▲ 85 points
back
28 comments
An 1821 novel that is jam-packed with slang of that era is Life in London by Pierce Egan [1]. The book was popular in the 19th century, and two of the protagonists were the source, a century later, of the names of the cartoon characters Tom and Jerry [2]. It’s a cleverly written work and I enjoyed reading it a few years ago, but the density of the slang and topical references can make it difficult to parse today. An excerpt:
‘Tom’s box at the Opera caused many a languishing eye and palpitating heart to wander towards its elegant owner. His stroll through the Theatres caused a different sensation among another class of females, and no lures were neglected to decoy and entrap him. In the Parks, Tom was the GO among the “goes!” His peep into the Stews were merely en passant; and the knowing, enticing, Mother Dish-up’s something “new” was tried on in vain to “have the best” of our Hero only for a single darkey! Upon his descending into the Hells, if he did not prove himself as troublesome an inmate as the dramatic Don Giovanni, or possess the icy qualities of Signor Antonelli, the fire-eater and hornpipe-dancer upon red-hot iron bars, he nevertheless had found out the secret, —which, if it did not altogether prevent him from being scorched a little, yet saved him from being burnt to death! At Newmarket, Epsom, and Doncaster Races, Tom was viewed as the tulip of the turf. He not only took the shine out of the Prime Ones at Tattersal’s, but his nod for decision of judgement was the fiat of taste. In showing himself at the Fives-Court, all the peepers of the Fancy were on the stretch to ogle his beau-ideal form and appearance.’ [3]
[1] https://archive.org/search?query=title%3A%28Life%20in%20Lond...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_and_Jerry#History
[3] https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_505pL_b9D2IC/page/n111/mo...
Are you American? Could you talk about some of the phrases and wordplay in here which didn't make sense to you?
As a British person, this reads very easily, to the point that I'm shocked it's over 200 years old.
Here are some of the references in that passage that I would have had difficulty explaining before reading this book, and some I still cannot define: the GO among the “goes!”; the Stews; Mother Dish-up’s; for a single darkey; the Hells; the Prime Ones at Tattersal’s; the Fives-Court; the Fancy; and the significance of Don Giovanni and Signor Antonelli in (apparent) reference to gambling.
This meaning of “Hell” is defined in the linked dictionary: “a fashionable gambling house.” I learned “the Fancy” when I read this and other books by Pierce Egan, as it’s a term he often used to mean boxers. While I understood immediately that the “class of females” in the Theatres meant prostitutes, I might not have picked up on that if I hadn’t read this and other books from the Regency period.
I second all of those. I'm American as well, and they're all similarly gibberish to me.
As a non-native reader it seemed pretty clear to me as well. I guess knowing some French and having read a lot of fantasy novels helps.
En passant is today still commonplace among chess players - it means "in passing" and it "describes the capture by a pawn of an enemy pawn on the same rank and an adjacent file that has just made an initial two-square advance" [1].
Tattersal reminds me of a character in Malazan book of the fallen series of novels, I wonder if it's a reference.
So many of these seem commonplace now! Son of a gun, spanking (as in "brand spanking new" and the physical act, apparently), spick and span, scamp, and slum, randomly taken from the S-es alone. Surely not all from thieves' cant, reality can't be that cool.
So cool to see the web reader of archive.org in use on another site besides mine[1]. Also neat how this bridge between the two topics of archaic language and slang is the same one that I cover in my viral tiktok[2], which retells ancient stories traditionally associated with archaic language but in modern slang. There's really nothing about slang that makes it less official than less informal language. Dictionaries don't define language but document its usage. And universities don't define language but study it.
[1]: immaculatalibrary.com
[2]: @gen.z.bible.stories
As I was once a young man who rushed out to purchase, and thoroughly digested Roger’s Profanisaurus, I really enjoyed the foreword to this second edition which states that the first edition sold out pretty much immediately… must have been very popular with Victorian lads.
Now we have urban dictionary.
Being unauthoritative and driven by user input its borderline unusable unless its the most high profile and popular slang terms. It's hard to guess with definitions are memes and which are true.
I feel like that fits well with my theory of language.
Besides, how would you go about constructing a slang dictionary? Many of these words and terms and defined informally at best, and constantly contextually redefined at worst. Any attempt to create a static slang dictionary is going to be constantly under assault from the shifting landscape of language around it. I don't think there is any better example than the word "literally" in the last 20-25 years. In the mid-90's, it meant a very specific thing. Now, it's very different.
Incidentally the results for 'literally' are horrible on UD.
I kinda disagree. I think that this pretty well encapsulates how the word is used nowadays. Just the top few:
- Who f-ing knows anymore? First, it meant factual, and now it means fictional.
- used to describe something that actually happens or exists.
- A good way to show that you are a[n overly-dramatic person]...
- Truthfully actual. Not figuratively. Used when not b-s-ing or by fake cats pretending not to.
I think this gives a good cultural cross-section of what the word means. If you want a (heh) literal definition of "literal", there are other "more professional" dictionaries, but if you want how people actually use the word, I think that UD gives a pretty good reference to how it's currently used. Language is chaotic, and that's a good thing! If it weren't, it would mean that thought and culture were stagnating (hot take, but I think I can back it up).
I think that my disagreement with your opinion is that you're a prescriptivist linguist, while I'm a descriptivist linguist. My preferred dictionary is one that describes how the word is currently used in its common cultural form. For obvious reasons, these are basically impossible to keep up to date. If I'm reading your philosophy correctly, you would prefer a more static, well described language. French is probably as good an example of a prescriptivist language that I could think of off the top of my head. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise for more on that.
I don't think either of us is "correct", but I think that each dictionary is useful in a specific place. If you're trying to write formal communication, then a prescriptivist dictionary is the best choice. However, if you're meeting a new person and you don't understand what they're saying because they use a word in a new or unexpected way, then a descriptivist dictionary is probably better.
You're mainly discussing against something you are imagining. The purpose of my post, with my opinion on UD, was not to discuss lexicography. You seem eager, but I'm sorry I have nothing to add.
Hey - I think you have a lot to add! Don't sell yourself so short.
But I understand that you're not interested in the discussion. Sorry that I assumed that you were.
Hope you have a great day!
For English-language words. I’ve always been at a loss for how to figure out what the slang term for something is (or if there even is one) in another language. ML translation apps seemingly never output slang.
I know Spanish and Portuguese have AsiHablamos[1] and Dicionário inFormal[2], respectively. I'd love to know if any other languages have their own slang dictionaries.
Wiktionary (both the English and the correct language version) can be helpful.
For "culturally accepted" slang, yes — the kind that you'd actually find in a "modern" and unabridged dictionary. Not so much for the kind of passing-fad slang or "cultural niche" slang that you'd generally look to UrbanDictionary for if it were English.
> On the other hand, the people he refers to as pickpockets and cat burglars are rarely thieving guilds, but simply racial or ethnic others. “In Finland, the fellows who steal seal skins, pick the pockets of bear-skin overcoats, and talk Cant, are termed Lappes.”
Lappi = Lapland, the northern region of not just Finland but Sweden and Norway, and lappalaiset is a derogatory term for the Sami people who live there.
That said, there are no seals anywhere near Finnish waters (except a few very rare freshwater seals) and neither has wearing a "bearskin coat" even been close to a normal thing.
Why would you write that there is no seals in Finland just to concede that there are seals endemic to Finland? Also the Baltic Sea is full of seals.
https://www.marinefinland.fi/en-US/Nature_and_how_it_changes...
> Star the glaze — to break the window of a jeweler
Because the glass breaks in a star-like(-ish) pattern. Neat!
I can find neither "mewling" nor "quim". Disappointed.
TL;DR what everyone wants to know - 'cant' is not ye olde speak for 'cunt'.
From the book [1] -
Cant is old; Slang is always modern and changing. To illustrate the difference: a thief in Cant language would term a horse a prancer or a prad,—while in slang, a man of fashion would speak of it as a bit of blood, or a spanker, or a neat tit. A handkerchief, too, would be a billy, a fogle, or a kent rag, in the secret language of low characters,—whilst amongst vulgar persons, or those who aped their speech, it would be called a rag, a wipe, or a clout.
Cant was formed for purposes of secrecy. Slang is indulged in from a desire to appear familiar with life, gaiety, town-humour, and with the transient nick names and street jokes of the day. Both Cant and Slang, I am aware, are often huddled together as synonymes, but they are distinct terms, and as such should be used.
> “rhyming slang”, the Cockney dialect whereby “table” becomes “Cain and Abel”
I always thought you took it one further i.e. He's a dropkick -> a dropkick is taking a punt -> he's a cunt. It's not subtle to just rhyme.
"Caint" is Irish for "talk". But the English word is as likely from French, and it's the same root as chant, incantation etc.
> Slang is indulged in from a desire to appear familiar with life, gaiety, town-humour
That analysis still stands.
> TL;DR what everyone wants to know - 'cant' is not ye olde speak for 'cunt'.
Yeah, of course. I did read my D&D Player Handbooks after all.