Talk:man ho

RFV discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

I don't see it after a cursory glance of google books:"man ho" OR "man hos". Besides, wouldn't the plural be (deprecated template usage) man hoes?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed this was a nautical expression :P --EncycloPetey 16:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So did I.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are getting a lot of dodgy stuff in the wanted list lately. SemperBlotto 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This was the sense that SemperBlotto speedily deleted, although I assume that that was the meaning. Would be nice to see the page history of the requested entries page to see who proposed it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Daniel. added it in this revision.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Because "ho" is a frequent typo and scanno for "who" and "he", this is almost totally impossible to search for. However, with some effort, I did find three relevant b.g.c. hits: [1][2][3]. Unfortunately, the third one hyphenates it as man-ho. I also found some relevant Google Groups Usenet hits — [4][5] (warning: both vulgar) — but they're not exactly in the same sense as the b.g.c. hits, in that the b.g.c. hits relate to straight male promiscuity and the Usenet hits seem to relate to gay prostitution. That said, we define ho as “A whore; a sexually loose woman; in general use as a highly offensive name-calling word for a female with connotations of loose sexuality”, so I don't suppose we have to give particularly a narrow definition for man ho, if we're willing to merge the two senses. —Ruakh_TALK 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Promiscuous man" sense: cited.

"Male prostitute" sense: not cited. I added one cite that I think is pretty clear, but that's about it. There are some other Usenet cites using it as a vulgar and homophobic term of abuse, but firstly I don't want to add them, and secondly I couldn't really prove that they're in this sense. Maybe if we modified the def to indicate that it's a vulgar term of abuse, rather than a straightforward term for a male prostitute? (Alternatively, as I implied above, we could bypass the issue somewhat by merging this into the sense that I did manage to cite.)

—Ruakh_TALK 01:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Promiscuous man" sense: RFV-passed. "Male prostitute" sense seems to fail with the problems Ruakh outlines; the quotation should be moved to the citations page. — Beobach 01:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: should we add the nautical (presumably sum-of-parts) sense? We generally add such senses (see eg get to), but they're generally the same part of speech; this is different, as the nautical sense is an interjection. — Beobach 01:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, RFV passed, per Beobach. I wasn't sufficiently attached to the prostitute citation to move it to the citations page, but if anyone wants to, feel free. I didn't add the nautical sense, but if anyone wants to, feel free. —Ruakh_TALK 21:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)