Slang and uncoventional english part 2 doc

CONTRIBUT ORS Dr Richard Allsopp, a native of Guyana, is Director of the Caribbean Lexicography Project and former Reader in English Language and Linguistics, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados. He edited the Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage. Dr Dianne Bardsley is Manager of the New Zealand Dictionary Centre at Victoria University of Wellington. Her PhD involved the compilation and analysis of a rur al New Zealand English lexicon from the years 1842–2002. She was contributing editor for the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary and is currently leading several New Zealand lexicography resear ch projects. James Lambert has worked primarily in Australian English, specialising in slang in general and Australian slang in par- ticular. He was assistant editor of The Macquarie Dictionary of New Words and general editor of The Macquarie Book of Slang and The Macquarie Slang Dictionary. John Loftus manages the online archive at www.hiberno english.com. H e was a senior research assistant on A Dictionary of Hiberno-English. Lewis Poteet is a leading Canadian authority on slang and dialect. He has written extensively about language in Canada’s maritime provinces and edited Car & Motorcycle Slang, Hockey Talk, Plane Ta lk, Car Talk and Cop Talk. John Williams served as a consulting lexicographer on this project. He has been contributing to general language dictionaries, both monolingual and bilingual, for more than 20 years. He is the author of three children’s dictionaries, as well as several articles on the practice of lexicography. PREFACE Eric Partridge made a deep and enduring contribution to the study and understanding of slang. In the eight editions of The Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English published between 1937 and 1984, Partridge recorded and defined the slang and unconventional English of Great Britain, and to a lesser extent her dominions, fr om the 1600s to the 1970s. For the years up to 1890, Partridge was by his own admission quite reliant on Farmer and Henley’s Slang and its Analogues, which he used as an ‘expansible framework’. When it came to the slang for the years 1890 to 1945, Partridge was original and brilliant, especially in his treatment of underworld and military slang. His attitude towar ds language was scholarly and fun-loving, scientific and idiosyncratic. His body of work, scholarship and dignity of approach led the way and set the standard for every other English-language slang lexicographer of the twentieth century. Our respect for Partridge has not blinded us to the features of his work that have drawn criticism over the years. His protocol f or alphabetising was quirky. His dating was often problematic. His etymologies at times strayed from the plausible to the fanciful. His classification by register (slang, cant, jocular, vulgar, coarse, high, low, etc.) was intensely subjective and not particularly useful. Furthermore, his early decision to exclude American slang created increasingly difficult pr oblems for him as the years passed and the influence of American slang grew. Lastly, Partridge grew to lose the ability to relate to the vocabulary he was recording. In 1937, Partridge was a man of his time, but the same c ould no longer be said in 1960. There is a pr ofound relationship between language and culture, and neither Partridge nor Paul Beale, editor of the 8th edition, seem to have assimilated the cultural changes that began at the end of World War 2. This left them without the cultural knowledge needed to understand the language that they were recording. Their lack of cultural understanding accelerated with time, and this is sadly reflected in the later entries. Beatniks and drug addicts, and their slang, baffled Partridge and Beale, who lacked either the personal experience or historical perspective needed to understand underlying countercultures. Partridge himself observed, ‘More than almost any other kind of book, a dictionary constantly needs to be revised; especially, of course, if it deals with the current form of a language and therefore has to be kept up to date’. With The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English we tried to do just that. We picked up where Partridge left off, recording the slang and unconventional English of the English-speaking world since World War 2 with the same scholarship and joy in language that characterised Partridge’s work. We are not, and cannot be, Partridge: but we can strive to be proud heirs of Partridge and to speak with a voice that P artridge would recognise as an echo of his own. We have worked hard to continue the Partridge tr adition, observing high standards of lexicogr aphy while producing an accessible work informed by, and infused with, the humour, mischief and energy that are endemic to slang. This Concise version of the New Partridge contains every entry in New Partridge as well as several hundred new words that have come into the slang lexicon since 2005. The Concise is presented without the hundreds of thousands of citations in the New Partridge, cr e ating an affordable alternative to our update of Partridge. Lastly, we improved dating infor- mation given on hundreds o f headwords. Criteria for inclusion We use three criteria for including a term or phrase in this dictionary. We include (1) s lang and unconventional English, (2) used anywhere in the English-speaking world and (3) after 1945. Rather than f ocus too intently on a precise definition of slang or on whether a given entry is slang, jargon or colloquial English, we take full advantage of the wide net cast by Partridge when he chose to rec ord ‘slang and unconventional English’ instead of just slang, which is, after all, without any settled test of purity. We have con- sidered for inclusion all unconventional English that has been used with the purpose or effect of either lowering the formality of communication and reducing solemnity and/or identifying status or group and putting oneself in tune with one’s company. A term recorded here might be slang, slangy jargon, a colloquialism, an acronym, an initialism, a vulgarism or a catchphrase. In all instances, an entry imparts a message beyond the text and literal meaning. This approach is especially useful when dealing with world slang and unconventional English. A broader range has permitted inclusion of many Caribbean entries, for instance, which merit inclusion but might not meet a stringent pure-slang-only test. Our only real deviation fr om Partridge’s inclusion criteria is a much diminished body of nicknames. The regiment nicknames that populate Partridge’s work no longer fulfil the language function that they did in the United Kingdom of Partridge’s day. If there was a question as to whether a potential entry fell within the target register, we erred on the side of inclusion. We generally chose to include poorly attested words, presenting the entry and our evidence of usage to the reader who is free to determine if a candidate passes probation. Partridge limited his dictionary to Great Britain and her dominions. We elected the broader universe of the English-speaking world. Globalisation has affe cted many face ts of life, not the least of which is our language. There are words that are uniquely Australian, American or British, but it is impossible to ignore or deny the extent of cross-pollination that exists between cultures as regards slang. We were aided in our global gathering by indigenous contributors from Australia, Canada, the Caribbean, Ireland and New Zealand. We also include pidgin, Creolised English and borrowed foreign terms used by English-speak ers i n primarily English-language conversation. We include slang and unconventional English heard and used at any time after 1945. We chose the end of the war in 1945 as our starting point primarily because it marked the beginning of a series of profound cultural changes that produced the lexic on of modern and contemporary slang. The cultural transformations since 1945 are mind-boggling. Television, computers, drugs, music, unpopular wars, youth movements, changing racial sensitivities and attitudes towar ds sex and sexuality are all substantial factors that have shaped culture and language. No term is excluded on the grounds that it might be considered offe nsive as a racial, ethnic, religious, sexual or any kind of slur. This dictionary contains many entries and citations that will, and should, offend. To exclude a term or citation because it is offensive is to deny the fact that it is used: we are not prescriptivists and this is simply not our job. At the same time, we try to avoid definitions or editorial comment that might offend. We were tempted, but finally chose not to include an appendix of gestures, although many serve the same function as slang. Examples include the impudent middle finger, Ralph Cramden’s Raccoon greeting and handshake, the elaborate mimes that signal ‘jerk-off’ or ‘dickhead’, Johnny Carson’s golf swing, Vic Reeves’ lascivious thigh rubbing and Ars enio Hall’s finger-tip-touch greeting. Neither did we include an appendix of computer language such as emoticons or leet speak, although we have included thr oughout several o f the more prominent examples of Internet and text messaging shorthand that have become known outside the small circle of initial users. We tried but in the end decided not to include the word/word phenomenon (‘Is she your friend friend or friend friend?’) or the word/word/word construction (‘The most important three things in real estate are location, location, location’). We co uld not include the obvious pregnant silence that suggests ‘fuck’ (‘What the **** do you think you’re doing?’). We shied away from the lexicalised animal noises that often work their way into informal conversation, such as a cat noise when someone is behaving nastily. We similarly did not include musical phrases that have become part of our spoken vocabulary, such as the four-note theme of The Twilight Zone which is used to imply an uncanny weirdness in any coincidence, or melodramatic hummed violin music that serves as vocal commentary on any piteous tale. Using The Concise New Partridge We hope that our presentation is self-evident and that it requires little explanation. We use only a few abbreviations and none of the stylistic conceits near and dear to the hearts of lexicographers. Headwords We use indigenous spelling for headwords. This is especially relevant in the case of the UK arse and US ass. For Yiddish wor ds, we use Leo R osten’s spelling, which favours ‘sh-’ over ‘sch-’. An initialism is shown in upper case without full stops (for example, BLT), except that acronyms (pronounce d like individual lexical items) are lower case (for example, snafu). Including every variant spelling of a headword seemed neither pr actical nor helpful to the reader. For the spelling of headwords, we chose the form found in standard dictionaries or the most common forms, ignoring uncommon variants as well as common hyphenation variants of compounds and words ending in ‘ie’ or ‘y’. For this reason, citations may show variant spellings not found in the headword. Placement of phrases As a general rule, phrases are placed under their first sig- nificant word. However, some invariant phrases are listed as headwords; for example, a stock greeting, stock reply or catchphrase. Terms that involve a single conc e pt are grouped together as phrases under the common headword; for example, burn rubber, lay rubber and peel rubber are all listed as phrases under the headwor d rubber. Definition In dealing with slang from all seven continents, we encountered more than a few culture-specific terms. For such terms, we identify the domain or geographic location of the term’s usage. We use conventional English in the definitions, turning to slang only when it is both substantially more economical than the use of convention- al English and is readily understood by the average reader. Gloss The voice and tone of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English is most obvious in the gloss: the brief explanations that Partridge used for ‘edi- torial comment’ or ‘further elucidation’. Partridge warned against using the gloss to show what clever and learned fellows we are – a warning that we heed to the very limited extent it could apply to us. We chose to discontinue Partridge’s classification by register. Country of origin As is the case with dating, further re search will undoubtedly produce a shift in the country of origin for a number of entries. We resolutely avoided guesswork and informed opinion. Dating Even Beale, who as editor of the 8th edition was the direct inheritor of Partridge’s trust, noted that Partridge’s dating ‘must be treated with caution’. We recognise that the accurate dating of slang is far more difficult than dating conventional language. Virtually every word in our lexicon is spoken before it is written, and this is especially true of unconventional terms. The rec e nt proliferation of elec- tronic databases and powerful search engines will undoubtedly permit the antedating of many of the entries. Individualised dating research, such as Allen Walker’s hunt for the origin of ‘OK’ or Barry Popik’s exhaustive work on terms such as ‘hot dog’, produces dr amatic antedatings: we could not undertake this level of detailed research for every entry. Conclusion In the preface to his 1755 Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson noted that ‘A large work is difficult because it is large,’ and that ‘Every writer of a long work commits errors’. In addition to improvements in our dating of terms and identification of the country of origin, it is inevitable that some of our definitions are Prefac e x incorrect or misleading, especially where the sense is subtle and fleeting, defying paraphrasing, or wher e kindr ed senses ar e interwoven. It is also inevitable that some quotations are included in a mistaken sense. For these errors, we apologise in advance. We carry the flame for words that are usually judged only by the ill-regarded company they keep. Just as Partridge did for the sixteenth century beggars and rakes, for whores of the eighteenth century, and for the armed services of the two world wars, we try to do for the slang users of the last 60 years. We embrace the language of beats, hipsters, Teddy Boys, mods and rockers, hippies, pimps, druggies, whores, punks, skinheads, ravers, surfers, Valley Girls, dudes, pill-popping truck drivers, hackers, rappers and more. We have tried to do what Partridge saw as necessary, which was simply to keep up to date. Tom Dalzell, Berkeley, California Terry Victor, Caerwent, South Wales Spring 2005 Re-edited for the Concise edition in the spring of 2007 xi Prefac e ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our debt to Sophie Oliver defies description. With good humour and a saintly tolerance for our so-called wit and attempts to corrupt, she herded this project through from a glimmer in the eye to print on the page. We bow to and thank the following who helped along the way: Mary Ann Kernan, who was charged with putting this project together in 1999 and 2000; John Williams, who must be credited for all that is right about our lexicography and excused for anything that is not; Robert Hay and Mike Tarry of Alden for their unending work on the database and cheerful handling of every problem we could throw at them; Claire L’Enfant; James Folan f o r rescuing us in the content edit phase; Louise Hake for her cheerful determination in the editing and production phases; our fine copy editors Sandra Anderson, Howard Sargeant and Laura Wedgeworth; and Aine Duffy for her enthusiastically scurrilous vision of the whole project as it developed. Finally, we thank Oxford University Press for providing us with access to the ‘Oxford English Dictionary Online’, a brilliant online presentation of the Oxfor d English Dictionary, one of the leading sources for dating. Tom Dalzell and Terry Victor This dictionary would never have seen the light of day without the time and support given to me by my family – Cathy most notably, also Jake, Julia, Rosalie and Charlotte. I thank and owe you big-time, major league and humongously. Who knew it would take so much? In their own ways, and from a distance, my parents guided. Audrey, Emily and Reggae started the project with me but did not stay for the end. I also thank: my slang mentors Paul Dickson and Madeline Kripke (and better mentors you could not hope for); Archie Green, who saved Peter Tamony’s work for posterity and encouraged me throughout this project; Jesse Sheidlower, Jonathon Green and Susan For d, slang lexicographers, friends and comrades in words; Dr Lisa Winer for her voluminous and fine work on the slang of Trinidad and Tobago; Jan Tent for his exc ellent collection of Fijian slang; Dr Jerry Zientara, the learned and helpful librarian at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, which kindly opened its incomparable library to me; Tom Miller, Bill Stolz, John Konzal and Patricia Walker, archivists at the Western Historical Manuscript Collection, University of Missouri at Columbia, for their help and insights during my work with the Peter Tamony archives; the Hon. Sir Colville Young for leading me to Richard Allsopp; Jim Holliday for his help on the slang of pornography; Jennifer Goldstein for her help on the slang of se x dancers; Richard Perlman for his patient and Zen-like technological help; Angela Jacobson, Elizabeth McInnis and Caitlan Perlman, who helped as readers; Mr Baldwin, Mr Muir, Mr Lee, Dr Robert Regan and Dr Gordon Kelly for the English and popular culture they taught me. I thank my fellow language writers and lexicographers who were generous in their encour agement, advice and assistance: Reinhold Aman, a brave and brilliant pioneer, the late Robert Chapman, Gerald Cohen, Trevor Cralle, Jim Crotty, Connie Eble, Jonathan Lighter, Edward MacNeal, Geoffrey Nunberg, Judi Sanders, Leslie Savan and Oliver Trager. Our Australian contributor, James Lambert, was given rec o urse to the various databases of the Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, who publish synchronic dictionaries for the Australian and Asian markets, and for these vast resources we are grateful. Lastly, I acknowledge Terry Victor. The demands of this project have only strengthened our friendship. Tom Dalzell My wife, Liz, deserves a dictionary entry of her own as a definition of tolerance, patience and encouragement way beyond conventional expectations. In the wider world, my sister and family added to both my library and vocabulary; and my other family, now in Spain, even went so far as to put a christening on hold until a deadline had been met, as well as allowing me access to the playground language of our time. I must also thank Gerri Smith for her tolerant understanding that I could not be in two places at once. Serendipity brought me to Tom Dalzell and through him I have had the advantage and benefit of all of the influences and providers of expertise that he names above, especially Jonathon Green. In addition to those named I am grateful for the knowledgeable encouragement of Michael Quinion and David Crystal; and, in matters polari, Paul Baker. For particular contributions I would like to thank: Flight Lieutenant Andrew Resoli; Lisa and Tim Hale; David Morrison; some of the inmates at HMP High Down in the summer of 2002; Antonio Lillo for his work on rhyming slang; various magazine editors and journalists who addressed so many of my queries of modern usage; and, for a splendid collection of cocaine-related slang, a certain group of musicians (whose management would pr efer that they remain anonymous). I also enjoyed the advan- tage of the correspondence that the Partridge and Beale 8th edition still attracts: I am grateful to all who wrote in, and I look f orward to seeing more contributions at www.partridge-slang.com. Above all, I must make mention of two people: Eric Partridge, who is my hero, and Tom Dalzell, who is my friend. Terry Victor . study and understanding of slang. In the eight editions of The Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English published between 1937 and 1984, Partridge recorded and defined the slang and unconventional. recording the slang and unconventional English of the English- speaking world since World War 2 with the same scholarship and joy in language that characterised Partridge’s work. We are not, and cannot. the New Zealand Dictionary Centre at Victoria University of Wellington. Her PhD involved the compilation and analysis of a rur al New Zealand English lexicon from the years 18 42 20 02. She was