What with this “schlonged” business?
Trump has now scandalized people by using a Yiddish expression to describe what happened to Hillary Clinton at the hands of the Obama forces back in 2008:
She was favored to win and she got schlonged, she lost.
Now, for those of you who aren’t especially up on Yiddish, “schlong” is one of the many Yiddish words to describe the male member, as in genitalia. I won’t bother to list the others; you probably can yourself. But, even as a New Yorker, although I’m familiar with the word, I can’t ever recall it being used as a verb before—which is the way Trump is using it here, as an equivalent of “screwed.”
Not only that, but it’s not the first time Trump has turned the noun into a verb:
The business mogul and Republican front-runner has also used the term “schlonged” before, saying in a 2011 interview with the Washington Post, “I watched a popular Republican woman [Jane Corwin] not only lose but get schlonged by a Democrat [Kathy Hochul] nobody ever heard of for the congressional seat and that was because, simply, because of the Paul Ryan plan.”
I’m not the only one curious about this usage; here’s a WaPo article that looks at “schlonged” from the linguistic point of view:
Trump’s problem? He’s a gentile who, linguistically, may have wandered too far from home.
“Many goyim are confused by the large number of Yiddish terms beginning with ”˜schl’ or ”˜schm’ (schlemiel, schlemazzle, schmeggegge, schlub, schlock, schlep, schmutz, schnook), and use them incorrectly or interchangeably,” [Steven Pinker] wrote. “And headline writers often ransack the language for onomatopoeic synonyms for ”˜defeat’ such as drub, whomp, thump, wallop, whack, trounce, clobber, smash, trample, and Obama’s own favorite, shellac (which in fact sounds a bit like schlong). So an alternative explanation is that Trump reached for what he thought was a Yinglish word for ”˜beat’ and inadvertently coined an obscene one.”
That was actually the first possibility that occurred to me. It made me think of the time when, as an 8-year-old, I called my 11-year-old brother a “slut.” I thought it sounded really nasty—slippery and slimy, like a sort of slug—and was surprised that he burst out laughing and then explained to me what the word actually meant (which I didn’t quite understand even after the explanation).
But that’s probably not it for Trump. Trump moves in New York circles where he’s probably been schooled in some of the finer points of Yiddish, if not the language itself, then its more colorful expressions.
However, the verb form of schlong—“schlonged”—is a rare construction, almost a Trumpism:
Nexis notes just seven uses of “schlonged.” Two were Trump’s recent jab at Clinton; one referenced a “long-schlonged” reality TV star; one appeared in an obituary for Philip Seymour Hoffman, noting the actor’s role as a “gauche gay boom operator with a crush on [a] long-schlonged superstar” in the film “Boogie Nights”; another appeared in an article about the HBO show “Hung”; and another in the transcript of an episode of Comedy Central’s long-canceled “The Man Show.”
Only one use of “schlonged” as a verb came from a respected political source. In 2011, NPR’s Neal Conan made this observation (to The Post’s Chris Cillizza) on the 1984 Walter Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro campaign: “That ticket went on to get schlonged at the polls.”
NPR, wow.
On the other hand, it’s quite common to turn a noun into a verb, such as “Google” to “Googled.”
Trump’s use of the word “schlonged” has been widely condemned, of course. It’s supposedly sexist, it’s vulgar, it’s a colorful and idiosyncratic use of language, it’s New Yorkese, it’s all the things that Trump’s detractors hate about him and his supporters know and love.
Oh, and I note that it has us talking about him again. In this case, talking about his talk.
Dicked, it seems to me, were a better translation (translation? er . . . with leeway, let’s go with interpretation) than screwed. But then I’m fond of language play.
But ” . . . what happen to Hillary Clinton at the hands of the Obama forces back in 2008″ is hey!, violation, since “hands” are the wrong appendage altogether.
sdferr:
I think, actually, that she was Baracked.
OK for NPR, though.
Did anyone fall out of a tree then?
Rhetorical question.
Hillary was sitting with her campaign at table in the high school cafeteria thinking forward to dessert when the Barry campaign sauntered up, lifted her pudding cup from her tray and plop, inserted their collective putz into the contents. So spoiled.
This wasn’t even worthy of news. But I think the press, dems, republicans are still trying to take Trump down any way they can.
Wake me up when Trump says something interesting…
It wasn’t just Barack Obama in 2008 who did any “schlonging”, as there was also Rush Limbaugh who called on his listeners to implement “Operation Chaos.”
Back then, it was a way to undermine Obama by having Republicans vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary. Now, with Hillary running again, and the sheer level of dislike for her on the right, maybe something like that will happen again. Maybe some Republicans might decide to vote for Bernie Sanders to mess up Hillary.
Frog:
Well, the NPR commentator wasn’t a presidential candidate from a major political party.
On the other hand, if it had been a presidential candidate from the Democratic Party who’d said it, no one would have blinked.
Yankee Republican:
I think that this year Republicans are less likely to cross over and use their one and only votes to play games with the Democratic race, simply because the Republican race is so hotly contested and most people feel so strongly about it.
It’s Democrats who are more likely to cross over and vote in Republican primaries, because Hillary seems safely in the driver’s seat.
Pffft. The media loves Trump. Did you see the article supposing that the Polls may actually be under representing Trump’s lead? No one in the media asking if all those polls overstate Trump’s support.
Again, Trump finishes third in Iowa and yes New Hampshire, annnnnddddddd DONE. At that point the media will drop Trump like a hot rock.
Think 3-Dimensionally.
Even in her denials — his malapropism — { gal – apropism ? )
takes HRC to the “woodshed.” (Itself a tidying euphemism.)
Inventing new words during Presidential campaigns — it happens.
The very term A-okay dates back to 1840, IIRC and carried an anti-immigrant ( Bavarian — Black Forest Germans ) tinge. It’s now a global word.
Merely associating her with her bathroom habits// essentials is a lethal re-framing.
It brings to mind the consequences of aging, in a naughty “disgusting” way.
Trump dropped the “disgusting” bomb on HRC — which naturally causes viewers to wonder — WHAT disgusting thing is he alluding to — what might have detained her?
Of course, the association of weak bowels to weak character is a primordial one.
Trump stated that I “won’t go there…”
Barbs like these are lethal jiu jitsu against the stiffest women to ever dog politics.
&&&
I find it interesting that both Cruz and Trump have swung their artillery off towards Hillary.
They’ve come to realize that their primary focus right now is to answer the question:
Who can defeat HRC — and with the larger margin?
It’s the only material factor separating the two top contenders.
The rest is style.
For all of Donald’s obvious faults — he may prove to be a honey bear on the campaign trail…
A fellow that Hillary is totally unprepared to handle.
Trump will be inside her OODA loop. (Boyd)
For all of Trump’s legacy comments — HRC has legacy fiascos — lethal fiascos — criminal fiascos.
It may well take a New Yorker to defeat a New Yorker.
( admittedly, a transplant.)
I’d go with “screwed” too. Or shafted maybe (except: Trump! lol).
Still, I got it, and it didn’t sound all that dirty to me (although I knew what the word meant in Yid’, and verb-ing it – I would have went with verb-a-lizing it, but that would be too obvious don’chaknow – didn’t faze me at all: not in this political season, at least …the goal-posts they are a’changin’).
Frankly, I think the Dem’s are both bored and a bit desperate to get The Donald off the ISIS-recruiter thing (they know she screwed up).
My two bits.
It’s gonna be a long 10 and a 1/2 months.
Interesting video from the Trump rally in Grand Rapids, MI. I know people on here only like polls and what they say, but I found this fascinating. All women commenters, all ages, all races. This is not a normal election.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-ladies-gaga-for-trump-at-michigan-rally/
Jim:
I’ve seen those articles you mention. I don’t find them convincing either way. But of course it’s always the case that polls can be wrong. I’ve pointed out before that, in primaries, polls are particularly iffy. But they’re the best we’ve got at the moment. I use them for trends, and the trends all seem to agree. But I always take them with a few grains of salt.
K-E:
Interviews at rallies are interesting and all, but they only speak for the particular people interviewed.
Or as the guy who has difficulty pronouncing liquid consonants says: This is not a normar erection.
sdferr: thread winner
neo-neocon, I agree, but I did find it interesting there was a black woman supporter, an asian woman supporter. I’m sure they dug around to find them, but still insightful into what is going on.
Also, there was a FoxNews report about Trump voters being underreported by as much as 6 percent.
Can’t wait for the primaries. That will really tell us much more about what is going on behind the scenes.
Question: Don’t you think enthusiasm is a big factor in who wins elections? I know you keep quoting polls that show Hillary winning over Trump. However, look at the attendance at Trump’s rallies vs. Clinton’s. Why is that? Even if Clinton is out-polling Trump, I think without enthusiasm you will not see all of those people showing up at the polls. I *do* think Trump voters are wild with enthusiasm.
K-E:
No, I don’t think enthusiasm matters hardly at all, except somewhat for turnout. If enthusiasm mattered much, we’d have President Ron Paul.
I wrote this piece about enthusiasm during the 2012 election. You’ll see that I was pretty prescient, and pretty worried, despite crowd enthusiasm for Romney.
Just wondering when was the last time Hillary was schlonged. And I don’t mean by Obama in 2008.
Increasing his negatives for sure…..
THe people who are prone to like him for his verbal assaults already do.
Not helpful. But I’m fine with that.
There is a great Calvin and Hobbes strip wherein Calvin comments “Verbing weirds words.” Brilliant!
I’m with Ace on this one: “Oh who cares.
Let A be the set of all fucks I have, and let B be the set of all fucks I give. In the universe in which Trump says “She got schlonged,” the intersection between these two sets is {}, which is to say, it is an empty set with no common elements.”
On the other hand, nobody ever remarks on the fact that Hillary alone is keeping the C-word alive in the 21st century.
vanderleun:
If I’m not mistaken, I believe that you just remarked on it.
Cornhead wrote:
Ask Huma, she was there. The only question is who was pitching and who was catching?
To me, it’s not “screwed”, but “dick whipped”.
It’s the slinger, not the schlong.
To be Yiddishly correct, she was shtupped.
Trump’s snark would led many to think she was having rude sex in the bathroom — or troubles with her diaper.
Either way, the imprecation lingers.
It’s an ‘undeniable’ insult — in the sense that it’s impossible to touch the matter without getting more stink into the air.
“When did you stop beating your wife?”
Hm, I think I have to respectfully disagree with your ‘enthusiasm’ blog post.
As for your comparison of Ron Paul to Trump, Ron Paul had a very, very small percentage of voters interested in him. Trump has 38% in some of the most recent polling.
Comparing presidential election enthusiasm to primary election enthusiasm is not really the same thing. You can dismiss my statement if Trump is the nominee and we see how each candidate fares.
I think Obama’s enthusiasm factor won him the election in 2008. People were pumped to vote for the first black president.
I also think Reagan had an enthusiasm factor that Carter did not.
Clinton was indeed schlonged by the Obama faction. In gentile terms, she was sodomized.
K-E:
The Ron Paul joke was just that, a joke.
My actual point was in the post about Romney’s very enthusiastic, very motivated crowds during the general in 2012, and also the history of crowds for Mondale et al.
McGovern’s voters/crowds were incredibly enthusiastic, as were Eugene McCarthy’s—incredibly so. It didn’t matter.
And citing polls to backup the discussion of enthusiasm is to stop talking about enthusiasm. Polls are polls, and they definitely indicate something. What they indicate with Trump is that he has approximately 1/3 of the Republican electorate behind him. That’s not only not enough to win the nomination (especially if and when other candidates drop out), although it could be built on and he could end up being nominated—it is most definitely not enough to win an election, where the polls are not at all good for him. What’s more, if you think about it, 1/3 of Republicans is a LOT of people. That could fill quite a stadium, and the people might be very enthusiastic. But it means nothing in terms of winning the election. And I say that not just for Trump, but for anyone running and drawing big enthusiastic crowds.