"Instances of fuck before the 15th century are rare. Despite it commonly being classed as one of the Anglo-Saxon four-letter words, Jesse Sheidlower (author of an entire book on fuck, and past editor of the OED so he knows what he’s talking about) suspects that it came into English in the 15th century from something like Low German, Frisian or Dutch. While ‘fuck’ existed in English before then it was never used to mean rogering, instead it typically meant ‘to strike’ (which was, way-back-when, related to the word that became fuck because it’s a kind of hitting…). Anything that appears earlier is most likely to be the use of fuck to mean ‘to strike.’ If you wanted to talk about making whoopee in a dirty way, the Middle English word to use was swive. [ETA: @earlymodernjohn asked if it’s related to Modern English ‘swivel’ as in ‘go swivel’ and it is! The more you know…]
Another theory for why there’s hardly any written record of fuck before the 15th century is because, if it was around before then, it was just too darn rude to write down. The coded example might have been an early way around actually writing it.
Another theory for its late arrival is that it’s a borrowing from Norse (the Vikings) via Scottish because several early instances are found in Scottish writing (such as the 15th-century one discounted in that other article). However, this is generally believed to be unlikely, in part because the Scottish weren’t considered influential enough for English to borrow words from them. Perhaps there were more early written examples in Scottish simply because they were less prudish about writing it.
There are lots of instances of the word fuck from before the 15th century drifting around, some of the most notable of which are, chronologically:"
No wonder you are depressed.True why questions are only applicable to situations where purpose is involved. We can have access to human decisions and purposes. But even if you believe in god, experience and history demonstrate clearly that those bigger why questions are either unknowable, or just not questions at all; either the intention is obscure, or non-existent.
Sanity relies on the pursuit of personal purpose, not the invisible goose chase of universal intentionality which is not accessible.
How exactly is it false? Many people follow beliefs, some beliefs being the interpretations of facts, but this does not mean they are facts. A fact is indisputable and undeniably the case, it cannot be argued because it is. Most of the time or always, a belief isn’t what is, it is what is believed to be. (Interpretation). Can we not discover fact without belief?
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
-Aristotle
Belief is acceptance.
be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
“his belief in the value of hard work”
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
“contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language”
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
“it’s my belief that age is irrelevant”
a religious conviction.
“Christian beliefs”
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
“a belief in democratic politics”
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
“belief in the value of hard work”
antonyms: disbelief, doubt
Just because we know little to nothing does not mean what we do know isn’t factual. Said we barely scratched the surface of knowledge, because there is an ocean of it. Anyone wanna go swimming?
“I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”
Socrates
Then that would negate them as facts wouldn’t it? I have not explained the facts of which I know now, nor have I given many examples if not any. Time, place, people and the like can change. Fact’s don’t.
I tried explaining that facts do not change but time/place does on the other philosophy forum that I was on and they kept trying to give me examples of facts changing, such as “Oh, well I went to high school in 1980 but I am not in high school anymore, this is an example of the facts changing.” No, the fact of them going to high school did not change, the time however did. It is still factual that they went to high school in 1980 correct? Just because they are out of school now, does not negate the fact that they were once IN school. It’s just historical or past tense fact now.
Another example being “The capital of Maryland is Annapolis, if the capital changed, the fact regarding Annapolis as the capital of Maryland would change as well.” Not true, Annapolis would of still been the capital of Maryland at one point in time, the change through time and place would not negate the fact that Annapolis WAS the capital. Just because it is no longer the capital, does not cancel the fact that it indeed was the capital.
I deal with blatant correlating facts. Such as for example children being natural creative, wondering opportunists and risk takers. Yet they are also naturally gullible, gullibility of which is most often taken advantage of by dominant teachings/faiths/beliefs/and ways of operating or performing tasks. It is a fact that children are naturally gullible, even some adults remain so.
I will give an example of interpretation of ‘fact’ as well. For example, the people used to believe that the world was flat as a fact. When truly it never was a fact to begin with, it was the interpretation and belief of it being a fact. Of which was disproved later on in time.
^ this last example is not equivalent to being past tense fact because it was never truly a fact, the planet was always round, regardless of what they interpreted or believed.
We only have you word for it. We could search the school records and we may find that someone with your name went to that school. Is it a fact that it was you?
And what happens if the records are destroyed? What are the facts then?
That ties into your post about the existence of Jesus. You claim that he did not exist and others claim that he did. What is the real fact in that situation?
People start out with simple (even trivial) facts and they end up believing that all facts have the same properties.
You generalize about a large population. Is that fact true for the individual and within a particular context? And isn’t gullibility a range behaviors?
There is a difference between what physically is and what we know (or believe) to be. All thought and knowledge is an interpretation of physical reality. It’s possible to be wrong in that interpretation. None the less, that interpretation (right or wrong) is said to be fact at the time. What happens in the future is irrelevant to the present.
Children in general… are gullible… You can spoon feed them a fairy tale/story and they will most likely adopt and believe it. Similarly, like when you tell children to go Snipe hunting in the woods and they do, even when there are no such things as Snipes.
I am not claiming it as fact or not, I am claiming that it is not viable evidence to claim that he does exist at all, because it isn’t, it’s hear say. 7-20 years after his death records suddenly pop up? Why not 1-2 years or perhaps at the time of his life? Makes no logical or reasonable sense.
Well they could ask the individual questions regarding the going to high school in 1980, what class, what prom theme, what teachers/classes, the correlations between the individuals age and schooling period, perhaps school ID, etc. Besides, a person can lie, but their DNA/Blood doesn’t.
What is there to interpret about what has happened, what is happening and the like?
Just because it is no longer the capital, does not cancel the fact that it indeed was the capital.