Wordsmith.org
Posted By: Hydra A cunning linguist - 01/14/07 02:16 PM
We have the verb fellate from fellatio, so what is the verb of cunnilingus?

This is the question I went to the Internet to answer, and I would like to submit one possible candidate to the learned scrutiny of this community:

Quote:

cunnilingus 1887, from Mod.L. cunnus "vulva" (see cunt) + lingere "to lick" (see lick (v.)). The L. properly would mean "one who licks a vulva," but it is used in Eng. in reference to the action, not the actor. The verb ought to be cunnilingue.

"Cunnilingus was a very familiar manifestation in classical times; ... it tends to be especially prevalent at all periods of high civilization." [Havelock Ellis, 1905]

Online Etymology Dictionary






Oughtn't it to be?
Posted By: themilum Re: A cunning linguist - 01/14/07 02:56 PM
Quote:

We have the verb fellate from fellatio, so what is the verb of cunnilingus?

This is the question went to the Internet to answer, and I would like to submit one possible candidate to the learned scrutiny of this community:

Quote:

cunnilingus 1887, from Mod.L. cunnus "vulva" (see cunt) + lingere "to lick" (see lick (v.)). The L. properly would mean "one who licks a vulva," but it is used in Eng. in reference to the action, not the actor. The verb ought to be cunnilingue.

"Cunnilingus was a very familiar manifestation in classical times; ... it tends to be especially prevalent at all periods of high civilization." [Havelock Ellis, 1905]

Online Etymology Dictionary






Oughtn't it to be?




Low folks might call it high but high folk call it low.

_What
__say
___you,
____Hydra?
Posted By: Hydra Re: A cunning linguist - 01/14/07 03:05 PM
Quote:

Low folks might call it high but high folk call it low.

_What
__say
___you,
____Hydra?




I say you're a master debater.

But themilum, what is the above formatting meant to signify? It seems you have tiered your words and that Hydra is the lowest of all, as if to suggest I am a bottom-feeding coelenterate low-life.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: cuneiform gamahuching - 01/14/07 04:02 PM
Many Latin verbs have entered English not from the infinitive but from the past passive participle: e.g., your fellate above is fello first person singular present indicative active, fellare infinitive, fellavi first person singular present perfect indicative active, fellatus past passive participle :- 'to suck'; its cousin irrumate from irrumo, irrumare, irrumavi, irrumatus :- 'to give the breast, give suck'. The four forms are lingo, lingere, linxi, linctus :- 'to lick'. So, I propose cunnilinct for the Englished verb. It may seem to be a tough form to get your tongue around but if you stick with it it'll seem natural enough in time.
Posted By: Faldage Re: cuneiform gamahuching - 01/14/07 04:15 PM
Quote:


It may seem to be a tough form to get your tongue around but if you stick with it it'll seem natural enough in time.




And a little...

No, I think it's best left unsaid.
Posted By: themilum Re: A cunning linguist - 01/14/07 04:25 PM
Quote:

Quote:

Low folks might call it high but high folk call it low.

_What
__say
___you,
____Hydra?




I say you're a master debater.

But themilum, what is the above formatting meant to signify? It seems you have tiered your words and that Hydra is the lowest of all, as if to suggest I am a bottom-feeding coelenterate low-life.



Humor, Hydro, humor.
Used to point out the absurdity of correlating a high level of human Civilization with the practice of cunnilingus.

You didn't agree with that fellow, Havelock Ellis, did you?
Posted By: Hydra Re: A cunning linguist - 01/14/07 04:46 PM
>You didn't agree with that fellow, Havelock Ellis, did you?

About the popularity of cunnilingus in high culture? Well, it has not been borne out by my own experience. Sadly, it would seem, I am not being invited to the right parties.
Posted By: dalehileman Re: A cunning linguist - 01/15/07 07:59 PM
Hy: I just got the pun, and I love it
© Wordsmith.org