Talk:Flen flyys
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[edit]
Index of Middle English Verse (IMEV) 808. Will look this up and flesh out the entry when I have a chance. Marnanel 18:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Flen flyys is a poem, .... containing the first known written usage in English of the vulgar verb "fuck"
Unless "sometime before 1500" means centuries before, this is incorrect. Chaucer used it quite openly in the Reeve's Tale in the fourteenth century. Securiger 11:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting. "Flen flyss" is cited as the first written in stance in a number of reputable source, including The American Heritage Dictionary. O.E.D. 2nd edition cites its first appearance in current spelling as 1535 ... I find it hard to believe such folks would overlook Chaucer! Are we sure this online source is correct? - DavidWBrooks 12:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A no, mea culpa! I read something about it in Bryson's The Mother Tongue, but misremembered the detail and confused myself with the above link - which is Middle English and a modern translation side-by-side! The word Chaucer uses is "swyve", which is completely synonymous, but not the word in question. Securiger 13:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah - *that* explains what Dick Cheney meant when he told Dan Rather to "go swyve yourself" ... - DavidWBrooks 16:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Is that a true quote? @@ 03:43, 18 November 2004 User:213.112.113.68
- Chaucer wrote "swyve". The accompanying translation into modern English has "fuck". Anthony Appleyard 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the above anon poster was asking about my Dick Cheney joke quote ... although since that's 2 1/2 years ago, it's hard to know for sure. - DavidWBrooks 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where can I find the poem? 23:16, 30 October 2006) User:154.20.120.242
How about the whole poem? Where can it be found?
Shouldn't the entry read "This poem, which is purported to be written in 1475 though not authenticated . . ." Instead of saying that it was written about 1475. Without any authentication it may well be nothing but a very clever fake. And shouldn't it delete that it is famous, since it seems to be a recent sudden appearance without any prior provenance? 64.61.221.153 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)