Date:    Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:44:15 EST
<br>From:    RonButters  RonButters[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]AOL.COM 
<br>Subject: Suck eggs and die!
<br>
<br>In a message dated 3/23/98 7:55:19 AM, someone wrote:
<br>
<br>  In this view, the performer might not "suck blood . . ." or "suck money . .
<br>." but merely "suck."  This suggests that some people don't look for a
<br>direct object of "suck" used this way.  Maybe that's why it is no longer
<br>necessarily considered obscene--an implied off-color object ("That sucks [
<br>]") doesn't even figure in (younger?) people's use of the phrase.  
<br>
<br>There is considerable evidence that SUCK in its slang senses was NEVER
<br>"considered obscene." I mean, direct objects were ALWAYS expressed in the
<br>1920s-60s and they were "wind," "eggs," and "rope" (e.g., "You suck eggs!"
<br>"That really sucks wind!/rope!"). "Historically, the use of SUCK as an
<br>expletive with an "off-color object" does not exist in the written record in
<br>any place that I am aware of. Whatever you are filling in for the "[]" has no
<br>historical basis--except maybe as a kind of semantic back-formation, but the
<br>"off-color object" is very much in the mind of the beholder; it ain't in the
<br>historical record, even as it is definitely not in the minds of most
<br>contemporary users.
<br>
<br>As you may have guessed, I have written an article on this matter that I'll be
<br>glad to send you if you are interestred in looking at what I have to say about
<br>SUCK at great length.
<br>