Where Did This Word Come From F--K

[Leilin]

I never said that they made the saying into the acronmy at the time that probably happened much later as you said and as to it being just an urban myth, I'd heard it from my history teacher

Then your history teacher is wrong.

Take a look at the earlier posts in this thread.

I'll relink the snopes article for you:

http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.asp

[willnotwill]

It's an acronym meaning "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", typically means prostitution.

Incorrect. The right answer is elsewhere in this thread. I'll give you a hint though. Words older than the 20th century are NEVER acronyms.

FUCK, GOLF, POSH, NEWS, etc... are not acronyms.

[Alexandra]

Then your history teacher is wrong.

Take a look at the earlier posts in this thread.

I'll relink the snopes article for you:

http://www.snopes.co...ronyms/fuck.asp

Its definately possible, tracking down the true origin of any word is next to impossible but I'll also point out that ".com" type web sites aren't exactly word of law information web sites but who knows it's just one of thoose things lost to history I guess

[Leilin]

Its definately possible, tracking down the true origin of any word is next to impossible but I'll also point out that ".com" type web sites aren't exactly word of law information web sites but who knows it's just one of thoose things lost to history I guess

It's definitely not possible. Sorry.

Also: Thank you for perfectly demonstrating argumentum ad hominem, rather than actually reading the link. The origin of the word in question is certainly NOT lost to history, which is what makes the proliferation of that silly myth that much more nonsensical.

[Alexandra]

It's definitely not possible. Sorry.

Also: Thank you for perfectly demonstrating argumentum ad hominem, rather than actually reading the link. The origin of the word in question is certainly NOT lost to history, which is what makes the proliferation of that silly myth that much more nonsensical.

first when I said definately possible I mean possible you could be right. secondnly I read the link it was interesting but as I said under a public domain so not exactly inron clad evidence and as for when I said lost to history I mean that theres no real definative proof one way or the other only educated guesses based on the evidence

[Leilin]

first when I said definately possible I mean possible you could be right. secondnly I read the link it was interesting but as I said under a public domain so not exactly inron clad evidence and as for when I said lost to history I mean that theres no real definative proof one way or the other only educated guesses based on the evidence

Also, if you're still complaining about the reliability of the Snopes link, you didn't fully read the page. You should also know that the old ".coms are inreliable" tripe went the way of the Dodo in the realm of factual statements the moment that it became public knowledge that anybody who wants to can have a .org site, for the most part. PETA has a .org, as an example. Every website is only as strong as its citations and, guess what? Snopes's are impeccable.

Furthermore, that is not how burden of proof works. When there is NO reliable evidence for an argument, and ample evidence AGAINST that argument (as is the case with the acronym statement), then that argument is false until a burden of proof, which can be satisfied with reliable evidence, is fulfilled, and, again, as has been provided in this very thread, there is actually definitive proof and knowledge that such is not the case.

[Alexandra]

Also, if you're still complaining about the reliability of the Snopes link, you didn't fully read the page. You should also know that the old ".coms are inreliable" tripe went the way of the Dodo in the realm of factual statements the moment that it became public knowledge that anybody who wants to can have a .org site, for the most part. PETA has a .org, as an example. Every website is only as strong as its citations and, guess what? Snopes's are impeccable.

Furthermore, that is not how burden of proof works. When there is NO reliable evidence for an argument, and ample evidence AGAINST that argument (as is the case with the acronym statement), then that argument is false until a burden of proof, which can be satisfied with reliable evidence, is fulfilled, and, again, as has been provided in this very thread, there is actually definitive proof and knowledge that such is not the case.

I didn't mean this site in particular was unrealiable just not iron clad and I was thinking more of a .edu type site than a .org site, as to the proof thats a matter of perspect in which case I say agree to disagree on whos right and whos wrong

[Leilin]

I didn't mean this site in particular was unrealiable just not iron clad and I was thinking more of a .edu type site than a .org site, as to the proof thats a matter of perspect in which case I say agree to disagree on whos right and whos wrong

I'm fine disagreeing with you, but don't expect to post utter falsehoods unchallenged, because we will challenge them. Your statement was demonstably false and the fact that you are sticking with it is nothing more than you plugging your ears and refusing to recognize the facts of the situation.

[Alexandra]

I'm fine disagreeing with you, but don't expect to post utter falsehoods unchallenged, because we will challenge them. Your statement was demonstably false and the fact that you are sticking with it is nothing more than you plugging your ears and refusing to recognize the facts of the situation.

oh I've admitted its very possible I could be wrong your the one who refuses to consider that maybe snopes could be wrong but to put it bluntly we are all human and not all knowing so unless we were to somehow find the first person to say the word fuck and ask them what it meant to them then no evidence is indesputible

[Leilin]

oh I've admitted its very possible I could be wrong your the one who refuses to consider that maybe snopes could be wrong but to put it bluntly we are all human and not all knowing so unless we were to somehow find the first person to say the word fuck and ask them what it meant to them then no evidence is indesputible

You are using the exact same rationalization that the birthers use.

Stop and think about that for a minute.

[Alexandra]

You are using the exact same rationalization that the birthers use.

Stop and think about that for a minute.

first and for most I have no idea who or what the birthers are second primary sources are the only definative proof, snoopes article makes sense but it isn't definative thats all I'm saying

[Leilin]

Just in case you were still persisting on this mental folly.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fuck?q=fuck

Oxford English Dictionary, one of the leading resources in the world on etymology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck

Wiki. I'm sure you'll complain about Wiki's unreliability, rather than actually noting the useful citations.

[Leilin]

first and for most I have no idea who or what the birthers are second primary sources are the only definative proof, snoopes article makes sense but it isn't definative thats all I'm saying

Uh.. What?

Primary Sources are NEVER, EVER definitive proof because they are prone to statements of bias. Did your history teacher tell you that one too?

[Alexandra]

Just in case you were still persisting on this mental folly.

http://oxforddiction...ion/fuck?q=fuck

Oxford English Dictionary, one of the leading resources in the world on etymology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck

Wiki. I'm sure you'll complain about Wiki's unreliability, rather than actually noting the useful citations.

thats not my point I'm not even arguing that your wrong I'm simply saying without a primary source there is no 100% sure about it

[Leilin]

thats not my point I'm not even arguing that your wrong I'm simply saying without a primary source there is no 100% sure about it

Yes. There's just no actual evidence for it and plenty of evidence against it going back, oh, 800 years.

You know what? I've decided there are pink unicorns on your head, and you can't definitively prove otherwise!

[Alexandra]

Uh.. What?

Primary Sources are NEVER, EVER definitive proof because they are prone to statements of bias. Did your history teacher tell you that one too?

not if the proof is based on bias, the idea is for the origin well that came from someone's own thought process and only they can know for sure what was going through there head at the time and I do have a mind of my own but all we're doing is going around in circles so since you can't admit theres even a chance you could be wrong I guess I'm waisting my time so if it makes you feel better you win, I'm wrong your right.

[Leilin]

not if the proof is based on bias, the idea is for the origin well that came from someone's own thought process and only they can know for sure what was going through there head at the time and I do have a mind of my own but all we're doing is going around in circles so since you can't admit theres even a chance you could be wrong I guess I'm waisting my time so if it makes you feel better you win, I'm wrong your right.

You are arguing a point with no factual backing behind it and saying it could happen based on a meme.

See the pink unicorn statement in the preceding post.

[Alexandra]

You are arguing a point with no factual backing behind it and saying it could happen based on a meme.

See the pink unicorn statement in the preceding post.

I have to go to work but my evidence is based on logic and what I've been tought as to the pink unicorns I can photograph my self and prove there is no pink unicorn if I wanted to but I must go for now

[Leilin]

I have to go to work but my evidence is based on logic

What logic? You have yet to use any sort of logic in this thread. Perhaps you have that confused with whimsy and sophistry, both of which you have exhibited in spades.

and what I've been tought

as to the pink unicorns I can photograph my self and prove there is no pink unicorn if I wanted to but I must go for now

They might be invisible pink unicorns or just unphotographable! You can't prove 100%! My English teacher told me you have pink unicorns on your head!

(See how stupid this sounds?)

[Diapered Jason]

This is nuts. I know a little about etymology, and it is quite obvious the word fuck is from old English also known as Anglo-Saxon. We have to remember the word fuck is considered vulgar language for some reason. After the Norman conquest of England, the Anglo-Saxon language was considered the language of the peasants and vulgar since the nobles mostly spoke French. Rememer the very old saying, "English for the stable, French for the table." Over time though, both languages melded together somewhat leading to what is known as Middle English. The word fuck could have easy been a misspelling or mispronunciation of an old arhaic English word like Dailydi's video. Fukkit is the candidate I would pick. The word fuck cannot be from an acronym since they were nonexistent before the 20th century. I have read the similar German words are just coindences, as the original meanings and etymology are different. The German word Ficken originally meant "to move back and forth" was probably borrowed to imply fucking, but this applies to the German language only. There are similar instances in the Italian (fottere) and French (foutre) languages both having different definitions, yet having sexual context much like the German word. These words do not have the same etymology as the word fuck in the English language.

[Alexandra]

What logic? You have yet to use any sort of logic in this thread. Perhaps you have that confused with whimsy and sophistry, both of which you have exhibited in spades.

They might be invisible pink unicorns or just unphotographable! You can't prove 100%! My English teacher told me you have pink unicorns on your head!

(See how stupid this sounds?)

Alright now your just being argumentative look for zeus' sake if it'll end this argument then fine your right I was wrong. there done

[Leilin]

I've seen sensible and well-founded rationalizations and historical findings to imply both a Germanic and Romantic root. It is, it seems, significantly easier to tell what the root isn't rather than what it is. Deductive reasoning is fun like that.

Alright now your just being argumentative look for zeus' sake if it'll end this argument then fine your right I was wrong. there done

Stop parroting silly falsehoods and I will gladly stop correcting them.

[Alexandra]

I've seen sensible and well-founded rationalizations and historical findings to imply both a Germanic and Romantic root. It is, it seems, significantly easier to tell what the root isn't rather than what it is. Deductive reasoning is fun like that.

Stop parroting silly falsehoods and I will gladly stop correcting them.

well gee sorry for defending my own opinion, look I don't care its a curse word the origin of it doesn't really matter to me this much so you win, it does not, could not, and never did mean "fornication under the concent of the king"

[Leilin]

One of the first things one should learn before discussing science, history, and literature:

Not all opinions are created equal.

[sarah_ab]

of course not all opinions are created equal... otherwise my opinion would not always be superior!