Replies

Since you have no idea, just how stupid you are, nor the fact that there isn't a single FREEPER who thinks that you're anything but many marbles short of a bag full. I really shouldn't be surprised, at all, that you, who have NEVER seen, not once, the inside of Johnson's dictionary, to argue with me, who owns a first edition set, about what's inside either volume. LOL

As I said before, there are MANY common words, which are NOT to be found in the 1755 editions; "virgin" being but one of them.

Both Samuel Johnson and his contemporaries, were familiar with and used many words, which don't appear in Johnson's dictionary; many of which, I doubt that you've ever used or know.

You're blind, just blind. You claimed that dictionaries, post the sexual revolution changed because of it and the feminazis. I proved you wrong...not just wrong, but damned dead wrong!

But because you are incapable of any reasonable and logical refutation, all you do is post utter drivel. Does that make you feel better about your abject shortcomings, pet? :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk...I skimmed through some words prior to and those who would have appeared AFTER the word "virgin", had it appeared in Johnson's double volume set. You have a problem with that, do you? LOL

You'll probably just keep right on digging that hole, but all that's going to do, is expose you to more ridicule and contempt.

I might be out of bounds, but I think AOR is way out of his league on the battle of words. Remember me where we discussed where the word "nobby" comes from? That was a good discussion in itself. BTW, I haven't been following the discussion in question too close, got better things to do though. B-D Sometimes though, it is better to stop the online fights after a while and move on, life is too short. Still though, your research is fascinating.

You're blind, just blind. You claimed that dictionaries, post the sexual revolution changed because of it and the feminazis. I proved you wrong...not just wrong, but damned dead wrong! You have proved nothiing except you have helped to prove my case.

That as the years have gone by, the use of the noun virgin to mean a man has moved up from number 6 to number 2 to . . .

Today--

When there is now is no longer a sex specified for the number 1 definition of the word, virgin--but rather the number 1 definition of virgin today is a "person."

You're the one whose blind.

What part of the following do you fail to understand?

1200: virgin means a chaste woman of great piety.

1300s: first known use of virgin for a man (which for all I know may have been used by a gay man to describe his boyfriend).

1960: a man as a virgin is the sixth definition in Webster's--way down the list.

1980s: a man as a virgin has climbed to number 2.

2000's: virgin = a "person."

And so the women's libbers have won: men are now officially feminzed

As I said before, there are MANY common words, which are NOT to be found in the 1755 editions; "virgin" being but one of them.

So if Johnson's dictionary does not contain the word, virgin--

And yet Johnson knew the word, virgin, existed because he used the word in his other writings (and wherever I've seen him use it to refer to someone it was a female)--

Then why do you drag Johnson's dictionary into this discussion?