31 Adorable Slang Terms for Sex From the Last 600 Years

Getty Images
Getty Images

Lexicographer Jonathon Green’s comprehensive historical dictionary of slang, Green’s Dictionary of Slang, covers hundreds of years of jargon, cant, and naughty talk. He has created a series of online timelines (here and here) where the words too impolite, indecent, or risqué for the usual history books are arranged in the order they came into fashion. (If you don’t see any words on the timelines, zoom out using the bar on the right.) We’ve already had fun with the classiest terms for naughty bits. Here are the most adorable terms for sexual intercourse from the last 600 or so years. Many of them have origins so obscure they hardly make sense at all, but that doesn’t detract from their bawdy adorability in the slightest. When it comes to the ol’ houghmagandy, a little mystery goes a long way.

1. Give someone a green gown (1351)

2. Play nug-a-nug (1505)

3. Play the pyrdewy (1512)

4. Play at couch quail (1521)

5. Ride below the crupper (1578)

6. Board a land carrack (1604)

7. Fadoodling (1611)

8. Put the devil into hell (1616)

9. Night physic (1621)

10. Princum-prancum (1630)

11. Culbatizing exercise (1653)

12. Join paunches (1656)

13. Dance the Paphian jig (1656)

14. Play at tray trip of a die (1660)

15. Dance Barnaby (1664)

16. Shot twixt wind and water (1665)

17. Play at rantum-scantum (1667)

18. Blow off the groundsills (1674)

19. Play hey gammer cook (1674)

20. Join giblets (1680)

21. Play at rumpscuttle and clapperdepouch (1684)

22. Lerricompoop (1694)

23. Ride a dragon upon St. George (1698)

24. Houghmagandy (1700)

25. Pogue the hone (1719)

26. Make feet for children’s stockings (1785)

27. Dance the kipples (1796)

28. Have one’s corn ground (1800)

29. Horizontal refreshment (1863)

30. Arrive at the end of the sentimental journey (1896)

31. Get one’s ashes hauled (1910)

Is It an Official Scrabble Word?

Can You Tell an Author’s Identity By Looking at Punctuation Alone? A Study Just Found Out.

iStock.com/RyersonClark
iStock.com/RyersonClark

In 2016, neuroscientist Adam J Calhoun wondered what his favorite books would look like if he removed the words and left nothing but the punctuation. The result was a stunning—and surprisingly beautiful—visual stream of commas, question marks, semicolons, em-dashes, and periods.

Recently, Calhoun’s inquiry piqued the interest of researchers in the United Kingdom, who wondered if it was possible to identify an author from his or her punctuation alone.

For decades, linguists have been able to use the quirks of written texts to pinpoint the author. The process, called stylometric analysis or stylometry, has dozens of legal and academic applications, helping researchers authenticate anonymous works of literature and even nab criminals like the Unabomber. But it usually focuses on an author's word choices and grammar or the length of his or her sentences. Until now, punctuation has been largely ignored.

But according to a recent paper led by Alexandra N. M. Darmon of the Oxford Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, an author’s use of punctuation can be extremely revealing. Darmon’s team assembled nearly 15,000 documents from 651 different authors and “de-worded” each text. “Is it possible to distinguish literary genres based on their punctuation sequences?” the researchers asked. “Do the punctuation styles of authors evolve over time?”

Apparently, yes. The researchers crafted mathematical formulas that could identify individual authors with 72 percent accuracy. Their ability to detect a specific genre—from horror to philosophy to detective fiction—was accurate more than half the time, clocking in at a 65 percent success rate.

The results, published on the preprint server SocArXiv, also revealed how punctuation style has evolved. The researchers found that “the use of quotation marks and periods has increased over time (at least in our [sample]) but that the use of commas has decreased over time. Less noticeably, the use of semicolons has also decreased over time.”

You probably don’t need to develop a powerful algorithm to figure that last bit out—you just have to crack open something by Dickens.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER