
Oldest use of the word ‘fuck’ in 1310 English court case - pepys
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3231176/The-curse-Defendant-1310-English-court-case-given-nickname-Roger-Fuckebythenavele-historians-say-recorded-use-insult.html
======
kozukumi
Gotta love how they write an article about the word fuck yet censor it
throughout the article.

~~~
pmalynin
Yes they quote fuck verbatim but censor shit and fuck when they say it.
Sidenote: Oh what a world when deplorable violence and torture and borderline
pornographic scenes are okay to show on TV and yet swearing is very taboo (I
first realized this watching the show Firefly)

~~~
vacri
It might be software-based; the clbuttic mistake. My favourite clbuttic error
was "consbreastutional"...

~~~
smcl
Similar to this is the "cupertino" effect: there's a number of examples in the
first few minutes of this episode of RadioLab (and a few more scattered
throughout):

[http://www.radiolab.org/story/91721-oops/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/91721-oops/)

IT's when a legitimate word is mistakenly auto-corrected or switched out by a
filter - apparently named after the word "co-operation" being mistakenly
corrected to be "Cupertino". One of the examples given is a christian website
which bowedlerised* the word "Gay" to "Homosexual" and posted an article about
talking the 100m sprinter "Tyson Homosexual"

------
dpkendal
It’s not certain yet that this is an antedating. OED editor Jesse Sheidlower
calls it ‘putative’:
[https://twitter.com/jessesheidlower/status/64305138542510899...](https://twitter.com/jessesheidlower/status/643051385425108993)
and slang lexicographer Jonathon Green concurs but finds it probable:
[https://twitter.com/MisterSlang/status/643060037221515264](https://twitter.com/MisterSlang/status/643060037221515264)

If it is, it’s big news. But bear in mind that ‘John le Fucker’, recorded
1278,
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_le_Fucker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_le_Fucker))
would be a further antedating from a personal name if it were somehow to be
confirmed as a use of the word.

~~~
dalke
FWIW, the antipenultimate paragraph mentions le Fucker and its ambiguity.

------
Stratoscope
I have to admit that after reading this thread, I did a double-take when I saw
another post on the home page:

"Ask HN: Anyone in NYC area want to --ck?"

------
michaelkeenan
There's an even earlier record of a man named John le Fucker from 1278. It's
unclear whether this is an instance of the word "fuck", or whether it's just a
variation of some other surname like Fulcher.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_le_Fucker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_le_Fucker)

~~~
kitd
I think the story here is it's first use in a sexual context. As you say, John
le Fucker's name is probably just a corruption of another word.

------
droithomme
By the time it got to a court case obviously it was long since established as
normal. Therefore the oldest use must predate 1310.

------
tempodox
Indeed, we modern people are incredible pussies when it comes to the more
entertaining usages of certain words. If you applied today's political-
correctness filters to medieval (or older) language, all you would hear was a
single long beeeeeep.

~~~
soylentcola
I dunno...I'd imagine it wasn't too much different (barring the introduction
of broadcast and other mass communication). There was polite, "courtly" speech
and there was "vulgar", common speech. Just like today, you can go to any bar
or playground or even plenty of workplaces and hear people swearing or using
other language among their peers which would deemed impolite in other
situations. In the same way, medieval citizens probably wouldn't call the
local lord a fucker to his face or swear in church (or to their grandma) but
they certainly did among peers.

How you talk to friends versus how you talk to those in positions of authority
or respect is probably one of the first examples of "code switching" many of
us learn as children.

------
DanBC
Re-capcha that identifies this writing would be cool.

I'd spend time just on a recapcha page if it helps digitise this stuff.

------
dang
We changed the URL from [http://www.vice.com/read/this-historian-just-found-
the-oldes...](http://www.vice.com/read/this-historian-just-found-the-oldest-
use-of-fuck-920). The story came up a couple times over the weekend and
(strange as this may sound) the Daily Mail version seems to be the best
source.

~~~
caractacus
This might be better: [http://www.medievalists.net/2015/09/10/the-earliest-
use-of-t...](http://www.medievalists.net/2015/09/10/the-earliest-use-of-the-f-
word-discovered/)

~~~
dang
That one seems to contain less information.

If the Daily Mail is the best source, the Daily Mail is the best source and HN
should have it on the front page regardless of its reputation. A similar
recent case was
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10131399](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10131399).

~~~
corin_
Not that this should necessarily be HN policy, but I think I'm probably not
the only person who would prefer to read it from a marginally worse source
than give page views to the Daily Mail.

~~~
notfoss
On the other hand, getting visitors from HN wouldn't necessarily increase any
revenue for them as being the nerds that we are, I doubt that many of us use a
browser without an ad blocker ;)

------
lynchdt
So the 'Daily Mail' makes the front page of HN. Interesting times.

~~~
Loque
I can't click on principal. UK red tops are toxic here and contribute towards
an ill-educated society that eats up propaganda without even chewing.

Not to be a _total_ buzzkill...

------
basicplus2
For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge

------
xacaxulu
In the words of Vice President Joe Biden, "This is a big fucking deal."

