Talk:cunning linguist

False Information:
The phrase "cunning linguist" is not equivalent to the term "cunnilingus".
They are not homophonous (sounding the same) or synonymous (meaning the same), and differ in spelling, punctuation, and meaning.
The improper usage of a word or phrase does not automatically modify the proper definition of said word or phrase; while words can indeed change in meaning over time, this is not the case in this instance. "Gay" historically meant "lighthearted and carefree", yet modern usage of the term is primarily in reference to and synonymous of "homosexual".
The usage of "gay", which has two meanings, is significantly different than the usage of "cunning linguist", because "gay" (lighthearted and carefree) and "gay" (homosexual) are homophonous and have identical spelling and punctuation, while "cunning linguist" and "cunnilingus" are not homophonous and have different spelling and punctuation, and are made up of different letters (none of which are silent). It is my belief that this definition be modified to include the proper definition of 'cunning linguist', instead of the improper, inapplicable sexual definition of 'cunnilingus'. Walterblue222 (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Disregard the above. Amateur with no linguistic knowledge. lol. Equinox ◑ 17:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ooo, more personal attacks. To any reasonable people reading this: disregard Equinox's disrespectful remarks and false claims if you have something to add (and can voice your opinion without slinging petty insults like Equinox). Walterblue222 (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

In the interest of record-keeping and cross-linking I will note that this was also brought up in the Tea Room, PUC's talk and Walter's talk. - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would tend to agree that this should not be a page- to me it's a pun, not a word or phrase proper. I guess the strongest argument that would be made for keeping the page is that this phrase has transformed from commonly-seen joke into a true colloquialism for cunnilingus. How would we demonstrate that kind of transition? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A commonly-seen joke, really? So commonly seen that there are only 3 references added, the newest of which is a decade old? Walterblue222 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, so is this phrase "commonly seen" as Geographyinitiative claims, or is it "rare", as Prosfilaes claims? Walterblue222 (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I remember hearing many people use this pun in comedy routines and in jokes as part of a punchline. I would never have believed it would have a page on Wiktionary- it does seem odd to me that it is being treated as a linguistic unit. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't claim anything about the phrase. I claimed it about the meaning of the phrase corresponding to "cunning" + "linguist". In all of HathiTrust's pre-1923 collection, there is but one use of the phrase "cunning linguist", Lady Perfecta, page 206, a use that apparently is literal. Otherwise, I don't think I've ever seen a use better translated in Esperanto as "ruza lingvisto" instead of "piĉlekadanto".--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

In the words of User:Chuck Entz: "In this case, there are some people who say cunning linguist as a humorous way to avoid saying cunnilingus. They're not confused, and I'm sure they know both terms." So your claim (that the "meaning of the phrase corresponding to "cunning" + "linguist"" is rare) directly opposes User:Chuck Entz's claim (that people who say cunning linguist know both terms) - so which is it? Walterblue222 (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why. I would expect people to understand "A blue bear eating grapes is sitting on top of the Statue of Liberty", but I would also expect that nobody has actually said that in the history of the world. It's a pair of words with commonly understood meaning; the meaning derived from putting them next to each other is going to be commonly understood, even if nobody has actually encountered it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To know the literal meaning of cunning linguist, all you have to know is "cunning" and "linguist"- there's no need to have encountered the combination of the two. That's the point of our prohibition on SOP entries. As for how common the humorous sense is: strongly sexual topics tend to be under-represented in the durably-archived sources that count for attestation according to our Criteria for inclusion, and we require that usage citations be independent of each other: Richard Lederer has the phrase in his promotional material for a number of books- including on the books themselves-, but that would count as only one attestation (plus he doesn't really use it in the sexual sense so much as hint at it). It's not exactly on the same level as "dog" or "water", of course- the two component words aren't all that common to start with. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation Move

The citations should be moved to the appropriate definition. Of the 7 citations, only one "2003, April Masini, Date Out of Your League, page 156: Become a Cunning Linguist – She Loves Oral Sex!" is in direct relation to oral sex or 'cunnilingus'. The others should be under the (rare) definition, which should be changed to (literal).

I partially agree, there are many ambiguous cites on the page, they should all be relegated to the citations page. The poem version is pretty clearly a pun on oral sex, so that and the "oral sex" quote ought to stay under the pun definition. The literal usage section does not need quotes or usage examples at all. - TheDaveRoss 18:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1968 is the only one that is lacking context and is at all ambiguous, and I wouldn't even say that one is truly ambiguous. I oppose moving the quotes away from the entry, except for 1968. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1970, John Boyd, The Organ Bank Farm, p. 190:

My love's a cunning linguist.

His tongue's my greatest treasure.

With "tu bella" and "liebe dich"

He bends me to his pleasure.

How do you consider this "clearly a pun on oral sex"? His tongue is her greatest treasure - tongues are used for speaking much more often than for oral sex, and seeing as in this poem, he is using his tongue for speaking (tu bella liebe dich), claiming that this has anything to do with oral sex is perverted and absurd. Walterblue222 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly a pun on oral sex. There would be no need for the strange word choice "cunning" (and the specific reference to tongue, rather than voice, speech or writing) if he were merely a talented linguist. The additional references to languages, of course, are there to enhance the pun. You need to give up this mad crusade. Equinox ◑ 19:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox: Pervert. - TheDaveRoss 19:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

hahahahahaha oh man my sides --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Authors are frequently perverted and absurd. Wikipedia doesn't have much on him, but describes The Pollinators of Eden as "The novel deals with botanical research into potentially intelligent, sexually voracious species of plants native to a newly discovered extrasolar planet." and says in the same year as the book quoted he also wrote Sex and the High Command.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The poem is at least ambiguous. 1968 might have no context, but there is zero chance it supports the purely literal sense; nobody scrawls on walls to inform the world that "God is dead" and "I am witty and skilled at languages."--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, "there is zero chance it supports the purely literal sense; nobody scrawls on walls to inform the world that "God is dead" and "I am witty and skilled at languages." Are you sure about that? Have you never encountered graffiti? Try googling "God is dead" graffiti.... there are copious examples. As for the second quote, someone claiming to be "witty and skilled at languages", in a visual, written medium seems to go along with the literal sense much better than oral sex - in what way does scrawling words on a wall have anything at all to do with 'cunnilingus'? Xavierduvall (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge on review I was mistaken in saying "many", the 1968 was among mine, as well as 2005 (not because I don't think it is related to the sense, but because it doesn't have enough context to make it a clear example). I would also omit 2009 since it is being used as a metaphor, which makes it less clear. I am generally of the opinion that quotes in the entry ought to be both CFI worthy and make good usage examples, with anything not fulfilling both of those roles on the citations page, but obviously that is opinion and not policy, and entirely subjective. - TheDaveRoss 19:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The question of what is CFI worthy, that would make it survive RFV, is more interesting to me than whether or not they go to the citations page. I could see leaving the minimal cites, often just one, on entry pages, and then putting the CFI-establishing cites on citation pages. My concern is the amount of work it would take, more than the style.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am totally with you, now that the quotations section collapses there is not as much return on effort for moving them. But if we made it practice to put most quotes on the citations page, and only really good exemplars in the quotes section, I think it would improve the overall quality of entries. I am certainly not in favor of forcing the migration of current cites en masse, but if folks generally preferred fewer, clearer cites in entries, I would certainly move them when I was doing other work. - TheDaveRoss 21:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I saw the article title "Why it's cunning to be a linguist" today in the newspaper on my train home from work (London's free Metro paper, page 25, "News in Focus"). And I must admit, this one is purely about the benefits of language-learning. But the pun is still apparent: the title would make no sense otherwise. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Literal / Vulgar / Rare

I have added 'literal' to the page. I think the question of 'rare' versus 'common' is totally separate from the 'literal' versus 'nonliteral' question. It will have to be addressed separately. I am going to go eat. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Isn't vulgar euphemism a bit oxymoronic? I wouldn't call this vulgar personally. I wouldn't use it with my grandma because I wouldn't talk with her about oral sex, but I don't think the term is inherently vulgar. Obviously vulgarity is entirely subjective, so who knows. - TheDaveRoss 13:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: Thanks for your reply. I think the word 'cunnilingus' is not vulgar per se, but 'cunning linguist' is a lewd joke and is thereby vulgar. Ask your pastor and see what he says lol. If you are really opposed to it, then remove it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the point in adding it to &lit definitions; it's basically just restating "Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning".--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Thanks for your comment. I think that both I and walterblue thought that 'literal' was not the antonym of 'figurative or idiomatic'. I admit that I don't really know what categories of meaning there are beside 'literal' 'figurative' and 'idiomatic', but the mere fact that there are three types of categories of meaning or usage seems to indicate that there may be others and hence that 'literal' and 'figurative or idiomatic' are not a pair of absolute antonyms. I might suggest a change to the wording of '&lit' that is more direct- something like "Used in the literal sense:". If you really object to 'literal' here, I totally understand if you remove it. Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Near-Homonym Malapropism?

Why is the first definition: "(vulgar, colloquial, humorous, euphemistic) One who performs cunnilingus." when that is not the true definition of "cunning linguist"...? It is my belief that "cunning linguist" is a near-homonym malapropism of "cunnilingus", why is this not properly noted? Stumbled across this video today... https://www.dictionary.com/e/video/this-is-why-you-should-not-judge-a-word-by-how-it-sounds/

See above on this page, where it was discussed at great length. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You can believe what you want, but that's not what the evidence says; it is not a malapropism, instead being used deliberately.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, being intentional doesn't exclude a term from being a malapropism... can you provide s source that substantiate this? "The term malapropism refers to the incorrect use of a word in place of a similar-sounding word, typically with a humorous result. Malapropisms are usually unintentional, but they can also be used intentionally to create a comic effect." - this seems to be precisely the case for this term... Xavierduvall (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Except, no, it is not the incorrect use of the phrase "cunning linguist" in the place of "cunnilinguist", it is the use of "cunning linguist" where "cunnilinguist" would be inappropriate and unused.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure what you mean here, would you mind re-phrasing your comment? You literally said that it is NOT "the incorrect use of the phrase 'cunning linguist' in the place of 'cunnilinguist'" - in which case, cunning linguist is being used and cunnilinguist is not - but in the same sentence you say that "it IS the use of 'cunning linguist' where 'cunnilinguist' would be inappropriate and unused." - in which case, cunning linguist is being used and cunnilinguist is not. These are the exact same scenarios. Both ways, 'cunning linguist' is used and 'cunnilinguist' is not. If 'cunning linguist' is used in the place of 'cunnilinguist', 'cunnilinguist' is unused. If 'cunning linguist' is used to replace "cunnilinguist", 'cunnilinguist' is unused. This is a paradox, so please, explain yourself. Xavierduvall (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, I didn't expect you to answer immediately, and my posting on your talk page was not intended to suggest that. I simply wish to understand your rational, and how I could have misinterpreted your statement because it seems to contradict itself. Thanks. Xavierduvall (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, Equinox, I reviewed the other comments on this page - none of which include or mention 'malapropism'... Was content containing this removed? Not sure how something can be "discussed at great length" without being mentioned even once... Xavierduvall (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

To summarize: @Equinox: claims that this phrase being a near-homonym malapropism "was discussed at great length", despite 'malapropism' not appearing in any of the comments "above on this page"...

@Prosfilaes: claims that "it is not a malapropism, instead being used deliberately", which suggests that malapropisms are only used accidentally; however, this is clearly not the case as malapropisms are "usually unintentional, but they can also be used intentionally to create a comic effect".

@TheDaveRoss: I see you were involved in the previous conversations on this page; do you have anything to add? Are you of the opinion that this phrase is or is not a near-homonym malapropism?

@Xavierduvall: I am of the opinion that you are a near-homonym malapropism. - TheDaveRoss 12:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: Ha, ha. Is that an attempt at humor? God forbid anyone actually address this appropriately, or provide an answer when asked a question... Xavierduvall (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Do you agree or disagree that this is a near-homonym malapropism and should be defined as such?

@Geographyinitiative: @Prosfilaes: @TheDaveRoss: @Metaknowledge: @Chuck_Entz: ; were any of you involved when this was "discussed at great length" on this page as @Equinox: claims, or was it ever even mentioned at all (as appears to be the case)? Xavierduvall (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any intention of improving Wiktionary, or do you plan to continue arguing about this one entry only?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes:, my intention is to improve Wiktionary and I will do so by addressing errors that I encounter.

The primary definition of this entry is incorrect and based on a rarely used near-homonym malapropism, yet the page does not include or mention this.

You disagreed that this entry is a malapropism on the basis of it being used deliberately, despite the definition of a malapropism specifically stating that malapropisms can “be used intentionally to create a comic effect”… but when I pointed this out, you stated that this “is not the incorrect use of the phrase “cunning linguist” in the place of “cunninlinguist”, it is the use of “cunning linguist” where “cunnilinguist” would be inappropriate and unused”… which seems to support my assertion that this is a malapropism.

Now you’re criticizing my contribution and intent, instead of saying why you believe I’m incorrect in this instance or providing any sort of explanation or evidence...

Do YOU have any intention of improving Wiktionary by addressing this error, or do you plan to continue criticizing me without supporting your argument in any way while refusing to respond to the questions asked of you? Xavierduvall (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We've made the case for the meaning on the page. I don't feel that we are going to convince you, nor that you are going to convince us. So all you're doing on this page is wasting the time of people who might do other things on Wiktionary, and you've not actually edited on other pages. Part of the art of editing on an open wiki is recognizing when you've not convinced the other people and letting something go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I shouldn’t have to convince you; you should look at the information I presented and either provide an infallible rebuttal or modify the page as suggested.

If you disagree with my suggestion, you should be able to explain why; why are you refusing to support your argument or answer any questions I ask?

I don’t feel that I am wasting anyone’s time because my suggestion is legitimate and I have answered questions regarding it; you’ve refused to answer pertinent questions and have even contradicted yourself, and your most recent responses have been completely off-topic… which certainly seems like wasting time to me.

Please respond with a rebuttal explaining why ‘cunning linguist’ is NOT a near-homonym malapropism, or confirm that it is and adjust the page accordingly. Thank you. Xavierduvall (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xavierduvall:, it turns out that neither I nor anyone else is obliged to provide you with a rebuttal or else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes:, it turns out that you prefer dodging questions and playing dirty, instead of answering basic questions or supporting your assertions. Perhaps it's because you know you're wrong, or perhaps it's because you don't know you're wrong, but either way, it's clear that you have no valid argument. WalterBlue223 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Xavierduvall

has been blocked for a while. I can tell this is a person whose entire life is a crusade about one Wiktionary entry (wow! even Equinox isn't so sad!) so watch out for their next user name. I hope they get cancer and die. Equinox ◑ 02:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox Are you aware of Wiktionary:No personal attacks when it comes to your inappropriate comment? --Malyacko (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That is just a draft proposal, not an actual policy. We barely have any actual policies. - TheDaveRoss 13:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

While I can't condone the personal attacks, I can certainly understand the frustration when dealing with users (or perhaps in this case, an user with multiple accounts) who only seem to intent to argue about this specific entry, bludgeon the talk page and then claim innocence and that they're only here to "improve" the dictionary as opposed to disrupting it. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I just want to make it extra clear that I have a strong hope that this person gets cancer and dies. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

And who the fuck is [1] Malyacko? Is this like when two pathetic self-published authors agree to give each other 5 stars on Amazon? Equinox ◑ 22:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox A perfectly legitimate person (see his MediaWiki user page) who raised a quite valid point: someone being "difficult" doesn't mean we have license to be abusive in response. Blocking them for being combative and disruptive, yes, but not making gratuitous comments about their getting cancer and dying. Still, I just ran a checkuser check on all the wikiwarrior clones that have been participating here (except for Walterblue22, whose edits are too old and thus out of checkuser range), and, not surprisingly, they're all confirmed as mutual sockpuppets: Therapeuticartsgroup, Xavierduvall, and Amarach (whose contribution here I just reverted). Since WalterBlue22 was blocked as a sockpuppet on wikipedia, and for a similar pattern of obsessively staking out a single page and fighting to the death against anyone disagreeing with him, I'm assuming that he's the same person, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I am no longer very interested in this particular discussion (no offense to anyone is intended); I am okay with any result including deletion. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)