Talk:contrepèterie

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: (sorry for the delay) Re diff, I'm not sure: it's often obscene, but not always; isn't the usage note sufficient? And no prob if the entry isn't FWOTD, I agree it's a bit borderline. PUC – 10:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If the sexual explicitness is considered so important that "double meanings that are not sexual are often not even considered contrepèteries", I think that deserves mention in the definition. What about "spoonerism, usually (one that is) sexually explicit" (of course not including the parentheses)? I'm not really sold on featuring this word, however; though I don't think "sexually explicit spoonerism" is that shocking for featuring and the etymologicy is not objectionable either, but the examples are not half vulgar. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Sorry for the delay, I keep putting things off. Upon further consideration I agree that this probably ought to be mentioned in the definition, and per you suggestion, I've added "chiefly one that is sexually explicit". PUC – 18:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)