Talk:suck

courtesy explanation for recent restoration

This is a quick courtesy explanation for the restoration of my recent prior edits. I greatly respect the work done by User:Connel MacKenzie, and all of his diligence and housekeeping here. As my aforementioned edits were removed after four minutes after my last touch-up edit, I was courteously wondering if the edits were mistakenly taken for vandalism of some sort. That's no beef with Connel at all, btw :-)

But, such is (to transition here) kind of the nature of the word "suck." It has its derivative meanings, and can even have "not-nice" overtones ranging from merely a little impolite to strongly vulgar (although "suck" today, used as in "that rock band really sucks," has lost most of its vulgarity in most instances today).

An advantage that Wiktionary has over Webster's and OED is that it can really get to nuances of meaning in explanatory ways. That is much of the beauty of this project, I feel.

As I kindly didn't receive explanation for the removal, I have very kindly restored the edits, with the best of heart and intentions. What I also suggest, in the most positive spirit, is for everyone here who feels that the aforementioned edits can be touched up or improved a bit to do so. That way, we can collaborate to make the best possible product.

And, I do respect the community here as a whole. Consensus will decide what is ultimately an entry with any word.

And thanks again, Connel, for your truly fantastic efforts on Wiktionary...they really are appreciated by me, I sincerely state...and I also really appreciate your welcome message to me, too! (I've been much more active on Wikipedia, hence no username yet...but I just might go ahead and do it here! :-) ) Thanks!! —This unsigned comment was added by 68.96.129.89 (talk • contribs) .

It's good that you're trying to improve the entry, but your edit ([1]) broke the entry. It has invalid headers, it includes entries that belong on other pages (like on "suck up"), and it makes the synonyms and translations associate with the wrong definitions. So, I have to revert the edit. Feel free to improve the entry, but you may consider reading WT:ELE first. Rod (A. Smith) 01:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just me

I came looking to find the origin of usage 3., but am disappointed.

me too.  :/ 206.72.25.210 17:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It stems from the phrase "to suck hind tit" (on a cow, where the unlucky calf is most likely to be shat upon), popularized in the U.S. in 1940 with the meaning of "to be inferior". —Stephen 15:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I too am disappointed with item 3. The idea of "hind tit", usually having to do with "the runt of the litter", is a good one, and certainly applicable. However, around the decade of the fifties (at least), the idea of the usage of the word came from the disparaging comments regarding homosexuals. In the usage of the day, a male was insulted by saying "you suck", meaning that he was involved with performing fellatio. The strong hatred of homosexuality has existed for a long time and has been much more overriding than the former, and less intense, meaning from animal husbandry (even though it was around for hundreds of years), and this insult had particularly strong insult weight, often leading to fights. Therefore, item 4 should be part of 3, along with Stephen's point. - KitchM 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's surely based on the context of oral sex. As to the notion of homosexuality, that likely did play a role, but not necessarily. The main idea is simply that they who perform oral sex on another, serve this other and therefore are inferior. 78.55.204.247 14:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency for entries about the multi-word translations of disparagment sense

Czech: být na houby, být na dvě věci Split by seperate entries? NO

Dutch: klote zijn Split by seperate entries? NO

Finnish: olla syvältä Split by seperate entries? NO

French: être chiant, être nul Split by seperate entries? YES (as être chiant, être nul)

German: mies sein, zum Kotzen sein, Scheiße sein Split by seperate entries? NO

Greek: άστα να πάνε, είμαι μαλάκας Split by seperate entries? NO

Italian: essere una schiappa, fare schifo Split by seperate entries? NO

Polish: być do bani Split by seperate entries? YES (as być do bani)

Portuguese: ser um saco, ser uma droga, ser uma bosta Split by seperate entries? YES (as ser um saco, ser uma droga, ser uma bosta))

Spanish: ser un asco, dar asco Split by seperate entries? NO

Swedish: vara skit, vara botten, vara värdelös Split by seperate entries? NO

Turkish: berbat olmak Split by seperate entries? NO

Maybe we should change this... probably show them as one entry in the translations because you could already have the seperate entries in those potential entries, and it lets people check declensions of those multiword translations without having to do much work on figuring them out themselves, in my opinion. Adamnewwikipedianaccount (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)