On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote:
> Forwarding as Deepa's new address was not then on silk. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [silk] Ford Figo (was sociolinguistic query) > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:30:22 +0530 > From: Deepa Mohan <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Giancarlo Livraghi <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Suresh Ramasubramanian [today] > > > This thread seems to say figo - the masculine - > > is cool while the feminine, figa is vagina, > > and by extension, hot, sexy etc? > > No, it doesn't work that way (though someone in Ford seems to think so). > > It starts with the fact figa is jargon for vagina - therefore sexy. > From what used to be a rude male expression it has (strangely) > extended to a broader meaning, such as "attractive" or "nice" - even > in a non-sexual context. A quaint result is that "figo" (though the > word never existed in the language, not even in jargon) can be said > of a male - or of anything called with a "masculine" word. > > Anyhow, everyone in Italy, even when using the word freely in > extended ways, is well aware of its original meaning. It would be > ridiculous for a car, or any other product, to be branded "figa" or > "figo" in Italian. > > > > > > Yes... the word "sexy" itself has grown to a broader and often non-sexy > meaning...it's now universally used to describe anything that's > appealing to the speaker, without a second thought to its original context. > > > As usual, someone has said it better, about "sexy".... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29franzen.html?pagewanted=all
