Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 November 24

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.

November 24

Before the junk jokes

This New Yorker piece about airport security [1] uses the word "junk" in a context that seems to be particularly prevalent among Americans (on the assumption that the "junk" referred to is neither unwanted rubbish nor a Chinese fishing vessel). The OED, however, has no trace of this definition. When did this particular euphemism first crop up, and how has it seemingly become so widespread in America that the natural response to full-body scans is "a lot of headlines with the word 'junk' in them", while the term remains obscure overseas? 87.114.101.69 (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Some citations but no etymology. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Among a lot of speculation, this seems to be credible. It refers to "a lot of junk in the trunk" as being black American slang for a lady(?) with a larger rear end. It presumably evolved to describe that general area of anyone's anatomy. As an Australian it explains to me why the term hasn't spread here so easily because we, like the British, don't use the word "trunk" to describe the rear end of a car. ("Boot" is preferred.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Urban Dictionary lists the corresponding loot in the boot, though I can't say I've ever heard or seen it used. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, never heard that one either. But loot might give us a rather tenuous connection to family jewels. HiLo48 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The page Tagishsimon linked says "No etymological relationship between this term and junk in the trunk has been confirmed." The page you linked does not demonstrate a high level of scholarship, i.e., I think they're just guessing. For what it's worth, I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and I'm familiar with both terms, but I'd never made a connection between them or noticed anyone else doing so. No one would confuse a kick in the junk with a kick in the behind. -- BenRG (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you are refering to the American slang of junk = testicles, from personal observation the term is about 10-12 years old. That is, I don't remember it being prevalent when I was in college (1994-1998) but I started hearing it shortly thereafter. Its fairly common usage now, if a male says "She opened the door and saw my junk" I'd be more inclined to think she saw him naked rather than saw his messy room. I'm not sure of the specific etymology of that usage, except as junk being a nonspecific word for an object (much like "stuff" or "thing"); which can be said with an inflection to make it clear that it is being used euphamisticly. This is one of those things that doesn't translate to print; but from the inflection on the words and the context of the conversation, it is clear when the word junk means "male genitals." I think the inflection is the key; if you applied it to just about any word, it becomes clear you mean "genitals". --Jayron32 03:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Junk", "stuff", "thing", etc., are G-rated euphemisms for any number of terms that are unacceptable in public media. For example, "junk" used to be given as an alleged street-synonym for drugs such as heroin. And I suppose the guy could say "naughty bits" instead, but that sounds a little too British. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing that kind of surprises me is that, although "junk" refers to male genitals and "junk in the trunk" refers to large female buttocks, I haven't seen what would seem a natural shift to have "junk in the trunk" refer to anal sex. My experience with hearing the word "junk" is similar to Jayron's (though my college years were 1993-1997, whippersnapper...) up here in SE Ontario; it was around 2000 or so that I started hearing it. As to why "junk" is now used, I'm reminded of something I read in one of Gershon Legman's folklore books - a jokester or limerick writer can employ any euphemism for genitals or breasts at any time with little worry of being misunderstood. Matt Deres (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The OED gives:

1. c. Old cable or rope material, cut up into short lengths and used for making fenders, reef-points, gaskets, oakum, etc.

3. transf. orig. Naut. The salt meat used as food on long voyages, compared to pieces of rope

4. Whale-fishery. The lump or mass of thick oily cellular tissue beneath the case and nostrils of a sperm-whale, containing spermaceti.

A similar transf. as that in 3. could be occurring with the usage in question, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 5#'Junk' as male genitals?

—Wavelength (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be wrong to leave out the "is"?

"The stories are true and the magic real." 65.88.88.75 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly fine to me, but I'm not a native speaker. Rimush (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar to a parallel question about the sentence: "David has three and John eight". Hope this helps. Eliko (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's correct. It can also be done with commas: "The stories are true; the magic, real". (That kind is more common when the clauses are longer or more complicated.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Commas need a semicolon, dashes - don't: "The stories are true, the magic - real". Eliko (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would caution any potential writers that this usage strikes me, at least, as the sort of thing to be expected in cheesy movie posters. —Tamfang (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a bit problematic, because when a verb is omitted, the implication is that the same verb as before should be substituted, but that would give "the stories are true and the magic are real". However, most English speakers would accept it without complaining. Looie496 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I don't have a problem with it, and my understanding was that what's elided is just a lemma ("be" without a specified form). I'm sure some syntax-y people could talk about it more. My impression (if I might be so bold as to do it using generative stuff—not because I believe it, but just because it's what I happen to be trained in) is that what's elided is the lexical content of that verbal projection but not the features/inflection, which are assigned from the non-elided noun ("magic") to the unpronounced elided thing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It IS the same verb, just the singular rather than plural form, as required by context. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The technical term is zeugma (-eu- as in Euler, not as in euphoria). 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you pronounce Euler and euphoria, but zeugma is pronounced [ˈzjuːɡmə] or [ˈzuːɡmə], depending on whether or not the speaker's accent includes yod-dropping after /z/. —Angr (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right, because zeugma comes from Greek, not German. The mispronunciation "zoigma" is a shibboleth caused by imposing German pronunciation on the word. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in ancient Greek it would have been pronounced [dzeuŋma] with a high-low pitch contour on the first syllable... AnonMoos (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)