|
|
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
John,
The expression "fry a fagot" is actually cited in the OED from 1621, and was in a polemic written by Richard Montagu against John Selden and Selden's arguments against taxes. The exact cite was Quote:
Fyodor. The origin of the term fagot to refer to male homosexuals is American. British gangs burning rivals had nothing to do with it. |
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, "fry a faggot" has citations in the OED under both "faggot" and "fry".
__________________
John W. Kennedy "The blind rulers of Logres Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue." -- Charles Williams. Taliessin through Logres: Prelude |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
So you say with great confidence and authority:
"Fyodor. The origin of the term fagot to refer to male homosexuals is American. British gangs burning rivals had nothing to do with it." Yet the Staff Report under discussion says: "Still unexplained is how a Britishism jumped the ocean in a short period of time to acquire a new meaning in the U.S." Whatever, thanks for setting me straight man. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Perhaps most importantly, I've never heard of fagging representing sexual favours. Read Roald Dahl's memoir of public school life, Boy - he wrote it about his experiences in the thirties and he doesn't mention sexual favours either. I'm not saying that the prison-sex phenomenon is unknown to boys-only schools, just that fagging isn't related to it.
__________________
Favored arcade mode rhetoric shamed quests the aloft was regarding delayed with galore |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
John W. Kennedy "The blind rulers of Logres Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue." -- Charles Williams. Taliessin through Logres: Prelude |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fyodor Sorry to have sounded imperious. To build on what JWK said above, the term fagot to mean a homosexual is almost certainly American in origin. Why, we don't yet know. If it were British, one would have expected to see it in print there somewhere in the 1900-1945 period referring to homosexuals, but it doesn't. Rather, it appears in US cites with some frequency in this period.
|
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Like small rocks? And churches? Aww... c'mon! You had wood, witches and burning all in one post. A Python reference was destiny thrown by some watery tart--never mind. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
SDMB chess champion 2010 |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
mmmmmm - haggis and black pudding in one meal - mmmmm
just doesn't get better than that, especially when the white bits are particularly white today. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
SDMB chess champion 2010 |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
SDMB chess champion 2010 |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just speculating, but perhaps the American use of "faggot" was reinforced by a stereotyped link of English public schools and "fags" with homosexuals in American popular culture?
|
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
(This whole thread is getting pretty silly.) |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
mmmm - duck haggis...
|
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Digging up an old post.
From what I have been able to find Faggot is originally along the lines of a small bundle of sticks or herbs to burn or possibly seep in water. A Faggot is also a lace pattern in knitting which maybe where the connection to the shrewish woman comes from. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1. A bundle of sticks, twigs, or small branches of trees, used for fuel or for raising batteries, filling ditches, and other purposes in fortification; a fascine. 2. A bundle of pieces of iron for remanufacture, or of steel in bars. 3. A person formerly hired to take the place of another at the muster of a military company or to hide deficiency in its number when it was not full. 4. A term of contempt for a dry, shriveled old woman. [Eng. Slang.] 5. The punishment of burning at the stake, as for heresy. 6. A badge representing a fagot, worn on the sleeve in the middle ages by those who had recanted heresy, to show the punishment they had so narrowly escaped. There is also the term "fagot-vote" n: In Great Britian, a vote procured by the purchase of property under mortgage or otherwise, so as to constitute a nominal qualification without a substantial basis. So this clearly documents the association between: 1. Bundles of sticks called fagots 2. Burning heretics with the use of fagots 3. Physically labeling lapsed heretics with little fagots 4. Using the term fagot derisively for old women, who were often the victims of the fagot fires 5. Using the term fagot to denigrate men who were beneath you, to the point of being both contemptible and expendable Mr. Piper's cite of Blackstone, above, clearly establishes that gay men were considered heretics and burned at the stake. To imply that gay men alone escaped all of the contemptuous connotations associated with the victims of the inquisitor's sadism vexes reason. The fact that the usage first appeared in print in 1914 is moot. The cite from Blackstone, above, refers to the entire topic as "that horrible sin, which must not be spoken of (given a name) among Christians." The verb "nominandum" is the gerundive, indicating an absolute necessity and imperative. Nearly a century and a half after Blackstone, Oscar Wilde was dragged before the court on charges of gross indecency. The prosecution did not even have the words to describe what he was atually supposed to have done, and could only muster the arcane "love that dare not speak its name." Wilde's response was similarly sublime. Under such absolute proscriptions, where would the use of the term "faggot" to describe a gay man be printed? In what context would it be used? What sort of document would we find it in? To illustrate the taboo against committing such terms to print, the above referenced 1937 unabridged dictionary does not contain the word "homosexual". It jumps right from "homorgan" to "homosporous", even though the term "homosexual" had been coined some 40 years earlier. And the etymology of the term is certainly from the Latin fax and its cognate fascis which literally means a bundle of sticks. See "fascine" in definition 1, above. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
John W. Kennedy "The blind rulers of Logres Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue." -- Charles Williams. Taliessin through Logres: Prelude Last edited by samclem; 07-27-2012 at 01:16 PM. Reason: fixed coding |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Looks to me like the subject has been mooted ad nauseam...
|
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The fact that the term "faggot" to designate a gay man may have been first documented in print in 1914 proves that it was in use before that date, but provides no more details or timeline about its usage. Given the absolute proscription against even speaking about the topic of homosexuality, one would hardly expect such a discussion to be committed to print. But for those who place so much importance in that 1914 cite, here is a challenge for you. Let's see a listing of all the references to gay men from English sources in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century. The use must clearly refer to gay men in context, and not simply be a term we use now in that sense. It must also clearly refer to a man who is sexually attracted to another man. Obtuse references to someone being effeminate or flamboyant, or general derision won't cut it. Neither will convoluted and ambiguous terms like "crimes against nature" or "unnatural acts". I'll patiently await the evidence, but I won't hold my breath. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
You have not demonstrated any such thing. You’re making a wild guess that has been suggested over and over again, and rejected over and over again by professional etymologists.
|
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
We have been waiting for over two months now, and no one has managed to come up with a single unambiguous mention of a male homosexual from an English printed work from the 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th centuries. Four centuries encompassing a vast array of printed material of all sorts, and yet not one single citation! That would be truly remarkable, save for the clear proscription against even mentioning such people, let alone committing details of their existence to print.
This completely deflates the "no cite before 1914" canard. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you really think that Marlowe’s Edward II is ambiguous, you are not very sensitive to language. And this speech, in particular, makes it painfully clear that homosexuality was far from obscure:
Nephue, I must to Scotland, thou staiest here. Leave now to oppose thy selfe against the king, Thou seest by nature he is milde and calme, And seeing his minde so dotes on Gaveston, Let him without controulement have his will. The mightiest kings have had their minions, Great Alexander lovde Ephestion, The conquering Hercules for Hilas wept, And for Patroclus sterne Achillis droopt: And not kings onelie, but the wisest men, The Romaine Tullie loved Octavius, Grave Socrates, wilde Alcibiades: Then let his grace, whose youth is flexible, And promiseth as much as we can wish, Freely enjoy that vaine light-headed earle, For riper yeares will weane him from such toyes.
__________________
John W. Kennedy "The blind rulers of Logres Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue." -- Charles Williams. Taliessin through Logres: Prelude |
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century Book description: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It really doesn't look like there was an "absolute proscription against even speaking about the topic of homosexuality" in the hundred years, or so, before 1914. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Last edited by ABraut; 10-10-2012 at 06:29 PM. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Over here you can buy Mr Brain's Pork Faggots.
They're not very nice* but somehow there being in the supermarket kind of makes me feel good that there is a fightback about words being taken over by hatred. Similar thing when anyone users the word niggardly. *I assume, I've never actually eaten them. I've eaten pork faggots of course but not Mr Brain's version. It is a reasonable assumption that frozen processed meat will be rubbish I think. Last edited by Simple Linctus; 10-10-2012 at 07:33 PM. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|