I remember that there is a slang for vulva in Danish that sounds like “kunte” (I don’t know the spelling though).
No words are forbidden; it is impossible for anyone to take words away from you. It really boils down to a choice: to possibly offend, or to use another word. Lately, I’ve found that using other words has been a trivial sacrifice and actually excercises my vocabulary.
(wandering in frpm left field, looking bemused) astro, your cite from the “Take our word” folks cracked me up! One root means a hollow place, the other a sheath or covering…Like it’s possible to have a cover that isn’t an enclosure for its contents, or a sheath that isn’t essentially a receptacle for what’s placed in it. Julius Caesar would have called his sword-container “vagina” simply as a technical term. Not at all clear to me why that should support the conclusion hat the two ideas are unconnected. I’m firmly of the view that – whatever a term may have meant in classical Greece, 12th-century Sweden, or 1880’s Uzbekistan – its meaning today is what will be understood by the speakers in their own cultural context. There are times when the ultimate opprobrium is exactly the message intended, and I think it would impoverish us all to have nothing more damning than “inappropriate” to express outrage. This puts the onus on the speaker to understand all the generally accepted connotations of the word chosen, and the label “objectionable” in a dictionary is a reasonable place to start. Special usages, in which terms are defined in a particular context, are different – more like the “house rules” that develop by common consent in friendly games of cards or board games. I could certainly agree with my friends to call each other whatever term we chose: axe-murderers, child-molesters, gym socks, whatever. It could confuse the living wits out of “outsiders” just the same. Isn’t that often the point of private terms?
Why the selection happened of genitals rather than feet, noses, or armpits, is a different question. No reason why some organs should be more or less sacred or profane than others.
For a while I thoght “prunt” would be a neat all-purpose put-down, but it turns out that people don’t resent being called decorative blobs of glass enough to bother about.
You’re serious that this issue is a mystery to you? Genitals are both more scared and profane than other organs because of their physical, sociological, psychological, cultural, historical etc. etc. etc. importance and perceived significance. They are how we procreate, how we differentiate ourselves and they are the source of intense pleasures we are wired to pursue. The nose and the armpits are pretty nifty but they are not all that.
This is the most comprehensive list of possible sources for the word “cunt” I could find on the net:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/mathunt/dissertation.html
She includes every possible source I have seen in literature, word origin texts, etc. Whether or not you believe these to be true, they have been cited many places as possible origins of the word. Etymology is not as cut and dry as you would make it out to be. There are many possibilities, some more probable than others, but as you seem to want to make yourself out to be quite the intellectual it troubles me that you would discount any possibility of word origin.
I do find it interesting that you assume I know little about etymology (if not slightly bewildering as you do not know my profession or education level), that not withstanding I wish you luck on your word search. Clearly for you this is an important issue that you would like to see properly addressed, but unfortunately I only have time to cite internet examples (i.e. I do not care to type a text for you when you could do the research yourself).
Astro: No, definitely NOT a mystery to me why the source of new life should be a sacred concept. I apologize for seeming to say so, and hereby swear off all attempts at irony until I can use the appopriate indicators to identify these attempts as such. (#%@&!'ing WebTV unit is having trouble with smilies, or perhaps I don’t know how to guide it, although it works OK on the terminal at my office.) Please forgive me my poor communication.
I think that’s the reservation I have about attempts to “desensitize” or “reclaim” a particular word: seems not to work. When we’re crying out in wrath, these primal sacred words are theones that spring to the tongue. When our ability to form understandable statements is lost by injury or disease, these words are still there. You are (IMO) absolutely right in identifying ths process as hard-wired.
I also think that’s where it becomes pointless to simplify the whole idea to woman = object of veneration OR woman = lowest pit of slime. Logically it’s absurd. But this isn’t about logic, it’s about deep emotional reactions that don’t follow grammatical or arithmetical process.
When I hear myself saying I don’t disagree with much of anything previously posted in this thead, I can recognize inconsistencies all over the place, and I think we’re all responding on multiple levels to this idea. And I think that’s appropriate. The issue HAS more layers than an onion. My point here is that trying to come up with a way to simplify matters into an equation with right/wrong answers is futile, if not downright contemptuous. And also contemptible.
As for the folks who implied that the concepts of “sheath or protection” and “recessed place” (into which one might go to seek shelter) are so unrelated as to demonstrate that separate origins are involved … well, I’m still giggling at them. Not you - you clearly declined to endorse their line of reasoning.
Looking bck over these two posts of mine, I’ve become somewhat painfully aware that I make more sense when I’m not trying to be funny. Thank you for the insight.
(returns to lurking in silence until coherent contrbution is in place)
Wow! I did a google search and found much more ct than I’d have dreamed of finding. The ct coloring book was a nice touch, perhaps I should buy that for my daughter! I suspect I should stock up on flesh colored crayons?
“Flesh” indeed! Don’t be a “colorist”, you’re going to need an entire box of Crayolas to correctly color cunts as they come in all the myriad and wonderful shades of the human rainbow.
::looks into her 64-box of Crayolas::
I have never seen an “aquamarine” cunt. I must not get out enough.
**
“She” is a man named Matthew Hunt who is more interested in the “cultural history” of the word (hence the title of the paper) than its etymology. Hunt’s field is cultural communication and this is a cultural communication paper, not a linguistic one. I should have thought that would have been obvious to you once he started bringing in Pig Latin and Cockney rhyming slang. From a cultural communication standpoint it is an interesting work but in terms of serious linguistics the opening section is rather weak. I was literally rolling my eyes when I got to the bit about “surely the meaning, and prefix ‘cun’ shared by ‘cunt’, cannot be coincidental”.
Luckily the ancient origins of a word aren’t terribly important when it comes to understanding its current usage, the issue of prime importance both to Hunt and this thread. Given that, I don’t know why you’re so hung up on establising some sort of noble origin for the word. Isn’t it good enough that the word has always meant “the female genitalia”? If you want to reclaim the word or see it as empowering, shouldn’t that be sufficient? Why do you need to go looking for tenuous connections to ancient goddesses, queens, and mother earth?
**
What troubles me is that you think the sign of a true intellectual is a willingness to believe any half-baked idea that comes along.
I know enough to know that no real linguist is going to make her debut quoting questionable etymologies from a Geocities page.
I don’t know what on earth could have made you think that I consider the etymology of the word “cunt” a matter of any special importance. I consider it no more or less important than the etymology of any other English word. I have already said, repeatedly I believe, that the word’s origins have little bearing on its current meaning or usage. What I would like to see is an end to fanciful folk etymologies of any kind. They’re worse than urban legends.
I think that may be a special medical condition, akin to blue balls.
My apologies i meant “he” I wrote this at the end of being awake for 48 hours.
I don’t care I was just presenting another side of the issue.
I do not necessarily believe it, but I do not necessarily discount it either.
OK
Maybe it was your animosity and condescending attitude that threw me. I do not care, you do not care, therefore I am done.
Could have been worse. His name could have been Mike. 
He actually makes that joke in the paper. Seems like a fun guy. 
(oldbat pops her head in again)
WAY TO GO EVERYBODY!!!
Etymology can be a whale of a lot of fun.
Cultural history can be just as much fun.
Folklore can fascinating, and so can the aspect of the universe that lends itself to exploration by the scientific process.
They’re NOT equivalent. One can’t “prove” another.
Knowing what we’re saying, now, TODAY, means awareness of how our words are going to be understood. That’s fun too, but can also get the speaker killed if not properly respected.
Great discussion! my thanks!
(oldbat subsides again, but hopes for more thought food and would like to contribute if anything occurs to her)
Quite true, and well said. I was thinking when I wrote of how I’d explain the logic to my daughter. A butterfly of luscious lip colors abound in the garden of knicker delights.