Jump to content

Talk:Fuck/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Ulysses

The Ulysses pun in Fuck#Usage_history should perhaps be explained explicitly. Took me a while to figure it out ("If you see Kay" is pronounced "F U C K"; "See you in tea" is pronounced "C U N T").

Can't make the edit myself as the article is locked.

--81.225.74.128 20:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Ulysses pun is fairly self explanatory, but maybe that's just me...—Gaff ταλκ 20:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't to me. --MarSch 10:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't get it at all until I read this. Definitely a good edit to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.109.141 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

MP3 file

Why was my link change refused? All I did was download the inferior wav file, convert it to MP3, upload it and then change th wiki link to a direct download of the MP3 file.

I posted in the mod who made this change "talk" section a few days ago but he hasn't responded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nakedgord (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn't do that but there are several issues why this was probably done. Firstly, wav is preferred to patented and proprietry formats like MP3. Secondly, I'm not particularly sure why you call the wave file inferior. It is uncompressed albeit at a low frequency and bitrate. Your MP3 is lossly compressed but significantly larger then the wave file. I presume this is because you probably converted the file to a higher frequency and bitrate. However unless you did significant processing, this was pretty pointless and is just a waste of space. Indeed if you didn't do significant processing the MP3 is almost definitely lower quality then the source. Ultimately, given the small size of the wav, I see little reason to replace it with a recompressed lossly compressed format. And if this was done, it should be OGG not MP3. Also, the copyright situation of this file is somewhat unclear. It's probably okay for us to link to kavefish page but given that you've called this an 'open source' file despite the fact it's questionable whether audio files can be open source and there's no evidence this file has been released under any sort of 'free' license (if it were, we could upload it to the commons) and the fact that you don't appear to have asked the kavefish owner about the copyright status of the file suggests we should use a file with a less dubious copyright situation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you should never added links to your own page to an article. If you believe they add something, recommend them on the talk page. All in all, thanks for making the effort, but we'll stick with the original, sorry. BTW, you should sign your posts, and post to the bottom not the top. Nil Einne 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add this to the Etymology section:

It is names after Fornification Under Command of the King, which was an old doctrine where the king slept with any newlywed womenYoungKeta 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the term for this is droit du seigneur meaning "Right of First Night" - "Fornication Under Command of the King" is not something I've ever heard of, but "Fornication Under Common Knowledge" was a crime in Puritan times that could land you in the stocks!Jechot 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The above explanation is garbled, and the proper legal term is the Latin jus prima nochte--the right of the first night--whereby noblemen had the right to initiate new brides of the peasant class within their jurisdiction on their wedding nights. Still, the root fuck--Greek: phuka is attested without resort to such explanations.Doktorschley 00:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

An Arabic etymology, via Spanish, from the word fajar has also been claimed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.56.48.12 (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Why no mention of the German verb 'ficken' which is presumably related? 86.149.9.65 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The German "ficken" and Dutch "fokken" (and other cognates--mostly Scandinavian) are obviously related to the Greek perfect pephuka. The claim in the article that this derivation is unlikely reflects real ignorance of the education available in Europe in the fifteenth century. Greek and Latin were the languages of the universities, and literate persons borrowed liberally from those languages. Greek was introduced into the English monastic schools by Theodore of Tarsus in the mid-seventh century, a.d. alongside Latin. Since then, the majority of the vocabulary of modern English has been derived from Latin and Greek importations in the form of loan words. Since these two languages had been the languages of the educated classes in Europe since the first century, a.d., at least, the derivation is probable. The commentary on the topic in the present article reflects real ignorance of European languages, the educational system, and of the influence of the classical languages on all European languages. For instance, "cunt" has parallels in both Latin cunei/cuneo, meaning vulva (cf. Greek "gunê" -- "woman") and the Old Norse kuntta. Since the Christian monks across Europe all read Latin, such basic words were easily adopted into everyday language. Such ignorance among the editorial staff of wikipedia gives the effort a bad name. I did several years of work in classics and European history in undergraduate and graduate school, in both Europe and the United States, and these were common topics. Wikipedia should not allow the person who made these comments to continue editing, as he or she obviously knows nothing about the educational system of the middle ages, or the role that that system played in the formation of modern European languages.Doktorschley 00:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on the phu-->bhu derivation. This claim, which I have left in the text, is based on Grimm's law of consonantal shift, and is valid as long as one is dealing with the natural variations and developments among languages as they naturally spread out from the (hypothetical) Indo-Aryan source. The phu-->bhu connection, however, is not valid under two circumstances: 1) if we are dealing with a common Indo-Germanic root, or 2) if we are dealing with a foreign loanword adopted into the Germanic and Scandinavian languages. As I have noted in the text repeatedly, only to have accurate notes repeatedly deleted with their text, Greek was known in the monastic class, which remained fundamentally in charge of most secular scribal responsibilities down to the time of Charlemagne (d. 814 a.d.). This impressive ruler set up the cathedral schools (beginning with Aachen) to bring about the transfer of monastic learning via Alcuin of York (the most learned man in Europe) directly into the feudal administrative class Charlemagne was intent on constructing. The claims made in the text that "fuck" represents a vulgarism that the monks just would not have used is absurd, based on the "earthy" character of much of what has come down to us in medieval texts. Again, the person posting the phu-->bhu entry should be more versed in these matters if he or she is to continue to post.Doktorschley 00:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I just watched that Fuck documentary, and it states that "Fornication Under Command of the King" dates back to a playboy magazine (I think) around 1970. 24.136.88.151 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The dutch word for 'to breed' is 'fokken' and the first person singular of the verb is 'fok' not 'vok' as it is mentioned in the Afrikaans etymology. Since Afrikaans is a derivative of Dutch, it is surprising that Afrikaans is cited and not Dutch itself (which has more speakers, anyway).

If "fuck" was of learned origin, it would have appeared more often in Church literature and Bible translations to refer to sexual intercourse, e.g. in the laws of Moses prohibiting intercourse between various sorts of pairs of people. Anthony Appleyard 05:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthony's objection above is without merit. The earthiness of the monks did not lead them to extend their loanwords into documents for religious consumption, which were already strictly regulated by the Church, and by long-established Latin usages for the comparable Greek and Hebrew words (usually through St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This fact, however, did not keep them from introducing such words as the derivatives of Greek pephuka and Latin cuneus directly into the vernacular texts.~~Doktorschley 4:25 pm 27 Oct 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorschley (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Latin imperative form of facere (to do) in fac. Perhaps that could ba amother origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.189.10 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fock!

Is a German noun and should therefore be capitalized. 217.230.142.21 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, now fixed (by User:Rettetast). --h2g2bob 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

CLEAN UP

While cleaning this article up, delete it.

Perhaps a compelling argument in favor of your proposal? And please include in your argument an indubitable proposal in favor of your position as he/she who decides what is to be included in the knowledge base of Wikipedia. In other words, constructive discussion. I think that's what the Wikipedia staff had in mind. Eganio 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

this is ridiculous

The fact that you can say that Fuck is culturally important is wrong. What if a child was looking through here, and saw this, would that make you feel like he has learned something ge should know, i think this should be removed from wikipedia. It is ridiculous. signed, Dimosthenise

Um, pretty much every kid already knows about the word "fuck".69.141.79.71 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah most kids already know the word fuck reading this might acttually stop them using the word because they can see what it means and know that it is rude plus the kid would have to search for fuck first and so he would need to know the word anywaysCharlieh7337 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, theres many kids who didn't read this article and know about the word.Jupiter849 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of long-standing policy on the English Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not censored, not even for profanity. As someone who delighted in looking up profanity and obscene terms in an electronic version of the American Heritage Dictionary as a teen in the 90s and read (and disliked) Catcher in the Rye in high school, I fail to see the issue. - RedWordSmith 05:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To Dimosthenise ... tell me how many languages can this word be used in and made sense...207.228.143.18 23:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Dimosthenise, I think a child's head might explode upon viewing this page. It's simply unfathomable to think of a poor little innocent child being exposed to the world around him/her isn't it? Yes, we should lock up all children away from any and all exposure to outside influences, thoughts, and stimuli. That's the way to raise kids...keep 'em in the dark. Ignorance reings supreme. No wonder Bush is president.

I said theres many kids who know the word without reading this article!Jupiter849 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the word fuck is extremely culturally important. It is arguably the most versatile of our commonly used expletives, and is an extremely effective means of expressing emotion. Sometimes we use the term to augment the gravity of the statement we are making in a manner that supercedes "polite" descriptors which carry far less weight. Fuck is a term that has carried so much negative connotation and prohibition that it has become our "liberating" cuss-word, if you will. The day we get to say "fuck" without getting smacked is the day we are truly an adult! Not only that, it's just what we say, dammit! I mean, sometimes the word "fuck" is the only thing that truly describes the emotion you are feeling at that particular time. It is a word that has penetrated our lexicon to its very foundation. It is a word that can be manipulated into use in any situation, any connotation, any emotion, any grammatical context, and any syntax. It has become a powerful comdedic tool, and can oftentimes be used to posture oneself in a position of authority. It has meanings ranging from sexual intercourse to outright violence, and connotations ranging from the most positive to the most negative. To say it is not important to our culture is like saying McDonald's isn't important to our culture. Everyone has been there. Don't lie. All of us have. It's like the word "fuck"...all of us have used it at one time or another (whether or not we care to admit it), and it has become something on which we as Americans have achieved a common ground, and something around which to build camaraderie. It is one of those things you relax with. You don't say it at work, beacuse it's unprofessional, but at home, you cuss up a storm. I hate to say it, but fuck is as American as apple pie. And don't waste time worrying about the kids hearing or seeing the word. It's going to happen eventually, unless you hermetically seal them in your basement. I would spend less time trying to prevent the inevitable, and more time educating your children against ignorant misuse and misconception of terms and concepts they will end up learning from sources you can't control anyway. Eganio 11:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fuck" is in no way bad in and of itself. It can be very hurtful if used in anger against someone, as in "fuck off" or "get the fuck out" or "I hate your fucking guts," which would all offend me if someone seriously said one of these phrases to me, which is exactly why parents tell their children not to say it. Likewise, many television stations will censor it because parents will complain about not wanting their children to learn such language. And rightfully so, as we don't need children throwing such a possibly offensive word around like confetti. For example, if someone says "go away," it may be a bit rude, but when someone says "go the fuck away," the meaning is intensified. Not that this is always a bad thing, but pointlessly using an intensifying word is a bit foolish and could hurt others' feelings. However, I think using "fuck" is not all bad. It's fairly normal to say "aw, fuck" when someone drops a heavy book on your toe, or to say "Ugh, fuckin' beat me at Starcraft again. I fuckin' suck at this game." Also, "fuck" can actually be quite good for humor, especially due to its vocal pattern, which consists of a variety of sounds often associated with funny words, like "duck" or "chicken" or "shuck." It generally fits in with humor considered cruder than others, like South Park. Using it too much in jokes in real life can make you sound like a pervert if you're not talking to a teenager or another person who doesn't mind the word. Of course, a good number of people blow the word out of proportion, but in all reality, it's just a word. As a matter of fact, based on word meaning, I think "damn" is a worse word than "fuck," or even "cunt." To damn is to condemn to Hell, the worst imaginable place according to Christianity, which is much more unpleasant than a slang/vulgar synonym of "sex" and another of "vagina." AirPumpClock 14:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

YOU ARE RIDICULOUS

do 13 year olds count, by the way i only have an account because i was bored and i was done researching in school. you wouldent belive kids these days —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rappidfire50 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

When you've finished with the fuck article, check out the spelling and grammar ones. ;-) Jonathan3 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Man, I just love the fact that a 13 year-old is saying, "you wouldn't believe kids these days". Is anyone else loving the irony as much as I? Eganio 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The irony is mild. It would be funnier to hear a five year old say that without being to to.

Danish

In Denmark the word has seen a massive exposure and is used virtually everywhere. The word is not perceived quite as vulgar or offending as in English speaking countries, but it is still considered an offensive word and is used in the same fashion.

The danes have taken the word and use it as a danish word combining it with other words (for example "Fuck dig" meaning "fuck you" and "fuck af" meaning "fuck off"). The Danish handballer Anja Andersen wore a sweatshirt to a high profile handball match, with the words "Fuck Janteloven" written across the chest ( http://www.paint-pics.webbyen.dk/billed.asp?PrivatBilled=2709966 ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jantelov

The impact off the word has actually meant that the Danish equvalent "kneppe" (that litterally means "to fuck") has been extended to having some of the same uses as fuck has (which it didnt have before). Hence it is now possible to say "knep af" (Fuck off), "moderknepper" (motherfucker), "knep dig selv" (fuck yourself) and so on. The emphasising use of fuck however is not transfered to "kneppe" so in these cases Danes still use fuck (ex: fucking godt = fucking good).

The word is used in radio, tv and even advertising without causing much disturbance. The reason for this could very well be, that the word is not a native word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClintDawg (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Origin

"Fuck" is a word generated from the days after the Plague hit Britain. It is said that the then King ordered the poeple of the country to "Fornicate Under Command of the King" in order to raise the population after so many died. Over the years this has been abbreviated to "F.U.C.K" and used as a slang word that is considered very offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.95.245 (talk) 15:00, March 21, 2007

There's an entire section of the article dedicated to false etymologies. --ElKevbo 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Other etymological treatments on the main page, as well as the actual references cited, make this explanation absurd.Doktorschley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorschley 00:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Doktorschley (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just Laugh.

Quite simply, the word "fuck" is a derivation to profane extent of "fetch".

1. The lioness, would be where suitably having fucked the lion for his food - fucked in kind her cubs.

2. After casting it across the hallway with his distaste for the man's methods, His Lordship requested that the Sycophant Advisor "Fucked him his sword again".

In this antiquated lorical tale A Sycophantic advisor perjured a populace local to a Lord's Fortification with his way of cowardice. The monk would be known to beguile a crowd of audience in order to demonstrate the nature of rite to the people. Demonstrably the sword was not as such "fucked" but more mercifully fetched, for one who required it. A fucked weapon is without mercy.

In summary, the word is commonly employed to exaggerate the physicality of having been gifted in a minor sense. "I feel fucked" after a hard day's work indicates that the user feels as if newborn, additionally, having noted the obligatory cries of the newborn most apparently a life without appeal. I myself rarely have neither obligatory cries nor a life without appeal. I speculate that the two things are in kind and requisite to each other. A life without appeal fucks one obligatory cries :)

Summarily, "Far-Fetched" is an otherworldly truth, not necessarily a lie. I hope you do not find this Tide-Bite "Far-Fucked" :) Please excuse the presence of a reliable source as the only method of conveyance available to me is this demonstration.

P.S I find the official article to be largely inferrential and perhaps, more cynical than truthful. It appears more a cancellation of the profanity itself than a depiction of the universally sonic nature of known language.

02:21 to 03:35, 29 March 2007 User:220.239.107.204

offensive...

"The word is generally considered offensive." and i am the king of Mars... fuck is something we do, and is not offensive... ppl that say that it is offensive are stupid in my world... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.245.51 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I do this a lot and don't consider it offensive. You poeple that think it is offensive probably are little goody two shoes and never had a girlfriend. Peace out!

Tmandrake13 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Tmandrake13

I can confirm these observations. I haven't fucked in 27 years, and I feel that the word is EXTREMELY offensive. If I fucked more often, I would probably think otherwise. I jerk off frequently, and I don't think "jerking off" is an offensive term. It's just something I do (early and often).

Gary Freedman 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Gary Freedman

Nice one Gary. I do fuck often and the word doesn't offend me. So you're right. Jerking off, however, I find rude. Same rule applies.

facere anyone?

This is original research, but the latin word facere ("to do" or "to make") does sound a lot like "fuck" and I think this the meaning of the word could be the root of today's slang "to do (someone)" meaning to have sex with. Just a thought. W1k13rh3nry 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No. It is possible, though extremely unlikely, that it comes from the same family; but the closest to fuck in Latin is futuo. To me, anyway, facere does not sound anything like fuck—the "a" and "u" sound very different. RedRabbit1983 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes! The latin verb facere, or more likely its imperative form "Fac" (pronounced "Fak"),was possibly the first Latin heard by the local Britons when the Romans invaded Britain. As the galleys came ashore, orders to the centurions to secure the beaches rang out: "Fac hic! Fac hoc!"--"Do this! Do that!" The Britons watched from the headlands, and listened. Once the beach-head was established, the Roman forces pushed inland. To secure their supply lines, they built roads as they went; and rather then waste their fighting strength, they forced local people to do the rough labouring work, under armed supervision. From morning to night, these local conscripted labourers heard "Fac hic! Fac hoc!" as they were directed from one job to another by their Roman overseers. No doubt these Britons, at the end of a working day, while sharing a pint of mead at the village alehouse before heading home, would have had a grumble or two: "The Romans! So rude! They point all the time and order us around with 'Fac hic! Fac hoc!' If they only said Please or Thank You now and again! Fac them! Still, losers can't be choosers. See you tomorrow, Bert." Thus the Roman command "Fac" was used by the Britons to privately ridicule their oppressors, much as the Irish many centuries later used the English language subversively against their Anglo-Saxon invaders. Go for it, Mel. Anagratucan 03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was so wrong, and you have brought me to the light. It all makes sense now. The Britons probably sneered, 'Fac tu eam' -- 'do it yourself.' And as they ran short of breath, this was duly shortened to 'Fac tu,' whence our modern expression comes. Now, there is a blog somewhere on the internet that supports my claim -- I better start looking. RedRabbit1983 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on yourself. As Robert Graves said late in life: First imagine; then write; then research. Thank you for acknowledging that 'Fac' is the imperative form of 'facere', the Latin verb 'to do'; and for adding imaginatively to the range of verbal weaponry that the Britons probably used to help them endure the Roman yoke. Further, the Latin 'Fac' sounds very much like the Irish 'Feck'. For 800 years the Irish also deliberately misused the invaders' language to mock them and their ways; they still do so, cleverly but unsuspected, to this very day, but with a generous and bemused cordiality befitting those who are unbeaten and unbowed. In 1986-1987, Terry Wogan, that gentle and popular commentator of Irish birth, was brought to heel for broadcasting alleged double entendres that, it was said, made fun of English values. His comments became the subject of a censorious leading editorial in The Independent and complaints to the broadcasting authority. I thought Mr Wogan's words were pleasant and harmless: perhaps it was his tone, with just a hint of Irish playfulness, that caused such outrage?Anagratucan 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The very beginnings of British Irony? Could the above imaginative Roman-on-Briton scenario have been a seminal event in the development of this peculiarly British gift. I though it was God-given. But we are told by H. W. Fowler, in his tome Modern English Usage, that: 'Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more and of the outsiders’ incomprehension.' There must be more to this than meets the ear! Hardhands 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


When the Britons, partly Romanised, moved west under pressure from the Anglo-Saxon invaders, they took their language, including the Latin command “Fac”, with them. Centuries later, one of their descendants, the youthful Uther Pendragon, later named King Arthur, while straining to extricate the sword Excalibur from the stone, heard his mentor Merlin shout: “Fac! Do it!”. Sir Lancelot, one of the Knights of the Round Table, stiffened his resolve to court Lady Guinevere, perhaps more than once, with the exhortation “Fac! Do it!”. The same command, echoing around the hills, initiated retaliatory attacks by Arthur and his knights down onto the Anglo-Saxons (whose outposts no doubt shouted the warning: "Here come those Fac-ers again!"). After his last battle, mortally wounded, Arthur croaked "Fac!" to encourage Bedevere to throw Excalibur into the lake, before the barge departed for Avalon. Later again, when monks brought the Christian faith to Britain, their Latin was familiar to the descendants of the ancient Britons. As construction began on churches and abbeys far and wide, local workers heard a clericalised form of what had been familiar to their ancestors centuries before: “Fac hic, Fac hoc, in nomine Deus!——Do this, Do that, in the name of God!” OnceAndFutureKing 11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Graves would approve. OffWhiteGoddess 14:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of original research that makes wikipedia great! I say, revise this article now with this new, radical story. The crown of scholarship belongs to wikipedia, not to the usurper, Encyclopedia Britannica.
By the way, what is the Nike slogan in Latin? Fac id? RedRabbit1983 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Has Nike invaded Britain?? TheWestAwakes 22:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Swearing in politics

You may want to add this piece of information to the entry:

On April 4, 2007, New Zealand's Education Minister Steve Maharey was forced to withdraw and apologise for saying "fuck you" to opposition MP Jonathon Coleman during question time in Parliament. The utterance was made after Mr Maharey denied Mr Coleman's suggestion that the minister was a racist for saying that Cambridge exams were better suited for countries like Botswana. After making the denial, an angry Mr Maharey sat down then said under his breath "Fuck you", followed quickly by the words, "Sorry. I'm fed up with you Jonathon". The words could clearly be heard in the chamber and was broadcast on live TV and radio. It is believed to be the first time the word has been used publicly in the New Zealand House of Representatives.

Signed, Jamie Adams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.139.167 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think used publicly is the right wording since he clearly didn't intend for the public to hear it. We have no way of knowing if someone has said it before but it not been picked up. Probably better to say something like 'publicly broadcast' or 'heard in the chamber'. Nil Einne 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, Mr Coleman didn't specifically suggest Maharey was a racist AFAIK. Rather, a radio broadcaster had done so. Maharey had understadably taken offence at this and had threatened to complain to the board. Coleman asked Maharey if it was appropriate for a government minister to complain to a government appointed board. Maharey is believed to have taken offence with this because he felt there was a suggestion he didn't have a right to complain at being called a racist. Nil Einne 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

German Section

The word Raketemensch is actually spelled Raketenmensch. The n was missing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.177.22.146 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

FAQ

'FAQ' is actually more commonly spoken with every letter pronounced seperately. It's not pronounced English as written in the article but rather like this: ɛf ʌ ku - 11:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And what's your basis for that assertion? It could be regional, I don't know, but as far as I can tell there's been no comprehensive study or poll on the subject. I personally pronounce it as the letters, but I constantly hear people say GameFAQs.com soundling like "game fax". I've heard both "ef ay cue" and "fak" in various circles, I don't think either is more prevalent than the other, although since I personally use "ef ay cue", that's more prevalent in my head... which might be where your assumption comes from as well. - Ugliness Man 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OED Online ([1], subscription needed) says either as separate letters (F.A.Q.); or /fak/ (Brit) or /fæk/ (US). "a" and "æ" are from "trap" in both cases. --h2g2bob 08:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, there is a page on FAQ... Eganio 00:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note out of date

Note number 1, referring to # ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/f/fword.html - this page no longer exists. -86.134.12.250 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. WayBack link available. --h2g2bob 08:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated with the new link (identical content) and removed the WayBackMachine bit. Go ahead and re-add the WBM if it's not alright for some reason or another, I'm new to this. SkylineBNR34 13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture evasions.

The article is already bogged down with too much trivia, but I wanted to mention these in case someone can think of a good way to mention them in the article. At least once on the original Star Trek series (or it may have been in one of the movies, I'm really not sure), Dr. McCoy said to Spock "are you out of your Vulcan mind?" I'm pretty sure it was intended to sortakinda sound like a pun on "are you out of your fucking mind?" Also, there was an episode of Duckman where the word "fogging" was used as a very obvious evasion of "fucking"... a beatnik-like doorman said that Bernice's negative attitude was "fogging" his psyche (or "fogging" something, anyway, I can't find the exact quote), and she went into a rant using the word "fogging" in phrases like "if you don't get us a fogging seat...", and the more she said it, the more it sounded like "fucking". Sorry I'm not being very eloquent here, it would've been better if I could've found the exact quote, but my Google-fu has failed me once again. - Ugliness Man 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia had a great entry on fictional expletives, which is now sadly deleted. --h2g2bob 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Only the American edition of the HHGttG has fuck expunged. The British version used it straight out, for example "most gratuitous use of the word fuck in a serious screenplay." The US version replaced that with Belgium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.133.40 (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Arabic

The Arabic reference should be removed. The spelling, pronunciation and meaning are not remotely related to the word "fuck". Anjouli 14:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Already removed --h2g2bob 08:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology - Onomatopoeia

Quick question: I remember once hearing or reading that the word in question may have been derived through onomatopoeia, from the sound made by coitus (like "piss", or "sizzle"). I have no reference to this, though. Anyone else run across this? (Oh, and sexual intercourse is itself a euphimism for coitus.) Esseh 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine what sort of noise people would be making during sex from which an onomatopoeitic term like "fuck" would arise. Then again, people do make some strange noises...but I'm curious - what sound are you referring to that coitus makes? Eganio 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A possible origin...?

Also this can't be true because of the similarities to both German and Dutch. Ficken and fokken respectively. 'Ik fok paarden' means 'I breed horses' in Dutch, for example. However, in Afrikaans, a language derivative of Dutch, the word does have the same meaning as in English.

What about this video which people say stands for "Fornicate under command of the king" (an acronym) --74.119.146.37 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Every acronym origin is an urban legend or false etymology, as explained clearly in the false etymologies section. I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but for crying out loud, people, please read the actual article before bringing up all this stuff that's already covered! - Ugliness Man 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuck up

You missed something.. Fuck up is often used to tell somebody to be quiet. ie.. As an alternative to Shut Up. Bob: Hey chris you really screwed up that car when you drove it into a tree Chris: Ahhh fuck up, asshole

Mist admit, I never heard it quite like that. Shut the fuck up, yes. (And don't forget to sign your messages). Esseh 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true: fuck up does indeed mean shut the fuck up. But no source, no place in article, amigo. RedRabbit1983 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Never heard it used that way. And in the cited example, are we sure Chris isn't asking Bob for a favor at the end (maybe the comma isn't supposed to there)?Eganio 10:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Esseh is right: it is used that way. However we don't have a reliable source to support it, and, because there are so many idioms using "fuck", a minor idiom like "fuck up" doesn't rate a mention. RedRabbit1983 14:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Extensions and combinations"

All of the phrases in this section are linked to at the bottom of wikt:fuck. This article is bloated as it is, and it doesn't need a bunch of one-sentence sections whose content is already contained in Wiktionary. Strad 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but are they all there? Check again. I references all of the additions in this section, and admitted they should probably be in a dictionary, if not expanded - but no time was given to expand. And, if you want to delete them here to move to Wiktionary, move the extensions, combinations, and references, too. Please do not delete referenced additions. (There are lots of unreferenced ones.) Esseh 07:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are really all there. They are either in the entry itself or under the two expandable boxes at the bottom. They are clearly dictionary definitions, and they already exist in Wiktionary. References are irrelevant because Wiktionary does not use them. Strad 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
How about the Fuckwit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farm3r (talk • contribs) 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Keep 'fuckwit.' I had never heard that word until I read it on this page, found it hilarious, and have been calling my best friend a fuckwit since.Jason Keyes 16:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Esseh: everyone thinks that fuck means like in an angry manner, but a lot of people use it as i fucked that guy last night... and a lot of people like sex they think its fun and like to fuck people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.164.23 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Courts-Martial

  • ... is the correct plural of "court-martial", both of which are hyphenated. Yeah, yeah, it's picky, but that's me :P 19:36, 21 May 2007 User:84.68.1.149
  • Shouldn't that be "that's I", since predicate nominatives should have pronouns in nominative case? I'm picky too. RedRabbit1983 22:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pedantry. Countless people say "that's me", "that's him", and suchlike. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the English language doesn't mark for any cases except the genitive. The use of 'I' in the context noted by RedRabbit came about through the incorrect application of Latinate grammar conventions to the English language by those who wished to 'improve' upon it - saying 'that's me' is entirely grammatical in English and is therefore also completely correct. Pet peeve of mine, sorry :) -Emma
    • I often see this example cropping up. Can you provide evidence of this attempted "improvement", that in fact the reformers attempted to make English grammar conform with Latin grammar? As a student of Latin, Latin strikes me as having a very different grammar to English, especially with regard to its case system. What grammar did English have before these, real or so-called, reforms?
    • Personal pronouns mark nominative and accusative cases — I/me, he/him, etc — hence this discussion. Are you saying there is no need to distinguish these cases, except in formal studies? Sorry, I am by nature inquisitive. RedRabbit1983 01:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The incorrect application of Latinate grammar conventions? Bah, that is something up with I shall not put! Flivelwitz 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Missed Usage?

I don't think you have this listed, but where I live (Glasgow in Scotland) people very regularly tell one another to 'get to fuck'. It means 'get lost', really. Sometimes we elaborate on it and say things like 'get you to fuck', 'get right to fuck', etc. What sort of source would you be looking for to include this usage in the article? OED doesn't list it explicitly (though it might be included under the heading 'various other casual, intensive etc uses'. I don't know where else it's used in this way, though it might be very widespread. -Emma

Valid sources: books, articles, dictionary entries. I don't think uses should be included unless they're important — I know many Australian uses, for instance, that are not included and probably ought not to be. A separate article could be created to list all the venacular uses, and so to list those which don't merit entry into this article. RedRabbit1983 01:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "F" you? Why is that phrase not mentioned? By any chance is the reasion why it is offencive is because of the understoud subject you? There is no subject in "F" you, only a verb and a object, so it would be (you) "F" You, or (you) "F" yourself like there is no subject in "Go "f" youself" so useing the understoud you it would be "(You) go "f" yourself". Hopefully I did not confuse you by explaining it. -Hamster2.0 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your analysis of the syntax is wrong. An imperative with an inserted subject looks wrong: "you fuck you," (unless taken as an order for one to "fuck" another). The person spoken to can be mentioned as a form of address: "Sally, go away!" However, "You fuck yourself," is an indicative, hence the reflexive pronoun. The two grammatical moods are not the same. RedRabbit1983 06:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thx :)-Hamster2.0 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Although "fuck you" should logically mean exactly the same thing as "fuck yourself", it seems to be generally used to mean "May you be fucked (unpleasantly)". See also "damn you". --DocumentN 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Current English speaking internet culture usage

Fucktard - i.e. "You team killing fucktard." To in one word claim that not only is a person a developmentally disabled individual, but that they are the offspring of intercourse by the same.

No. Fucktard = Fuck + Retard. The word is not a testament to ingenuity: just an attempt to marry two generic profanities. RedRabbit1983 05:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

2005 Turbonegro song "If You See Kay"

I removed this mention, but another user reverted my edit without bothering to explain why.

I fail to see how a song released just two years ago is relevant to the story of the rise of "fuck" usage during the twentieth century, which is what that section is about. Such a snippet surely belongs in a "trivia" section, if anywhere. AdorableRuffian 15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a song on an album in 1982 called If You See Kay. Bassgoonist Talk 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Page FLAW

Ianmurphy420 14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} "Other evidence indicates that it may have become vulgar as early as the 16th century in England, although neither set of evidence is inherently contradictory to the other, since many words have multiple connotations. The word became increasingly offensive over time because of its usage to describe (often in an extremely angry, hostile or belligerent manner) negative or unpleasant circumstances or people in an intentionally offensive way, such as in the term "motherfucker", one of its more common usages."

This paragraph is speculative and sound in no evidence what so ever. It starts without a new paragraph. Adding to its already false nature it opens with 'other evidence indicates', when there is cleary none provided for the following claims. It is unneccesary until cited.

Example: I could state that it was not vulgar until being associated with intercourse.

This line from the speculative paragraph sums it up: 'although neither set of evidence is inherently contradictory to the other' (and that "set" of evidence is where?).

Please give proper access for your informed edits. Ianmurphy420 14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm spanish and the translation for spanish isn't "carajo". It's: "joder" or "follar". I'm going to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.65.134 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Appropriateness

Judging by the age of this article I gather I will be in the minority but ...

How is it that this article is not considered a "dictionary entry"? Granted there is a lot of very interesting content but, that aside, the actual "topic" is the definition, usage, and history of a word (along with various anecdotes about it). What is the counterargument?

--Mcorazao 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm... it's pretty clear. The article demonstrates the significance of the word in modern culture and history, etymology etc.. and it's quite simply a very interesting word. You make the point yourself - "there is a lot of very interesting content". The encyclopedic nature of "fuck" is beyond question. Deiz talk 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My question is how you define "encyclopedic nature" which you still have not explained. You seem to be implying that "interesting content" is the definition. If the only justification for an article is that it is interesting or notable then it is simply an essay (note: essays do not have to contain original research; they can also be an interesting compilation of information from other sources). Notability does not, by itself, make an article encyclopedic. Conversely I might not have a lot to say about a new species of animal that has been discovered but the topic is still encyclopedic. --Mcorazao 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're on the wrong page for this kind of philosophical discussion. Deiz talk 00:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange comment. My question was specifically regarding this article. --Mcorazao 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the comment I replied to made no specific reference to Fuck - merely to the definition of encyclopedic. if you have evidence that the etymology, cultural significance and widespread interest in fuck is not encyclopedic, let's hear it. I think this would be a pretty damn quick WP:SNOW close at AfD.Deiz talk 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You can always afd the article (initiate a deletion debate) but you would have to then figure out what we would do with the word (where would it redirect to) as it must be a popular word to search for. I would oppose this article being deleted, SqueakBox 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC) FUCK YOU is a common phrase of hate in American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.36.92 (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but you're never going to get an article that has been a featured article to be deleted in an AfD. Smashville 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed this on my scan of the discussion, but see my arguments to the fact below. To Smashville, note that it was only NOMINATED for featured article status; it didn't get it. Perhaps there was a reason. To Mcorazao, calling something beyond question in a discussion rather misses the poind of a discussion forum, doesn't it? The cultural significance of this word, be it as it may, does not comprise even the majority of its article's content. And that significance itself actually answers the SqueakBox's question on where we would make the link, since it could be linked to the category it already is under, namely the Seven Words article at its bottom. That, being an a)an actual encyclopedic concept and b) an article that could justifiably be broadened, since carlin was really only shedding light on the cultural mores in making his observation. The shorter parts of the fuck article would make legitimate background/expansion on the legitimate concept (i.e., how we got there on one side, and the cultural results of the prohibition like the emergence of fcuk on the other).

I myself am pro word-use, across the board. Artificial restriction of language is silly. And I think that's why this article exists: it's existence makes supposedly free-minded people feel liberated and powerful. But, in fact, Wikipedia Is Not An Opiate. There's no policy link, but it's true. And we DO have WP:WPINAD

96.10.70.45 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Doktorschley's Greek theory

I have explained the crossover possibilitiies a number of times, and have had them deleted. When studying classics in the USA and Germany, the pephuka - fuck connection was treated as clear-cut, even by the head of the American schools of classical research in Athens. Since monastic scribes were in charge of the record-keeping, and Greek had been introduced into Anglo-Saxon monastic education by Theodore of Tarsus in the mid-seventh century b.c., many more monks knew this language than Anthony supposes (especially as phuo was commonly used, being one of the paradigmatic regular verbs in classical Greek), making the crossover into English possible. As to the issue of vulgarisms, we should not saddle the medievals--early or late--with our post-Victorian prejudices in this regard. I have added references to the treatment on this point, too. Finally, we have to move beyond Grimm's law on this one. The fik-fok-fuk-root is so well-attested (Greek, English, Dutch, German, Scandinavian) that the only issue is to explain it. Anthony's appeal to the Indo-Aryan bhu here breaks down in the face of the obvious.Doktorschley 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The redirect fucking is being discussed.

Click here to join the discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

P.s. This message has been added to five pages related to this term so there will be real discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Any idea of a project this would go under? Profanity is listed in sociology, so perhaps that banner could be used? Richard001 09:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck is being discussed

And I highly encourage EVERYONE to post their opinions here. Thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 21:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

fuck is, in fact, just a word

And before all the people who delight in the fact that the existence of article is something of a victory against the hyper-moralistic folk start nodding their agreement, let me be very clear. I'm not here to make a point about the qualities of the word fuck. I'm here to point out that, in fact, "fuck" is a word. Says so right there at the start of the article:

"Fuck is an English word that, as a verb, fundamentally means "to have sexual intercourse with"."

Hmm...x is a word, that means y. I wonder why I don't see this elsewhere on this site (aside from a few others on the Carlin list)? Oh, that's right...Wikipedia is not a dictionary . And this article should be removed.

It doesn't matter that you might think this article is a moral victory on the crusade against prudery. It doesn't matter that, as a result of its swear-word status it gets a more involved treatment than most words. It doesn't matter that (as a guess, though I bet someone else could confirm this) this article gets more traffic than your average one (see, you could create a page called "videos of people fucking" and you'll get a lot of traffic, too). It matters that this is an article comprising of a definition and an etymology. Which isn't an encyclopedia. And so it should be deleted (after having its components added to wictionary)

Yes, I've read the "articles about words" bit written by xyzzyplugh. Even with the legitimate nod about citations in a sphere with a paucity of the same, the ultimate conclusion seems to be for longer articles is still roughly "but we would feel so BAD about deleting them, when they worked so HARD on it." I don't buy it. The articles informative, but such sentiments shouldn't trump the fact that there's already a better place for this. Wiktionary might have a different structure, but I don't see why most to all of this couldn't be ported, especially with their show/hide structure.

2% of a dollar, but don't think I'm just soapboxing. Please discuss.

96.10.70.45 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Umm ... "cheese" is just a word. "Nation" is just a word. Every article is a word (x) that denotes something (y). Whether it warrants an encyclopedia entry or not is dependent on whether it contains encyclopediac qualities, which is open to debate. Usually words that have a greater history behind them, or have more that can be said about them in general, would be deemed as warranting an encyclopediac entry. And seeing as "fuck" is a fairly long entry with a fairly thorough etymology that can be derived, I do not see a problem with it being an article. --216.165.32.125 06:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please spare me this BS

You guys are insane about this stupid word. Have you ever heard of fecundity? Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin fecundus (15th century) - fruitful in offspring or vegetation: prolific.

Catch a clue you goofballs.

--Jarhed 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

French origin theory doesn't explain Germanic cognates. 72.83.176.58 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a word from the ancient Gregorian Calendar

Fuck is from the 4th quarter section of the ancient Gregorian calendar regarding the removal of the H spot which is the predecessor of the G spot. The G spot has become the focus of women's sexual satisfaction from the 19th century reference to the assumed orgasmic response from the female gender. The Gregorian calendar comes into play when referred to the time when female sexual satisfaction played a part in the world politics at its highest level. Fuck is actually a Templars reference to a menial task of the verb/noun transition before the refinement of the English language and it’s documentation. Fuck was spelt as Fhuk in ancient times. 05:43, 24 November 2007 User:24.76.175.198

Minor grammar issues=

"Unproved" should be "unproven." 72.83.176.58 06:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comics - Flick

I wondered if it would be worth mentioning in the article that the word "FLICK" is/was never used in mainstream comics since, with the block-caps used for lettering, it would often look like "FUCK".

With deliberate irony, Peter David even co-opted "flick" as an expletive in a future-set few issues of the Hulk. Tomandlu 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of ridiculous

This article is kind of ridiculous, I mean look at its length, and all its about is perhaps the most profane word in the english language-- Ahmeri18 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the F-word might be acceptable a long time ago; but it was corrupted over history, that it is offensive. I question whether the F-word should have a place in Wikipedia. --Marianian (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. If it's so offensive to you, why did you type it in the search bar or add it to your watchlist? Wikipedia isn't censored. John Reaves 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait. You can read other peoples' watchlists? --DocumentN (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Not even admins can (John Reaves is an admin). Developers can deduce your watchlist but it sounds like it would be too much work. Privacy of watchlists Rpresser (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuck/Archive_4&oldid=1141537797"