Talk:Latin obscenity

French : Miction
The french word "miction", which is the medical-technical term for urinating, is an obvious descendant of the latin's take a piss. Is it specific to french and should it appear on the page ?


 * I think it should. Anyway, please sign your messages. Thank You! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  02:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Scientific terms were borrowed from Latin, not inherited from it. bogdan 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

@Bogdangiusca You make the confusion between French and English. French being a langage derivated directly from the latin, it's not borrowed, it's inherited directly (except words that kept the same form), English having no links with latin language (except through French), words are borrowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:5BE:A00F:9223:230C (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, French both inherited words from Latin and borrowed them. Kanjuzi (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

glubit
As someone who doesn't know Latin and has seen (I can't say "read") only a few of Catullus's poems, I'm hoping for "glubo" to be discussed here, at least in brief. &mdash;JerryFriedman 20:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My dictionary says to bark, peel, skin. I imagine it could mean undress (transitive). —Tamfang (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Poem names and translations
Some of the Catullus poems are incorrectly labelled, I think. Will someone with more knowledge correct that, please?

Also, where does "I will bugger and ream you, you faggot Aurelius and you pervert Furius, because you thought me indecent because my poems are somewhat sissified." come from? I cannot find that translation anywhere.


 * Most of the translations are my own. Smerdis of Tlön 15:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article material
surely? (unsigned comment)


 * I think that this article is good for being a good article candidate. As for feature article status, it needs some fine tuning. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  09:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Vegliot Dalmatian
Keenan Pepper asked whether "Is this notable??". Yes, Dalmatian language, although extinct, is notable for being on a different branch from the other Romance languages. Also, I'll say that people who read this kind of articles are interested in obscure things such as how to say "shit" in an extinct language. :-) bogdan 22:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a good point, but I don't want this to turn into yet another example of list creep, in which a short list of examples grows ridiculously long as every passing reader adds his or her favorite. —Keenan Pepper 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Eery" expression
It is eery -to say the least - hearing in Romanian the identical expression as in the Latin fiction "cum veni(i) futui" (meaning "as soon as I came I fucked").


 * I'm not even sure what this means. "Latin fiction"? Why is there an extra i in parentheses? Where is this quote from? —Keenan Pepper 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this expression can be easily found in the Pompeii inscriptions ("ego cum veni futui"), which might be interpreted as belonging to the vulgar Latin, but it also can be found in the Latin texts (Latin literature). I will check some examples. When I encountered this expression in the literary Latin I was astonished because it is identical to the everyday language in Oltenia-Romania, where I used to live for a while. It is one of the very few examples to illustrate how the ancient Latin - a very concise language, like the Ancient Greek and other ancient languages - has preserved part of its concisiveseness in at least one of the modern neolatin languages (Romanian). "Cum veni futui" - 3 words - can only be translated in modern languages like Englsih or others by using no less than 7 words : "as soon as I came I fucked".

The "i" in the paranthesis reflects the modern Romanian ortography for the expression. In Latin: "cum veni futui" can be translated in Romanian by "cum venii, futui". Same expression, same pronounciation, one more "i" added in the Romanian writting. I would add that it is not the only example where we can see entire expressions being conserved in Romanian from the Latin: when you are saying in Latin "multae caprae sunt", this expression is absolutely identical with the Romanian "multe capre sunt" or "sunt multe capre". To my knowledge the Romanian is the only neolatin language that has preserved whole expressions from Latin; in other words it has preserved the spirit of the Latin language. Other neolatin languages have "processed " the words and the expressions according to their new rules.

I have also changed the text about "shit" (merda); it was incorrect to consider that the Romanian language has lost this word since the verb "a desmierda" comes directly from merda and it is used on a daily basis in Romanian. It was only a an omission of the author, I think.

Giuvan

Cunnus and its cognates

 * Cunnus has a distinguished Indo-European lineage. It is cognate with English cunt

Isn't this rather debatable, given what Grimm's Law did to other Latin words beginning with the same sound? Marnanel 03:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think so, yes, and a search with "cunt etymology" on Google indeed gives many sources which refute that etymology. (See for example here or there.) I have edit the section, but I'm unsure what to do with the rest of the etymology, since that too has no source to back it up. Alatius 11:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right Alatius. In addition, Persian gosha is unrelated (because of the g) and Czech kunda is probably unrelated (since Slavic u does not correspond to IE short *u or even long ũ but to IE *ou and *au). So I'm deleting the whole sentence <>. --Zxly (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The "citation needed" note (2007) was added this comment which I may salvage here (though I have not tried to trace its author): "kunda" doesn't seem to be a native Czech word (unless perhaps an expressive one), if there ever was any "kǫda" in Slavic, it would be "kuda" or "kouda" in Czech. --Zxly (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In addition, Partridge's Hittite kun 'tail' looks un-Hitite (too short) and does not not seem to exist (not in Johann Tischler's Hethitisches Handwörterbuch, Innsbruck 2001). --Zxly (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
What article on Latin profanity could be complete without this gem, pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo, from Catullus 16 (I will make you my boy etc):


 * Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,

Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi, qui me ex versiculis meis putastis, quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum. Nam castum esse decet pium poetam ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est; qui tum denique habent salem ac leporem, si sunt molliculi ac parum pudici, et quod pruriat incitare possunt, non dico pueris, sed his pilosis, qui duros nequeunt movere lumbos. Vos, quod milia multa basiorum legistis, male me marem putatis? Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.

Saganaki- 07:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Would Bartlet be relevant?
There is an episode of The West Wing (Two Cathedrals) in which Jed Bartlet gets angry at God, saying

"Gratias tibi ago, domine. Haec credam a deo pio? A deo iusto, a deo scito? Cruciatus in crucem. Tuus in terra servus, nuntius fui. Officium perfeci. Cruciatus in crucem. Eas in crucem!"

which means

"I give thanks to you, O Lord. Am I really to believe that these are the acts of a loving God? A just God? A wise God? To hell with your punishments. I was your servant here on Earth. And I spread your word and I did your work. To hell with your punishments. To hell with you!"

Would this be relevant enough to add?

Translation of Catullus 105
MosheA says the verb is conare, "to know", but I know of no such verb. I think it's conari, the deponent verb meaning "to try", and a quick search for translations supports this interpretation. —Keenan Pepper 19:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"какать" (Kakat')
Surely that's its right transliteration, instead of the latter "Kakaty", or may it be some typing mistake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frango com Nata (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC). Frango com Nata 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mentula
In what sense is "mentula" an "obscenity"? Does a Roman say "hey, chick, dig the size of my mentula", or "fuck off, you mentula"? The wp article suggests the former, while an article about the Game of Mentula (really!) suggests the latter:


 * Mentula itself is a Latin colloquial term meaning 'little dick'. Ceasar's officer Mamurra was mockingly called Mentula; Catullus mentions him under this name in four of his poems, for instance this distich:
 * Mentula moechatur. Moechatur Mentula? Certe!
 * Hoc est quod dicunt: ipsa olera olla legit.

-- Isidore 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cunnus in English, and gender
Cunnus was listed as the equivalent of vagina. Now, even though that word is often used today of the external female genitalia, rather than the internal organ, viz. the birth canal, it is strictly speaking not correct. Since it seems reasonably clear that cunnus refer mainly to the visible parts, rather than the vagina proper I have changed it to the more fitting vulva.

However, I would actually prefer cunt, etc., as it said earlier, since it has the same connotations (vague pun intended) as the latin word, but I guess the more neutral english term is preferable in Wikipedia, and I am not bold enough.

I also think that the following sections were spurious:


 * ...its military nature explaining the masculine gender of the French vagin.


 * In Portuguese it has been logically transferred to the feminine gender

This seems to stem from an improper understanding of the concept of grammatical vis-à-vis sexual gender. Words commonly change gender as languages evolve, and more often that not (as far as I know) with little regard for actual alleged sexuality of the word in question. Especially the explanation that vagin should have become masculine due to the alleged masculinity of warfare strikes me as very fanciful, and unless someone can give a quotation from a linguist that states that this is in fact the probable explanation, I think it is best left out. And, in any case, it has little to do with the subject. Alatius 11:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

futuis
Does it make any sense at all to have a comment in the section on this word that the person who used it did not do so correctly? Since when did Cicero become the standard by which we who come to Latin as a second language will make comments that a NATIVE Speaker of the language made an error? By that standard then all of the Russians can start telling Americans that we speak incorrectly because we don't sound like Shakespeare. I am not looking to cause a deliberate fight but really, this comment in the article in inapropriate. I feel offended myself for the poor lady who left us a bit of how she speaks and might have never written anything else in her whole life, and we are going to critisize and correct her! I actually feel that she might represent how most people said the word then and that Cicero might be wrong. Maybe all the Roman eleits spoke with a lipst and that is how they got a different spelling. A much more important question is why Cicero, who killed his own people out of sheer greed, fellow Roman Citizens, without trial so that he could rule like a dictator for the rest of his year as Consul; why is he our standard to judge this woman's bit of writting as wrong. I can not protest the comment in the article strongly enough. It clearly shows an unfair bias to the Classical Latin Only movement and needs, really really needs to be removed.--Billiot 05:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase you find offending is: "Please note that the grammar of these graffiti is not Classical Latin; Cicero, for instance, would have written futuisti instead of futuis." I don't see a problem with this, at is it stated. Classical Latin, by definition, is the literary language of the upper class (more or less), and Cicero has traditionally, from the renaissance and on, been regarded as the chief model for this literary standard. What is pointed out is merely that the written Classical Latin is not necessarily the same as the Vulgar Latin which was spoken in the streets. I don't think it is meant to be judging or condescending. (However, I would change it to "...is not in accord with that of Classical Latin...".) Alatius 09:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Something more neutral definatly needs to be said if anything is said at all. Let us remember that Ciciro probably didn't go around correcting other people's Latin even though modern English speakers love to correct one another.  I would like to say very strongly that I think it wrong and inapropriate for us to have anything in the article that would appear to seem as if we are correcting the grammar of the sentence.  For all we know it was the real correct way and the rich people just had a funny way of their own.  Mentioning a difference form Classical Latin in itself is ok, but we really need to find a way to not seem to be correcting a Native Speaker of Latin.  After all Classical Latin isn't the Only Latin that ever existed.--Billiot 11:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is better to say what type of Latin it is as opposed to what type of Latin it isn't. This would allow it to be mentioned in a possitive light and not a negative light giving the impression that it is somehow wrong. I would be much better to change the article to say that it IS vulgar Latin, where now it says that it ISN'T classical Latin.--Billiot 16:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not, sounds fine to me. Alatius 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Small comment on this matter: calling something "Vulgar Latin" in *not* calling it "wrong," it is merely calling it the common spoken form of Latin. I found the statement entirely innocuous: as Latin learners, we naively expect the only form of Latin that is generally taught, the so-called classical Latin. So the statement basically said "this is different from what we (semi-naive nonnative Latin "speakers") would expect, as it is Vulgar Latin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.94.161 (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why would -is be a Vulgar Latin perfect ending? It would simply be un-Latin. At least it never made its way even into spoken usage, witness the daughter languages, who still have the reflexes of -isti, like Italian (-esti) or Spanish (-iste). futuis is an impeccable present form, and a present fits the context. So I corrected the English translation and put the f-word in the present rather than present perfect. --Zxly (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Is "metaphorically" the right word?
Normally I wouldn't be quite so picky, but in an article about Latin vocabulary and grammar I just cannot resist. In the following passage from the "cunnus" entry, should not "metaphorically" be something "through 'synecdoche' or 'metonymy'" (probably synecdoche): Horace's Sermones I.2 and I.3 use the word:


 * Nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa. . .

which attributes, metaphorically, the cause of the Trojan War to Helen of Troy's vulva. --BSweezy 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. &mdash;Tamfang 04:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed this in what was a slight fit of overactiivity while doing a recent changes patrol (I forgot to check talk), having checked talk I put it back, but in a way I thought was clearer. If there's consensus against that, it's fine, but the revert message said it had been that way a long time, when it had been that way for 8 minutes. SamBC 17:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

profanity?
This article is about obscene language, not profane language. The title of the article is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.66 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Profane language strictly speaking is not the same as obscene language. Taboo references to body parts and functions are obscene. Profanity is something else, it does not respect religion. We all have the same body parts and functions, but we do not all have the same religion. I'd be hard pressed to think of a people that did not find constant reference to bodily functions annoying and improper in polite conversation, or did not refer to them when they wished to be shocking. I think that is something we have in common. Profanity, on the other hand, is a totally different matter. It depends on who is defining it. If you are not acquainted with someone else's religion you might find that you are being totally profane and horrifying without even knowing it. Such statements, inadvertent or not, have cost people their lives. This article is really quite unacceptable. Its author(s) betray not only a preoccupation with the confrontations of youth over matters we consider vulgar but also a disrespect for religion in general and Christianity specifically. Do you really want us to think the Christian religion is responsible for western in general and French in particular profane language? Give us a break. Go have another argument with your parents, leave us out of it. The article is certainly completely wrong. Obscene language was certainly much less shocking to the Romans than it is to us, as their taboos were far fewer. There was not too much privacy in ancient Rome about either the clothing, the toilet or the sex. Many of the female slaves were put to prostitution quite openly. Most of the considerable upper classes had one or more servants perpetually present. Discussion of intimate medical conditions and problems was quite frank. This was a village type environment - everyone knew everything about everyone. You might sit next to your neighbor on the public toilet; men and women bathed nude together in the baths. As in societies that customarity go nude or nearly so, these customs did not affect the rules of sex and marriage. What you young people are experiencing here is culture shock. Can't you manage to keep this out of our encyclopedia? You need to grow up a bit more. Get yourselves blackboards and when you feel the urge go scrawl shocking words on them. Leave us alone. If absolution for your young sexual practices and desires is what you are looking for, we can't do that. Sorry. Now, for the profanity. Latin literature certainly offers reams and reams of profanity. In Shakespeare's time they used such language as "Odd's Bodykins", by God's little body. Is Christianity responsible for that? In Plautus just about every third line has a profane epithet, such as Hercle, "by Hercules." As the latter was considered divine, the term was a shocking profane epithet. And it goes on and on. The plain and simple truth is, you don't know a thing about your topic, editors, you've done no research, you take the words of the one source you do use out of context, and you are very fond of repeating vulgar words for the female genitals. How old are you, 15? 16? Believe me, son, matters appear quite differently when you have to assume the roles of a responsible adult. I don't know what to do about this article. Rather than delete it and start completely over I second the motion of the editor who started this topic, let's change the name and content. I suggest "Latin taboo language" to include both obscenity and profanity. I could put 4 or 5 serious tags on this from non-NPOV to unsourced and could also recommend it for immediate deletion. Instead I am going to give you a chance to bring it up to acceptable quality. Get with it or get off it. I'm working on Latin articles from time to time. When I get around to this one again if nothing has been done I will be making radical changes or else putting in all the warning flags it deserves.Dave (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave, if you have specialist knowledge on this, I'm sure the world would benefit from your expertise. Please improve the page. Thanks Muleiolenimi (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The title would be better as "Latin obscene words", since that it what it is about. Also the Romans themselves, such as Cicero, used the word obscenus to describe such words, not profanus, which has a religious connotation. Kanjuzi (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC) – It seems that "profanity" is not really suitable. The title would be better as "Latin sexual vocabulary" or "Latin obscenity". But which of these is better? Kanjuzi (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Romanian: Penis
The article claims makes it sound like vargă is the preferred word for penis. As a Romanian speaker, I never have heard this word and it's obscure at best. The preferred word in Romanian is "pulă" which probably derives from the Latin 'pilum' or spear. So the article is correct in that the word is euphemistic and indirect, but the article just uses the wrong word! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.64.3 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency
Why does the article translate "merda" as "shit", but "cunnus" as "vulva"? Yet the text itself makes clear that "cunnus" was considered an obscene word - meaning that the translation would be "cunt" or perhaps "pussy". Alternatively, if Wikipedia's policy is to give formal translations that don't reflect the vulgarity of the Latin words, why is "merda" not translated as "faeces" or "excrement"? 86.155.66.63 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Latin "penis"

 * Latin profanity says "The Latin word pēnis itself originally meant "tail". Cicero's ad Familiares, 9.22, observes that ... ". But I read in a book about Latin that Latin "penis came from earlier *pesnis, compare Ancient Greek πεος (= "penis")". Did Cicero here have a good reference for his statement, or was he theorizing? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cicero didn't have a good reference, Cicero is a good reference. In the stated letter he says it is from the ancients, meaning an animals tail, and gives the example of penicillus meaning paintbrush as a derivative due to the similarity of paintbrush and tail. This is not at all dubious, and the corresponding tag should be removed. Nazlfrag (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly be open to rewriting the passage. Cicero's etymologies may not be correct.  On the other hand, we're pretty much forced to assume that his Latin was better than ours. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Michiel de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, 2008, ISBN 9789004167971, p. 458, gives the PIt. root *petsni- 'tail'. "It is generally assumed that pēnis directly reflects PIE *pes-ni- 'penis' ... However, the meaning of pēnītus ['furnished with a tail'] as well as general semantic considerations suggest that the meaning 'tail' is original." Alatius (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

fossa/fotze?
Could there be a connection between the German "Fotze" and the Latin "Fossa"? --Slashme (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because German tz regularly goes back to earlier tt, not ss, and indeed there are more likely cognates in Germanic, like dialectal English fud 'arse, cunt', which point to Proto-Germanic words beginning with *fud-, *fudd-, *futt- (the latter with unvoicing due to gemination). Source used: Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 23th edition edited (bearbeitet) by Elmar Seebold. --Zxly (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

HBO Rome examples
Caesari Servilia futatrix would more accurately translate as "a bitch to Caesar", considering the dative case (caesari) and not the genitive (which would have been caesaris), although it's also possible it was a mistake on the part of the producers. I'm also wondering if the frequent use of cunt (which was subject to censorship in many editions of the series) is in any way related to actual Roman use of cunnus.

Does anyone know (or can provide a source for) the graffiti seen during the opening credits? There appears to be futuere simul written on one of the walls (not quite sure due to the use of Roman cursive), but that would appear ungrammatical. Other graffiti include correct nobilitas miseria nostra ("artistocracy (is) our trouble") and arma ("weapon") beneath a soldier with a giant sopio (the word sopio doesn't appear, but the graphic style fits).

And while we're at it, some sources for Pompeii graffiti examples would have been nice. --93.105.205.33 (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Caesari Servilia futatrix" is an example of dativus possesivus. It does indeed mean "Servilia is Caesar's bitch".

Mehercule
This was the only "swear" we learned in Latin class. Although it's not nearly as naughty as the other words here (I wish I had had this reference in high school), it seems like it deserves a mention. Does anyone else think it belongs and maybe have some knowledge about the etymology / usage examples? Klinebottle (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears to mean by Hercules or maybe [help] me Hercules. —Tamfang (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Derivates of cacāre
The list of languages in the sentence “The derivatives of this Latin word appear in Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, Italian (cacca), Romanian, and French.” should be expanded to include German since it features the word “kacken” which is the equivalent to the English “to crap” and was apparently derived from this Latin term as well (cf. the corresponding Wiktionary entry). --95.223.152.23 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Basque kaka a coincidence or a Romance loanword? --Error (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

culus
cũlus does not mean 'anus' but 'arse, posteriors, fundament'. (See e. g. Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, available online.) For 'anus' there was the word ānus.

In the Romance languages, too, the meaning is 'arse', not 'anus'.

Since the u is long, cũlus cannot possibily derive from an IE root *kel-. Rather, obvious cognates are Celtic words like Old Irish cúl 'back', Welsh cil 'angle'. These suggest that the original meaning of cũlus had been 'back'. (See etymological dictionaries by Ernout & Meillet, de Vaan, or the Encyclopedia of IE culture by Mallory & Adams.)

There would thus be a lot to be changed in this section. --Zxly (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The above assertion that cūlus cannot be used as a synonym for ānus does not seem to be correct. For example, in one poem of Catullus (97) he speaks of licking and of smelling a cūlus, and contrasts a person's cūlus with his ōs "mouth". Kanjuzi (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

mingere & meiere: etymology
I'm deleting a lot of irrelevant material. Cf. a previous note "citation needed" (June 2013, I've not ried to trace the author) with the comment "there's no way 'mokry', 'miazga' and 'myža' can all be cognates -- in Balto-Slavic there are no s--r alternations, no ks -> sk type metatheses (some irregular and poorly evidenced ones at best) and differences in voicing between cognates in various languages (like szydzić but шутить, gomoły but комолый) are EXTREMELY rare"--Zxly (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Mentula
The unsourced discussion here is mistaken on several points. See, e.g., "The Etymology of Lat. Mentula" in *Classical Philology* (Oct. 1956), Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 247 ff. It doesn't appear (on its face anyway) to be a diminutive of 3rd-declension mens but 2nd-declension mentum or 1st-declension menta. That appearance may very well be mistaken since Cicero's letter does not derive the term from 'mintlet' but says Latin lacks the ability to discuss 'mintlets' precisely because mentula had already poisoned that well. The source of that etymology is actually Kretschmer, based on supposed but probably mistaken analogies in Greek. Tucker's is a source for the 'projection' etymology but not the source of it, which Messing gives as Zeuss. There's also Messing's own suggestion, as well as another (probably mistaken) one based on a similar-sounding word in Sanskrit. — Llywelyn II   05:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

See also the chapter on "Mentula and its Synonyms" in J.N. Adams's 1982 Latin Sexual Vocabulary. — Llywelyn II   07:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Poppycock
It's really an aside, but I thought experts now think poppycock comes from Dutch meaning "doll poop" rather than "soft shit" aka diarrhea. Here's a source on that which I find more credible than the same old repeated tale on public wikis and reddit:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pop1.htm

I've looked around and basically everyone is citing OED. I recall someone in some comments mentioning they were Dutch and confirming that poppekak, not pappekak, is the correct word but I can't find it. (And yes the word is definitely from Dutch via American English--there were a lot of Dutch settlers in New York which was originally a Dutch colony, and New York state has a great deal of Dutch place names such as Schuylkill, Spuyten Duyvil, Harlem, etc.)

Okay editing to add that American Heritage Dictionary concurs: https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=poppycock

this article should be DELETED
its not at all educational. its vulgar and absurd. there's nothing special about sexuality and toilet habits. this article is utter unbelonging in encyclopedia, unless footnote on rome. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 00:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)
 * Ah, lighten up! Believe it or not this sort of thing is a proper academic discipline. Personally I find it very interesting. homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Latin slang" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Latin slang. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 12:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

“In popular culture” useless
The examples provided in this section do not seem accurate either in their Latin form, nor in their translations. Unless I’m ignorant of some inscriptions which use these phrases and words like this (I’m especially thinking of “futatrix”), then I would recommend adding an explicit disclaimer that it’s pseudo-Latin, or just removing the section, since it seems to have no use. Futatrix (not a word found in Lewis and Short, so I assume it’s a misspelling of fututrix) would be active (penetrative) in meaning, not passive. Being someone’s bitch is being passive, in my opinion. The translation is therefore highly inaccurate, and, imo, cannot stand, since it is obvious misinformation. AemiliaNor (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary links to fututrix (not futatrix) with sources; it is simply the feminine form of fututor. -or and -trix are just the masculine and feminine affixes for the person with the quality. As for what the quality is, it would need a deeper dive and references. Active vs passive tho, aren't about penetration or not; that is a bit too literal! This is more whether someone is "doing" it, or is it "being done", if you like. Jim Killock (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I never doubted that fututrix was a real word, in fact I know it is a real word from checking the citations of Lewis and Short (both from Martial, both speaking of active, perhaps penetrative sexual activity, though I think you could read fututrix manus as masturbating a penis — “inguina” leaves a lot to be desired in clarity as to whether it refers to the crotch of a man or a woman (Mart. 11, 22, 4)).
 * Though you have a point that penetration does not always equal active in the case of words and phrases like cunnilingus or cunnum lingere, in relation to futuere, it is certainly the same. The fututrix (or fututor) is, regardless, active by definition. The noun is coined to give us an agent of the verb futuere, which is itself sexually active. This is undeniably active, as are the quotations from Martial for the word.
 * Now, “bitch” is decidedly not active. The translation is therefore wrong, as is the “Latin,” and I don’t see any point in keeping the pseudo-Latin in an otherwise good resource for Latin obscenity.
 * I should note that my concern is not hypothetical: a friend of mine asked me if “futatrix” (a nonsense word) was a good translation of “bitch” because of this page, and that is a shame, in my opinion. AemiliaNor (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)