Disputatio:Vestiario exire

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noli Fingere![fontem recensere]

I freely translated coming out of the closet as vestiario exire on the basis that a few other languages have also translated the expression literally. For instance:

  • ca: Sortida de l'armari
  • cy: Dod allan (literally "coming out")
  • es: Salir del armario
  • no: Komme ut av skapet
  • pt: Sair do armário
  • sv: Komma ut ur garderoben

There's also "sortir du placard" in Canadian French. Feel free to debate this, anyway (a case could be made that more languages stick to the English coming out than not), but this is my justification for having fingere'd! Mattie 03:56, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd say it's a fusing of two concepts: "coming out" was what a debutante did when she was presented to the public at her first season (she didn't come out of a closet: she just plain came out); the closet is a different idea, which has gotten tacked onto the coming-out idea. Of course facts could prove this supposition wrong, but that's my story, and I'm sticking with it for the rest of the year. IacobusAmor 04:13, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
And if my story is right (that the basic term is coming out), the closet shouldn't be in the lemma, as indeed it isn't in the wiki in the language from which the expression comes. So that leaves you with merely Exire. Whether that's idiomatic perhaps Neander will advise. IacobusAmor 04:43, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought of that, but a simple exire isn't very descriptive. IMO, it's either "exire vestiario" or something else altogether. Mattie 04:50, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Despite not being "very descriptieve," it suffices in English; why not then in Latin? IacobusAmor 14:23, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Because English speakers know the expression, so they don't need all of it to know what's being talked about. In Latin, no one's going to see a page called "exire" and know what it's about. As well, we're translating an expression, so why wouldn't we stick to its clearest form? Where's the harm in that? Mattie 18:33, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Also, nearly all of the other Wikipedias that use a translation keep the closet in the lemma. The only exceptions I found (of the languages I can more or less understand, of course -- I have no idea what the Indonesian one is, for instance) was in Swedish, who have 'of the closet' in parentheses, and Welsh, where a simple 'dod allan' ("coming out") is used. The rest keep the closet in the expression. Mattie 18:41, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Besides, en: reads "Coming out (of the closet) is..." – so it more or less is in the lemma. Mattie 04:53, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
To match that form exactly, the Latin should be "Exire (ex vestiario)." The lemma is just plain exire ; the parenthesis, by citing a notion that's almost never specified in English speech, clarifies it. IacobusAmor 14:23, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
en:Coming out#"Coming out" applied to non-LGBT contexts does back up your point, though. Mattie 04:54, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
The adjective [closet] is from 1680s, "private, secluded;" meaning "secret, unknown" recorded from 1952, first of alcoholism, but by 1970s used principally of homosexuality; the phrase come out of the closet "admit something openly" first recorded 1963, and lent new meanings to the word out. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=closet Mattie 05:05, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
In case it's usful, the Oxford English Dictionary cites "come out ... of the closet" first in 1963 (Sylvia Plath -- context not clear to me); "come out" first in 1968 (Toronto Globe -- apparently recording what was already a current expression); "closet" as an adjective in this specific sense first in 1967 in the phrase "closet queen" (Winston Churchill [nepos, I guess]). The OED does not make a historical connection between this sense of "come out" and the débutante sense. [But by saying this I don't mean to say Iacobus's story is wrong. The OED, reliable source though it may be, can also be wrong!] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:29, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Since the OED has decided that "come out of the closet" is the earliest form, its methods don't allow it to make a closetless etymological connection, do they? Meanwhile, I've been racking my brain, but no recollection of when I first heard the phrase comes to mind. What's quite certain, however, is that the closet isn't ordinarily part of the idiom. Perhaps Plath in 1963 needed to add the closet so as to make the phrase more intelligible to less informed readers? IacobusAmor 14:23, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
If you go by the etymology I gave above, it seems on the contrary that the closet is the whole point of it: to come out of the closet = to come out of secrecy. Mattie 18:28, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts on the details Iacobus mentions are
(a) yes, the OED could make that connection if it wanted, even without dated evidence -- but I still say that OED isn't infallible, and the connection you suggest may well exist although the OED is unaware of it
(b) its datings don't in themselves decide what comes first, they are merely dates of the first known citations. As I said above, my impression is that the Toronto Globe was reporting an already-current expression
(c) You may well be right about Plath. I found it impossible to guess what exactly the context might be (that's poetry for you)! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Coming right back to the lemma, though, I agree with Mattie that the fuller the form in which we can give the phrase, the clearer it will be. "Exire" by itself doesn't suggest anything much at all. Supported by all those other languages that use similar expressions, I'd stick with what we have. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

De historia huius sententiae[fontem recensere]

Well, it seems that, above, I've offered an explanation that Wikipedia confirms. Here's the start of its section on "sociolinguistic origin" (which I almost certainly haven't read before), with links removed for convenience:

The present-day expression "coming out" is understood to have originated in the early 20th century from an analogy that likens homosexuals’ introduction into gay subculture to a débutante’s coming-out party. This is a celebration for a young upper-class woman who is making her début – her formal presentation to society – because she has reached adult age or has become eligible for marriage. As historian George Chauncey points out:

"Gay people in the pre-war years [pre-WWI]... did not speak of coming out of what we call the gay closet but rather of coming out into what they called homosexual society or the gay world, a world neither so small, nor so isolated, nor... so hidden as closet implies" [Chauncey, George (1994). Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books, emphasis added.]

In fact, as Elizabeth Kennedy observes, "using the term 'closet' to refer to" previous times such as "the 1920s and 1930s might be anachronistic." [Kennedy, Elizabeth. "'But We Would Never Talk about It': The Structure of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928–1933" in Inventing Lesbian Cultures in America, ed. Ellen Lewin (1996). Boston: Beacon Press. p.25 and 214.]>>

So, despite the OED's opinion, we here have a tradition that reference to a closet had nothing to do with the origin of the phrase: the closet came in later, perhaps (one dares suggest) for the benefit of those not well-attuned to gay-friendly speech. Note the emphasis on the fact that (well-informed) people "did not speak of coming out of what we call the gay closet but rather of coming out into." This point confirms a psychological interpretation given below, that the directionality of an exit (away from us, < exire), is exactly the opposite of the directionality implied by the long-standing phrase: an entrance (toward us, < intrare). IacobusAmor 15:10, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read that too. It may be true but it didn't (yet) convince me:
  1. because Chauncey's talk of "coming out" isn't supported by any citations in that en: article (though in his book it may be). Without the citations, we don't know whether to believe the OED (which doesn't have any citations of "coming out" in a homosexual context before 1963) or not. In other words, either Chauncey or the OED is quite wrong, and I don't know which
  2. because "closet", as an adjective meaning "existing in or carried out in secret", is far older than any of this -- I mean, 16th/17th century and on -- so it is possible, and not necessarily anachronistic as Kennedy seems to be saying, that the adjective was used in relevant contexts in the 1920s and 1930s. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:00, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
I honestly think that regardless of its history, the wide-spread expression, when translated in other languages, is to come out of the closet. This leaves to think that while a simple coming out is clear enough in English, it's not in other cultures. The Latin form needs to work for Latin speakers (i.e. people who come from a variety of different linguistic/cultural backgrounds). I think it's safe to assume that if a simple "coming out" doesn't work in Spanish, Catalan, French (1), Finnish, Swedish, etc., etc. (2), then we should also avoid it in Latin, and choose the clearest form: coming out of the closet. Choosing a form that differs from the English one isn't an anti-English move; it's just that we're not writing in English, and what work in English doesn't work here -- as demonstrated by the other translations.
(1) While "he came out" is perfectly intelligible, I'd never only say "il est sorti" -- I wouldn't be understood. (2) The only exception, in fact, is the Welsh dod allan -- but even at that, Welsh is so intertwined with English that one would expect any Welshman to know what's being talked about. Mattie 18:33, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
That reasoning makes sense to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, the English term is used in French; see the interwiki links below. If we're going to take the practice of other languages into account here, we might conclude that the concept is untranslatable. That seems like a cop-out, but it happens. ¶ In any case, I've emailed to a knowledgeable source the question about the necessity of naming the closet. IacobusAmor 13:36, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the French article, and indeed at the footnote in ours, sortir du placard is used in Canadian French; no one's claiming it's used in France. As for being untranslatable, why have so many langauges, well, translated it? With use of the closet, that is! As for renaming the page to the English "coming out," I don't see the necessity: translating is allowed here, I feel, because quite a few other languages (not all, nor the majority, but still quite a few) have also done so. Mattie 17:37, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Why have so many languages
"not all, nor the majority, but still quite a few"... Mattie 23:25, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
mentioned the closet in the lemma? Nexus-based evidence shows that:
15 use the plain English: [[cs:Coming out]], [[de:Coming-out]], [[en:Coming out]], [[fr:Coming out]], [it:Coming out]], [[hu:Coming out]], [[nl:Coming out]], [[pl:Coming out]], [[ro:Coming out]], [[ru:Каминг-аут]], [[sk:Coming out]], [[sr:Каминг аут]], [[sh:Coming out]], [[tr:Coming out]], [[uk:Камінг-аут]]
5 translate the English (two with a parenthesis for the closet): [[bg:Разкриване]], [[cy:Dod allan]], [[eo:Elŝrankiĝo]], [[id:Keluar (kiasan)]], [[zh:橱柜 (同性恋用语)]]
6 translate the larger phrase, 'coming out of the closet': [[ca:Sortida de l'armari]], [[es:Salir del armario]], [[fi:Kaapista ulos tuleminen]] (possibly; Neader may advise), [[no:Komme ut av skapet]], [[pt:Sair do armário]], [[sv:Komma ut ur garderoben]]
6 are opaque here (but some seem long enough to suggest a larger phrase): [[ko:커밍아웃]], [[he:יציאה מהארון]], [[ka:ქამინგ აუთი]], [[ja:カミングアウト]], [[th:การเปิดเผยอัตลักษณ์ทางเพศของตน]], [[vi:Công khai thiên hướng tình dục]]
So the plain English (sans closet) seems widely acceptable. IacobusAmor 18:26, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
French should go in both categories, since it depends on the dialect. The French Wikipedia usually chooses whatever's used in France as its lemma. ¶ I'm still not convinced that "exire" makes any sense in and of itself. No one will understand what you're talking about if you say, "Meis parentibus exivi" (not to mention it could either mean "I came out to my parents" or "I came out of my parents"). "Vestiario meis parentibus exivi," on the other hand, makes a clear link to the English (in fact interlingual) expression. ¶ Whether you're arguing in favour of renaming the page "Coming out" or "Exire" is unclear to me, and they're two completely different approaches. I'd prefer "coming out," since at least the reader will then understand what's being talked about, but then that raises the issue of syntax. How would you go about saying (to reuse my example) you came out to your parents? I think the French say J'ai fait un coming-out, or something of the sort. "Coming out meis parentibus feci"? Where to begin on that one... Mattie 23:21, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Transgender[fontem recensere]

According to :en:,

Transsexualism is often included within the broader category of transgenderism, which is generally used as an umbrella term for people who do not conform to typical accepted gender roles, for example cross-dressers, drag queens, and people who identify as genderqueer. Transsexualism refers to a specific condition in the transgender realm. Thus, even though a crossdresser and transsexual are both transgender people, their conditions differ radically. Though some people use transgenderism and transsexualism interchangeably, they are not synonymous terms.

Where our article says "transsexualitas," it should really say "transgender" (or transperson if you're Norwegian/Swedish). Any idea how that would be said in Latin? Mattie 19:25, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see! If we've borrowed homophylophilia from modern Greek, why not borrow another term from English? My suggestion: transgenderismus. "Transgenus" &c look morphologically awkward and, semantically, forbiddingly ambiguous. ¶ Swedish transperson is very handy in everyday speech, but as a social-psychological category, it may be too close to transpersonal psychology which doesn't investigate psychological states of "transpersons". Neander 21:39, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely agree on transgenus. But wouldn't something like transgenerismus be more correct than with the English D? Mattie 21:51, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
What bothers me in transgenerismus is that it looks like having been derived either from gener 'son-in-law' (lectio facilior), or from genus (lectio difficilior). This is forbiddingly ambiguous, methinks, given that also genus is a semantically loaded term. Why do you feel transgenderismus objectionable? After all Vicipaedia has taken quite a lot of loans from English. Also Italian has borrowed transgenderismo. Neander 23:08, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Italian will eagerly borrow anything that's English =) As for the rest, let me get back to you in four years once I have my major in linguistics and actually know what I'm talking about! :D Kidding. I'd argue that the meaning of genus in transgenerismus is obvious, given the trans- which any modern reader will understand. I'll also point to the French transgenre to back up my suggestion. As for why transgenderismus is objectionable, this may sound silly, but the -end- in the middle just really doesn't look Latin to me. (Apart from the gerunds, what Latin words have that letter combination? Maybe I've had too much wine, but I can't think of many - not in the middle of a long word like that.) Not to mention I don't see the point of borrowing from English, when the word we're borrowing from has Latin origins (trans- and gener- and -ismus) which can easily be constructed in a 'purer' Latin form, i.e. as transgenerismus. Mattie 04:43, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
If a French word has the power to back a suggestion up, we might want to remember that the English word (with a dee in it) comes from an earlier-attested French word, gendre. :) IacobusAmor 14:13, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Gendre as in son-in-law? ¶ Wiktionary says gender comes "from Middle English < Middle French gendre/genre < Latin genus ('kind, sort')." Seems pretty clear to me! Besides, what I meant was that there was an existing form out there without the D. Mattie 18:14, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Mind you, if we had to borrow 'homophylophilia' from Greek, then the ordinary step would be to take transgender from there as well - I believe transgendered or a transgender person would be diemphylicus, -a, -um (διεμφυλικός) and transgenderism diemphylicotes, -etis, fem. (διεμφυλικότητα). —Mucius Tever 15:35, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

I think if we're going to borrow, we should be consistent. So, yes, Greek, IMO. Mattie 18:14, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. I would alternatively be happy enough with "transgenerismus"; there are so many existing compounds of genus -eris that the average reader surely wouldn't think first of sons-in-law. I don't like "transgenderismus" for the same reason as Mattie, that it's a bit of a misbegotten form, the -d- being an irrelevant Old French insertion into what is otherwise recognisably Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:54, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
An added point in favour of Mucius' diemphylicus, -a, -um is that it already exists in modern Greek (so we wouldn't be coining, just borrowing, from the very language that Latin so often does borrow from). I'm sure Mucius knew this, but didn't happen to cite a source. Well, if you look on the Greek page el:Τρανσέξουαλ (the heading is a modern loanword obviously) you find highlighted lower down, as a proper native alternative, διεμφυλικά άτομα "transgender individuals/persons". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Interesting proposal, though for a while I thought that it was tongue-in-cheek. (I was writing this, when Andrew sent his. Therefore, this isn't a reaction to Andrew.) Accordingly, "quidam quaedamve suam homophylophiliam, bisexualitatem, diemphyloteta comprobans ... " ? Sounds very learned to me. To tell the truth, it wasn't until I entered Vicipaedia that I learned the word homophylophilia. I also somehow acquired a vague belief that the word homosexualitas is under a ban here, though I had seen it being used almost everywhere. The argumentum ad mixobarbarismum (detectable in homophylophilia) smacks a bit pharisaic, though, given that, in general, the principle of avoiding mixobarbarism scarcely plays a major role in our articles; witness archidux, autovia, autocurrus armatus, francomurarius, mamma[sic!]logia, primatologia, &c; every now and then, it's simply unavoidable; witness deismus. So, let me "come out of the closet" — which, btw, in the form "klosett", means '(flush) toilet' in Swedish :–) — in the respect that, personally, I prefer homosexualitas (again, of course, I'm speaking of the word). Given this, it may be understandable that I'm not entirely fond of "diemphylotes", either. ¶ The reason why I prefer (or preferred, see below) transgenderismus is this: the concept 'transgender(ism)', I guess, is relatively new and, besides, of Anglophone origin. It's like a new (cultural) product, and, more often than not, also the name of the product spreads along with the product itself; witness jazz, rock, flow, entrecôte, pizza, hi-hat, &c, in various languages. On the other hand, borrowing from modern Greek runs counter to the Wörter und Sachen principle, i.e. the sociological conditions under which words tend to be borrowed from some cultural spheres. While ancient Greeks had a huge amount of cultural products and their names to offer to ancient Romans, I'm afraid and regret to say that this kind of cultural radiation has dried up long ago. ¶ However, I must take back part of my comments on Mattie's proposal. Given Latin congener,-eris 'of the same race, kind' and degener,-eris 'that departs from its race or kind', it's quite feasible to create transgener,-eris on this model. Transgenerismus is a bit harder to swallow, but if I'm ready, indeed prone, to accept the mixobarbaric homosexualitas, it'd be inconsequent of me not to accept the mixobarbaric transgenerismus. ¶ But it looks like I've been delving (or messing around) in this issue long enough. In fact, I have no strong proposal to offer, only a couple of arguments pro & contra. Let the community decide! Neander 13:31, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
I also prefer homosexualitas. ¶ I don't personally have anything against borrowing, I just strongly believe it should only be done when necessary. I'll freely admit transgenerismus isn't perfect (it was, after all, coined by a 17-year-old :P ) but transgenderismus makes it seem as though an anglophone Latin student accidentally added a D from English. ¶ If I may ask, how would we make an adjective out of transgen(d)erismus? Mattie 18:44, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
After having written my tirade, I've grown accustomed to accepting transgenerismus. Beside the adjective transgener,-eris 'transgender', we now have transgenerismus and the (theoretically possible) adjective transgeneristicus 'transgenderistic', whatever that might be. Neander 20:21, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Oooh, I like these adjectives! :D Hurray for our agreement, then. Mattie 21:21, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Say, why[fontem recensere]

Say, why is it Exire instead of Evenire ? IacobusAmor 14:23, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

No particular reason. Go ahead and change it if you want - unless someone else has a preference, I suppose.
Should the verb maybe be in first-person singular...? Mattie 18:19, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Despite its obvious literal meaning, evenire tends to be used of things; in fact, it doesn't normally take a human subject. Exire and evenire aren't synonyms, the latter signifying 'to happen, turn out, result' and the like. Exire is the mot juste. Neander 21:22, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Cassell's had confirmed that evenire usually involves things, not people. We were just asking, as we might with egredi. IacobusAmor 22:14, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Egredi to me sounds more like 'to set out' than 'to exit.' Might be wrong, of course. Mattie 22:52, 31 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
You've hit the nail on the head regarding our perceptions of the idiom: you seem to hear it as an exit, but in the speech one always hears, it's an entrance. People come out into society, they come out to themselves, they come out to their friends & family, they come out on the web (sometimes via YouTube), they come out in uniform (if they're in the military), and perhaps most often, they merely come out. Once they've done that, they're out. And if they're not out, but are hypocritical politicians (say, closeted gay Republicans who vote for antigay laws), many people argue that, despite the gay community's respect for privacy, it's ethical to out them. Thus, the closet is a red herring. Whether it came late to the idiomatic party one can't attest, but it's not a frequent guest in the language as native speakers now use it. Therefore, the lemma (if the verb is right) should be Exire, and the definition might begin immediately; or, as in the English wiki, to acknowledge a historical connection, the closet might be parenthetical: "Exire (ex vestiario)." This assumes, of course, that (as Neander seems to imply above) exire has the basic psychological stance of implying a coming toward, not a going out of. IacobusAmor 14:23, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's both an exit and an entrance, isn't it? Mattie 18:12, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Stage directions do not use exit (an inflected form of our exire) to indicate that actors should come out (into view). IacobusAmor 19:11, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Well, hey, you might be right, but the original English still uses 'come out' (as do all other languages) which we shouldn't mess with. Mattie 19:44, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
You step out of secrecy and into openness (or the gay culture, as you said above). Is your point that egredi would be better because it gives (at least to my ears) a sense of journey (into openness/truthfulness/gay culture)? Mattie 18:12, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
We weren't making a point about egredi at all: we were just asking! IacobusAmor 19:11, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
OK =] Mattie 19:44, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Lemma in aliis vici[fontem recensere]

Nexuswise (as listed at en:), it's mostly just plain Coming out, with scant mention of an armarium  (and none of a vestiarium): [[bg:Разкриване]] [[ca:Sortida de l'armari]] [[cs:Coming out]] [[cy:Dod allan]] [[de:Coming-out]] [[es:Salir del armario]] [[eo:Elŝrankiĝo]] [[fr:Coming out]] [[ko:커밍아웃]] [[id:Keluar (kiasan)]] [[it:Coming out]] [[he:יציאה מהארון]] [[ka:ქამინგ აუთი]] [[hu:Coming out]] [[nl:Coming out]] [[ja:カミングアウト]] [[no:Komme ut av skapet]] [[pl:Coming out]] [[pt:Sair do armário]] [[ro:Coming out]] [[ru:Каминг-аут]] [[sk:Coming out]] [[sr:Каминг аут]] [[sh:Coming out]] [[fi:Kaapista ulos tuleminen]] [[sv:Komma ut ur garderoben]] [[th:การเปิดเผยอัตลักษณ์ทางเพศของตน]] [[tr:Coming out]] [[uk:Камінг-аут]] [[vi:Công khai thiên hướng tình dục]] [[zh:橱柜 (同性恋用语)]] ¶ Which implies that, if exire is to supply the basis of the concept, Vicipaedia's lemma might want to be Exitus ? ¶ Why would that be preferable to, for example, Adventus ? IacobusAmor 20:27, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

I'd originally chosen vestiarium instead of armarium because of the definitions given by Whitaker's Words:
vestiarium: cloakroom; wardrobe, cupboard for storing clothes; money/kind fro a clothing allowance
armarium: cupboard; cabinet, closet, cupboard; chest, safe; book-case; sepulchral monument
From these definition, vestiarium seemed to me a slightly better option (look, for instance, at the Swedish komma ut ur garderoben). But could be wrong.
I believe we should stick with exire (or exitus!) and not adventus for the simple reason that exire is the correct translation of to come out of something. I've already explained why I think we shouldn't say "coming out" (exire) but "coming out of the closet" (vestiario / armario exire). Mattie 21:35, 1 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Cf. Egrediatur sponsus de cubili suo et sponsa de thalamo suo :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Macte! O aptissimum inventum! IacobusAmor 14:39, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

No closet necessary[fontem recensere]

As explained above, and now taken up in The Week, periodico interretiali:

According to George Chauncey’s comprehensive history of modern gay culture, Gay New York,[1] the closet metaphor was not used by gay people until the 1960s. Before then, it doesn’t appear anywhere "in the records of the gay movement or in the novels, diaries, or letters of gay men and lesbians."
"Coming out," however, has long been used in the gay community, but it first meant something different than it does now. “A gay man’s coming out originally referred to his being formally presented to the largest collective manifestation of prewar gay society, the enormous drag balls that were patterned on the debutante and masquerade balls of the dominant culture and were regularly held in New York, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, and other cities.” The phrase “coming out” did not refer to coming out of hiding, but to joining into a society of peers. The phrase was borrowed from the world of debutante balls, where young women “came out” in being officially introduced to society.

So it seems, as pointed out above, that the closet was unidiomatic until the 1960s. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:02, 7 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Unless you go back to the KJV (see my link above). Whether the speakers of the 1960s had their Bibles open in front of them, I don't dare to guess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:59, 7 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Adnotatio[fontem recensere]

  1. See aitch-tee-tee-pee www.amazon.com/Gay-New-York-Culture-1890-1940/dp/0465026214?tag=viglink122733-20.