Language desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 3

Antonyms of "virgin"?

In English, is there a word that means the opposite of "virgin" (either as a noun or as an adjective) that is

free from or neutral in connotations,
not a euphemism,
not a derivative of "virgin" or a synonym (so "non-virgin" doesn't count), and
not a participle (i.e. not an adjective derived from a verb)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.16.188 (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those restrictions rule out the obvious: non-virgin, experienced, woman-of-the-world, etc. Under those restrictions, it would be equally hard to find an antonym for "pregnant". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I googled [virgin antonym], and the first site that came up was this one.[1] They don't list a "direct" antonym, just the "indirect" term, "unchaste". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexually mature". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might be considered a euphemism, like "[sexually] experienced". Ironically, "virgin" itself is somewhat of a euphemism, as with its synonym "maiden". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is "virgin" a euphemism? What's its literal meaning, if not "someone who's never had sexual intercourse"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the OP, then: No, there is no such word in English. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person might be "sexually mature" biologically, ie post-pubescent, but still a virgin. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other option is "sexually active", but that implies that they're active right now or regularly, whereas someone might be a non-virgin but hasn't had sex in 10 years. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those folks are usually just called married. Matt Deres (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the responses so far. I understand that there may not be a word that satisfies all the restrictions—I tried and couldn't come up with any. I noticed that people use the clumsy phrase "losing (one's) virginity" to refer to a person having his/her first intercourse. It dawned on me that the whole concept of being sexually experienced is at its core built on the concept of virginity—so much so that there doesn't even seem to be a non-derivative word for it. It seems that virginity is somehow viewed as special, while being sexually experienced is not. This is quite surprising because people also use euphemisms like "becoming a man". That euphemism suggests that being sexually experienced is a status to be attained and it's something positive. You'd think that it merits its own set of words in English—and if that's true—including some neutral in connotation. --173.49.16.188 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Beyond virginity?" I'm making that up. I don't know if it's used. But I think if I heard it I would immediately understand what was being implied. But I also think "not a virgin" is fine. I don't quite see virginity being implied as something "special," but rather something "simpler." The absence of an activity leaves the simplicity of a void. The presence of an activity quite correctly corresponds to a state relatively more complex. Also, chronologically virginity always precedes "non-virginity," so the derivation of the second term from the first has the logic of sequence to it. To crown a new term the designator of the state beyond virginity would be to put the cart before the horse. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that at many times and places - perhaps most - in human history non-virginity is the normal state for adults. There aren't distinct words for 'not bald' or 'having both legs' either. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hairy" and "bipedal"? Vimescarrot (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it used before, but "beyond virginity" sounds like some marketing slogan. I don't think having a separate word for being sexually experienced is putting the cart before the horse. In other contexts, you have different words for the "before and after" statuses, like "childhood"/"adulthood", "minority"/"majority", "junior"/"senior". --173.49.16.188 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Vimescarrot: no. While "bald" has a general use to which "hairy" is an antonym, "bald" used of a person invariably means "bald-headed": "hairy" does not mean "with a normal head of hair", unless perhaps a special context has been established by talking about baldness. And "bipedal" means "having two legs" which is a very different thing from "having both legs". --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's an idea. I keep seeing stuff about the USA being "post-imperial" and "post-Christian". How about "post-virgin(al)"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, I like the creativity of it. On the other, "post-virginal" sounds like some kind of medical condition (perhaps because of its similarity to "post-menopasual"). --173.49.16.188 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does sound like a marketing slogan. Funny, that. No, it is not the same as putting the cart before the horse. I over-spoke. But do you really think the language is sending some kind of message that virginity is "special?" Are you making a distinction between the male status and the female status as regards virginity and non-virginity? You also say that the phrase "becoming a man" has a "positive" implication. "Special" and "positive" equate, in my mind.

It is an interesting point that you raise. The only explanation I can imagine for the absence of the sort of term that we are looking for is an absence of a need. Why wouldn't a word serving the defined purpose have arisen if there was a need over long periods of time up until the present, in the English language? Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I suggested an answer to that above: 'not virgin' is in most societies no more needed than 'not bald': it's the normal state of affairs. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with that analogy, in that baldness usually comes after the state of having hair on one's head (not bald), whereas virgin comes before the state of being not virgin. Besides, there is inevitably going to be a transitional period consisting of at least a few years, in any society, during which it is both "normal" to be virgin and "normal" to be non-virgin. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a transitional period for baldness, too ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I didn't think of that. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily true. I've heard "Oh, I knew her before she became a virgin" said of people such as Doris Day and Grace Kelly. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone trying to stuff a keyboard instrument into a mailbox. Tonywalton ^Talk 12:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DEFLOWERED. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a word I considered, but it's not neutral. I sounds negative as it suggests that the pristineness of something or someone has been destroyed. --173.49.16.188 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's neutral enough, but it's a euphemism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Deflowered is hardly gender-neutral. It does relate well to what happens to a maiden's hymen. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can happen to a hymen. It's a myth that loss of hymen implies loss of virginity, and indeed vice versa. Marnanel (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, we're all assuming that the adjectival use of the word is being used for a chaste woman - in other uses of the term (e.g., virgin sunflower oil), the opposite would be "refined". This is not, of course, to suggest that a refined woman is not a virgin! :) Grutness...wha? 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or man. Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about simply sexed or fucked? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Try asking someone whether they're "fucked" or not. You're likely to get your face smashed in. No wonder there isn't a parable about "The Seven Virgins and the Seven Fucked People". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a pretty personal question. Are you saying I'd get my face smashed more often than if I asked if they were virgins? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. But also, it seems to have women in mind mainly. For most males, ceasing to be virgins does not involve them personally being fucked, but the person they're with being fucked. Both parties might be said to have "been laid", though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also "sexed" actually means (according to SOED) "having a gender, ie not neutered" or "having sexual desires", neither of which is the same as "has had sexual intercourse". (Although SOED does list "sex" as a verb meaning "have intercourse", from which one might derive "sexed" to mean "(has) had intercourse".) "Fucked" is problematic - aside from its offensiveness to some people - in that the word is overused so much that it could be ambiguous. Eg: virgin male is making out with girlfriend of Hells Angel (or other large aggressive and possesive male). Things are hotting up when the Hells Angel boyfriend sees them. Now he's fucked!

There is the y-word, which I shouldn't even confess to knowing - but, it's not English, and, in any case, it's a participle. There's "y***ee" (by analogy with "employee"), but I don't think that's recorded anywhere. Tevildo (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexually active is a phrase I hear often in this context. It's not completely accurate, because it assumes that the person is not only 'not a virgin', but also having some form of occasional sexual activity. Thus a person who had sex once and then became celibate may be excluded. Steewi (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexually experienced" may be the closest adjective phrase available. John M Baker (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this can shed some light on this issue. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to archived answers: Google has quite a few hits for nookied. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

"to" or "for"?

Is it to or for?:

"The company is delighted to provide a piano to/for the ceremony for John Johnson."

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For would be more idiomatic. Deor (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if the sentence is:

"The company is delighted to have provided a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson."?

I think that "to have provided" sounds incorrect. Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct, if they're at the ceremony and the piano is already there too. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewrited the sentence ("The company is delighted to provide a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson.") because the ceremony is over. Therefore it was wrong of me to write the sentence in present tense, the sentence should be in past tense.

In past tense it is: "The company is delighted to have provided a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson."?

And yes, the piano was in the room before the audience arrived. Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct now. I think English speakers might say "to provide" even if they mean to use the past tense, but if the ceremony is over, then it would definitely be wrong. They might use a different construction ("the company is delighted that we provided the piano"), just because the passive infinitive sounds slightly formal. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "The company was delighted to provide a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson" is better. "To provide" is fine even if the ceremony is over. And by the way, it's "rewritten" not "rewrited". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Bishop, there is no passive here. What there is, is a "perfect infinitive", and that is indeed rather formal. In ordinary speech people are much more likely to say "that they provided" than "to have provided".

I would write "The company were delighted to provide ... ", or if I want to emphasise that they are still delighted, "The company are delighted that they were able to provide ... ". Two grammatical notes: 1) I am British, and it is natural for me to say "the company were": American writers generally insist on "the company was". 2) I'm not quite sure why I prefer "that they were able to provide" to "that they provided", but I definitely do. I think it is because "delighted that they provided" sounds more self-congratulatory, and British writers are often uncomfortable with such expressions. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry, that's right. I was thinking "past infinitive". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying the passive agent in ‘precede’ and ‘succeed’

I struggle often to identify the doer and receiver of the action in words ‘precede’ and ‘succeed’, e.g. Mr. X is preceded by Mr. Y, or followed by, or succeeded by. So if Mr. X is an incumbent president, who is the doer of the action? How can these be explained? —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like any other active verb in English. If your sentence is "Mr X is preceded by Mr Y", then Mr Y is the doer (which we call the agent. They don't need any explanation, they work the same as other verbs. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Doer" and "receiver" are not always helpful words for analysing grammar, which is perhaps why linguists don't use them. There is no "doer" with these verbs, because they are stative verbs. The agent is the one who precedes, succeeds or follows, and the patient the one who is preceded, succeeded or followed. When the verb is active the subject is the agent; when it is passive, the subject is the patient. --ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a live example.

Obama succeeded Bush. (active)
Bush was succeeded by Obama. (passive)

In both cases, the agent is Obama and the patient is Bush.

Bush preceded Obama. (active)
Obama was preceded by Bush. (passive)

In both cases, the agent is Bush and the patient is Obama.

Does that help? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the concept of "patient" is applicable in successor/predecessor relationships. The words "succeed" and "precede" are not dynamic verbs, they express relationships between entities but they don't involve any actions. --173.49.16.188 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our (very weak) article patient (grammar) says you are right, and I should have said "theme"; though it also says "A theme is denoted by a stative verb, where a patient is denoted by a dynamic verb. At the very least, there is debate to this effect". In my experience "patient" is used for stative as well as active verbs, and Thematic relation says that 'patient' and 'theme' are sometimes used interchangeably, though it does not give any reference for this. This is an example I found by Googling of 'patient' used with a stative verb (in this case an intransitive). --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liliane Haegeman (1994), Government & Binding Theory, basically uses patient & theme interchangeably (it explains what the difference is, but then says she thinks that difference is trivial). That is more like a textbook, though, so I'm sure she cites another source in there, which I don't remember offhand. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schtroumpf

How is schtroumpf pronounced in French? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that German? As I recall from the "German Week" episode of Are You Being Served?, it means "socks".--Nricardo (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're thinking of "Strumpf, (pl. Strümpfe)", German for stocking(s). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the French name of the Smurfs. I'm not sure about the IPA but it is pronounced "shtroomf", pretty much how it's spelled. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam is right. The "p" is silent in French. --Xuxl (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See and hear http://www.forvo.com/search/schtroumpfs/ (eleven letters, one syllable). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of the longest English words with one syllable. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]