Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: gay?? really??
Message-ID: <898@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 14-Aug-84 10:14:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.898
Posted: Tue Aug 14 10:14:17 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Aug-84 00:46:24 EDT
References: <2755@CSL-Vax.ARPA>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 16

"Unrespectable" meanings of "gay" date back to at least the 18th century,
when the term meant "sexually loose" or "promiscuous", as in "a gay lass".

I find resentment about semantic change hypocritical and absurd.  English
is rife with "treacherous" changes of meanings.  Anyone who's read any
literature prior to 1800 should be aware of that.  For example, that word
beloved by Victorians, "fond", originally meant "insane".

Discussion of "homosexual" vs. "gay" could make for an interesting discus-
sion, even more on social than semantic grounds.  John Boswell dis-
cusses both terms in the introduction of his book, and surprisingly opts
as a scholar for "gay".

			"Bill the Cat was cloned from his tongue."

			Ron Rizzo