and also here. Related: Fucked; fucking. Agent noun fucker attested from 1590s in literal sense; by 1893 as a term of abuse (or admiration).

DUCK F-CK-R. The man who has the care of the poultry on board a ſhip of war. ("Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue," 1796)


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8.53 for a 16oz jar of peanut butter!? Rex Jun 2016 #1
If all our food would be organic and government subsidized instead of gmos then the cost of Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #65
So why are non-subsidized foods more expensive when they are organic? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #75
crickets..... deaniac21 Jun 2016 #89
Always very reasonable at the Whole Foods in Albuquerque womanofthehills Jun 2016 #93
"On average, organic foods were 47 percent more expensive," Major Nikon Jun 2016 #94
Did you actually think any of us wouldn't check your bullshit website? Archae Jun 2016 #2
You're telling me naturalblaze.com isn't on the cutting edge of real science ??? Bonx Jun 2016 #5
Samsel and Seneff alone should have alerted him to know that this is nonsense. HuckleB Jun 2016 #10
The overuse of pesticides herbacides and insecticides kills the soil felix_numinous Jun 2016 #3
Woo squared Major Nikon Jun 2016 #53
This message was self-deleted by its author felix_numinous Jun 2016 #55
Do you know what "occupational exposure" means? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #59
They lost me at "The Glyphosate-Autism Connection" KamaAina Jun 2016 #4
Glyphosate apparently is the cause of all human misery, if you were to listen to some of DU's... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #7
Samsel and Seneff! They found that everything is caused by glyphosate! HuckleB Jun 2016 #11
The author is a batshit crazy promoter of "New World Order" conspiracy theories Major Nikon Jun 2016 #63
Is there any evidence of any of the wild claims about the toxicity of glyphosate from your website? Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #6
Glyphosate is only 40% of Roundup - 60% other toxic chemicals womanofthehills Jun 2016 #9
I took me less than 5 seconds of googling to determine that you and that article... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #14
Actually you are wrong - 59 % of Roundup is POEA usually contaminated with dioxane womanofthehills Jun 2016 #17
Which is about as toxic as table salt, do you want to dig yourself in any further? n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #18
Not according to Scientific American - it's DEADLY TO HUMAN CELLS womanofthehills Jun 2016 #20
Its a surfactant, of course its deadly to human cells, so is Dawn and a lot of other soaps.... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #23
You know we have to go there. HuckleB Jun 2016 #25
Roundup was found in this experiment to be 125 TIMES MORE TOXIC than glyphosate womanofthehills Jun 2016 #26
Again with Seralini, do you have a non-biased source? n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #27
Follow the hyperlinks deep into the weeds here (The Guardian, NRDC) and maybe reconsider. proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #51
I'll take that as a no Major Nikon Jun 2016 #57
Do you purposely mischaracterize the information I post or simply fail to review the links? (nt) proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #88
Neither Major Nikon Jun 2016 #92
Why does Scientific American hate science!? villager Jun 2016 #102
POEA makes Roundup much more toxic womanofthehills Jun 2016 #19
Kinda funny how you didn't list the source Major Nikon Jun 2016 #60
You need to see this! kentauros Jun 2016 #52
Oh for fuck's sake, what the fucking fuck is up with that fucking shit? Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #56
Even though it's completely, and utterly, off-topic, kentauros Jun 2016 #58
Same batshit crazy source claims Bundy is right Major Nikon Jun 2016 #54
It's getting bad when Taiwan sends the US back it's Quaker Oats - glyphosate levels too high womanofthehills Jun 2016 #8
Glyphosate also in eggs (even organic) bagels, potaotes, non GMO soy creamer womanofthehills Jun 2016 #12
And? Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #15
Obviously you have no problem with the food supply being contamined with Roundup womanofthehills Jun 2016 #21
I don't, I eat the same foods with the same contamination you do, the difference is that I know... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #24
How can you possibly know the levels when womanofthehills Jun 2016 #28
I could drink the concentrate, and outside of the surfactants reacting badly with my stomach... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #30
People who actually drank Roundup - and from (Republican) Forbes womanofthehills Jun 2016 #43
41% concentration Major Nikon Jun 2016 #61
Really? proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #22
Just looks like your usual MO of throwing a lot off shit against the wall to see what sticks Major Nikon Jun 2016 #62
ORGANIC, ORGANIC, ORGANIC...University of California San Francisco...implicitly opposes glyphosate. proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #69
Actually they have almost nothing to say on the subject Major Nikon Jun 2016 #70
Good, Better... "Best -> Eat locally grown, organic food" (translates as nonGMO, glyphosate free). proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #73
You can make whatever strawmen you like Major Nikon Jun 2016 #74
FYI, CDC and Science Daily both use the word "toxic" plus the preferred "environmental exposure." proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #71
Water is a toxic chemical Major Nikon Jun 2016 #72
You made the Google University Honor Roll! HuckleB Jun 2016 #13
We were mislead libodem Jun 2016 #16
You would have to consume a lot of pure glyphosate for it to affect your gut flora, not the 3... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #29
3 or 40 parts per million in every bite you take womanofthehills Jun 2016 #35
Those are all levels far too low to be of clinical significance. n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #36
No one really knows the levels yet? womanofthehills Jun 2016 #44
We were really mislead - No USDA tests for glyphosate womanofthehills Jun 2016 #33
Earlier you said it was the FDA Major Nikon Jun 2016 #68
Whoops. HuckleB Jun 2016 #41
I, for one, appreciate the effort to jomin41 Jun 2016 #31
There's a difference between providing information and scaremongering. Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #34
It's the most used herbicide in the whole world & it is scary womanofthehills Jun 2016 #37
You illustrate my point perfectly, thank you. n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #38
Roundup caused grandpa to get the piles! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #87
K&R ReRe Jun 2016 #32
You might want a bit more information. HuckleB Jun 2016 #40
Monsanto & Dow are members of www.wafriend.org womanofthehills Jun 2016 #76
Anti-GM0propaganda that has nothing to with the science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #79
POSTS OF CHARTS - written by Monsanto lobbyists womanofthehills Jun 2016 #98
Are you seriously accusing anyone else of misinformation? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #100
A little context. HuckleB Jun 2016 #39
Monsanto and Dow are part of this "friends of farms & forests" joke!! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #78
You posts are pointless. HuckleB Jun 2016 #80
This OP is a good example of When Media Uncritically Cover Pseudoscience HuckleB Jun 2016 #42
OMG! You are posting articles by written by admitted Monsanto shills on DU womanofthehills Jun 2016 #46
Did you forget that honesty matters? HuckleB Jun 2016 #49
You realize that Skinner cares about science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #50
I don't think he cares for "science" from Republican Monsanto shills womanofthehills Jun 2016 #77
The science on GMOs is overwhelmingly clear. HuckleB Jun 2016 #81
You're talking about someone who is a shill for Big-Crazy® Major Nikon Jun 2016 #84
In this case, it's starting to seem plausible. HuckleB Jun 2016 #85
If they are safe why do all these countries not want them? Answer Please!! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #99
Every EU country imports GMO Major Nikon Jun 2016 #103
They all eat them, and not one can justify a thing with science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #104
Where do you even come up with shit this crazy? Oh, right wing Mercola! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #82
You realize the OP is channeling Alex Fucking Jones? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #64
Leaky Brains And Anti-Science GMO Demonization Is Bizarre And Harmful HuckleB Jun 2016 #45
and you post a 2nd article by Monsanto admitted shill Keith Kloor womanofthehills Jun 2016 #47
And you make a baseless claim, as you always do. HuckleB Jun 2016 #48
Ironically, Keith Kloor was writing about the deranged wing of the anti-GMO movement Major Nikon Jun 2016 #67
fucking monsanto isnt just killing weeds, its killing the entire ecosystem.... Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #66
Monsanto! Ooogy boogy! Archae Jun 2016 #83
American version of IGFarben. Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #105
Yeah comapnies that no longer have the bastards in charge. Archae Jun 2016 #106
Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss. ZyklonB-3rd generation. Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #107
Bull...shit. Archae Jun 2016 #108
History always repeats itself, especially the doings of the economic royalists. Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #109
Monsanto is a real corporation doing real harm, not a strawman at all Scientific Jun 2016 #86
I have it on good authority... Orrex Jun 2016 #90
Glyphosate deaniac21 Jun 2016 #91
Remarkable how dedicated some people are to defending a chemical and it's corporations Scientific Jun 2016 #95
Is your username supposed to be ironic ? Bonx Jun 2016 #96
You mean there's nothing scientific about silly memes and abstract condemnation? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #97
Glyphosate gave me a boner that lasted for longer than 4 hours EvolveOrConvolve Jun 2016 #101
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Houston, We Have a Glypho...»Reply #58