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