Slashdot Mirror

To "out," meaning to reveal or make known: used since the mid-14th century. In context with homosexuality: used since the 1970's. Improve your own English, you cuntlicking twat: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=out

My last name ends in 'berg' as well. It means 'mountain' in my native language. You'll find that to be quite common in northern Europe.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=berg

(On the other hand, I'm not sure what you were getting at at all)

I agree with your message (including the linguistic devaluation part), but...

(I am using entrepreneur in the literal sense of a middleman who seeks to profit without adding value; its meaning has been extended to "people who start productive businesses", which is part of the devaluation of linguistic currency that has helped getting us into this mess.)

From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=enterprise:

enterprise
        early 15c., "an undertaking," from O.Fr. enterprise "an undertaking," noun use of fem. pp. of entreprendre "undertake, take in hand," from entre- "between" + prendre "to take," contraction of prehendere (see prehensile). Abstract sense of "readiness to undertake challenges, spirit of daring" is from late 15c.

So no, entrepreneur is one who adds value by assuming the risks involved in the enterprise.

Try this: super. As a prefix, it simple means more, over, above or beyond. We have 2 kinds of planets in the Solar System: rocky and gas giant. Earth is the largest of our rocky planets, you can think of it as the flagship. So this exo is an Earth-class planet, only 8 times heavier (that's closer to a full order of magnitude than half). A super-Earth. A , where the baseline is Earth. Get it?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=organic

How many dogs? I don't have any. You can't say "I have zero." You don't say "I have zero."

I would argue that some would say that, especially if used to filling out forms. Quite a few more would say "I have none" or just "none".

Zero is not, and never has been, a genuine "number" to us psychologically.

Most numbers aren't natural to us psychologically. You are unlikely to have a built-in psychological concept of "thirteen".
If anything, the lack of something is very fundamental to our existence. It's because we have zero meat we go hunt.

Recommended reading: "The Nothing that Is: A Natural History of Zero" by Robert Kaplan.
And this shorter one: http://www.etymonline.com/zero.php

According to Wikipedia, the earliest known written use of the word "Yankee" was in 1758 by British General Wolfe to refer to those of his soldiers who were from New England. Do you have some other earlier reference to support your claim that Yankee referred to an American colonial in general rather than specifically New Englander?

Try etymonline.

"In English a term of contempt (1750s) before its use as a general term for "native of New England" (1765);"

Becasue it's a very nice word.

...making it a shoe-in for military funding...

Just so you know, it's shoo-in. See my sig for advice re: this sort of faux pas.

The problem with Qi is its about as "english language" as Shinjitai

English has the great ability of incorporating words from other languages into it's lexicon. I doubt there are many English words that are not borrowed from other languages. English itself is one such word.

Falcon

Here's a citation for the original meaning, which is similar to GP, but not the same: the etymonline entry for "factoid"

I've always taken factoid to mean other than fact, because it ends in -oid. It's much like "android", which does not mean "man". Unfortunately, people interpret the term differently, often while assuming other people interpret it the same way they do, so I find it best to avoid using the word altogether.

In addition, if they actually taught arithmetic instead of trying to have kids reconstruct it from first principles, it might be less confusing.

No, that would make it more confusing.

"This is a derivative. The derivative of the nth power of x is n times x to the power of n minus one. The derivative of the sine is the cosine, and the derivative of the cosine is the opposite of the sine. The derivative of the exponential is proportional to the exponential itself multiplied by the logarithm of the base. Memorize that, test next monday"

What would work better - that, or intuitively explaining to people what functions and slopes actually are and why all those things are the case? Education isn't about shoving stuff in, it's about having students bring it out by themselves - that's right there in the etymology

* I * am being obtuse? Hahahaha. Look up the word "legion", dumbass. It isn't known to have existed until approximately the year 1000 A.D.!!!! And I'm being generous, giving it a good 100 years or more leeway.

OK, even I am getting bored by this, but try to follow this.

When a word like legion has a dictionary entry that says "Origin 1175-1225", that's when the word entered the English language, not when it first popped out of the mouths of humans. Legio (Latin) and Legiwn (Greek) have both existed for well over 2000 years. Legio came to Greece and became Legiwn, came through Old French as Legion and entered English through Old French/Norman. Same word, with slight changes to pronunciation, century after century. And when it came into English, it was used in the sense of a "Roman Legion" (band of soldiers), not as a synonym for "many".

I was pretty clear in my posting that I doubted that Anonymous was purposely quoting the Bible. But you said:

The use of the word "legion" to mean "many" is approximately 1000 years old, and it originally referred to a "legion" of Roman soldiers. It did not come from the Bible at all. Remember that the Bible is a translated work.

Look up the etymology (word origin) of legion. Here's the very first hit from Google.

Generalized sense of "a large number" is due to translations of allusive phrase in Mark v.9.

Which is pretty much all I said. That you continue to get your dander up over it is bizarre...

For anyone else who's curious, from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=nice&searchmode=none:

nice:

late 13c., "foolish, stupid, senseless," from O.Fr. nice "silly, foolish," from L. nescius "ignorant," lit. "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (see un-) + stem of scire "to know." "The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] -- from "timid" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c.1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830). In 16c.-17c. it is often difficult to determine exactly what is meant when a writer uses this word. By 1926, it was pronounced "too great a favorite with the ladies, who have charmed out of it all its individuality and converted it into a mere diffuser of vague and mild agreeableness." [Fowler]

        "I am sure," cried Catherine, "I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should I not call it so?" "Very true," said Henry, "and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk; and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything." [Jane Austen, "Northanger Abbey"]

And I guess that "hoist" or the french origin implies being lifted

You keep on saying this, so you must believe it.
Nevertheless, just because hoist has a diphthong does not make it of French origin.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Meaning "one who takes another's work without permission" first recorded 1701; sense of "unlicensed radio broadcaster" is from 1913.

Hmm. I think you're a victim of schoolhouse prescriptive grammar. We have known for a long time that the distinction between farther and further is artificial.

  For example: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=farther

Do a little research before you go all grammar nazi.

Being "anti-semitic" does mean you're against Jews, not all "semites".

anti-Semitism
also antisemitism, 1881, from Ger. Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite. Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the "Athenaeum" of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature.

Marr [slashdot.org] was referring to Jews, not to any other "Semites", just as practically everyone else is who uses the term "antisemitic". Except the people who want to deny that antisemitism targets Jews by diluting its meaning, to deny that antisemitism exists so it can operate unopposed.

Maybe telling what you say to an Israeli would get you called anti-semitic because diluting the meaning of "anti-semitic" is indeed anti-semitic. Indeed, given that many Israelis are Arabs who very well might not disagree with you, assuming you'd be called anti-semitic for it is anti-semitic.

anti-Semitism

also antisemitism, 1881, from Ger. Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite. Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the "Athenaeum" of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature.

Marr was referring to Jews, not to any other "Semites", just as practically everyone else is who uses the term "antisemitic". Except the people, often anonymous, who want to deny that antisemitism targets Jews by diluting its meaning, to deny that antisemitism exists so it can operate unopposed.

Firstly, it is copying. It isn't stealing.

It's more like fraud. And fraud is a criminal offence with substantial penalties in many places, because it is damaging to the victims, is unfair to those who conduct their financial business legally, and can have severe economic consequences if done on a large scale.

Keep in mind that the word Piracy has existed for about 500 years, and only in the last decade or so has come to be taken as stealing.

Well, the first recorded usage of the term in the sense we're talking about is given in the early 1700s by most etymological dictionaries, so you're only off by three centuries. Hey, at least you were close.

Keep in mind piracy is legal in many countries, for good reason.

Which ones? And how successful are the creative industries in those countries?

It helps the artists. Almost every study about piracy posted on /. shows it leads to an increase in sales

Well, given that Slashdot readership is obviously neutral on this issue, I'm sure that's a representative sample of the literature.

I'm also struggling to find all those studies, but I suppose it's just that my Google-fu is weak. Maybe you could help me out by citing some of them?

Piracy is not going away. Piracy is inevitable.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of abundant high-quality work created by people who have rent to pay.

No need: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cockpit

The midshipman's berth on naval ships used to be called the "cockpit," a pit for fighting cocks (roosters). Midshipmen were usually young men, frequently in fierce competition for limited promotions.

Cock as slang for penis probably also originates with cock meaning rooster.

Pedant point: the term "piracy" has been co-opted by the Entertainment and Media industry from its original meaning which referred to crimes against the Person and Ship committed on the High Seas.

Pedantic counterpoint: "Piracy" has carried that meaning for over 300 years now. It's a bit late to worry about it now.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pirate&allowed_in_frame=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Piracy.22

Apparently it's been "not a real word" since at least 1806.

I always knew that the Universe was a sinister place.

Language changes, even reading a couple of hundred year old English work can lead to misunderstanding. For example if someone wrote that Jesus was a nice person, what did they mean?
Today it would be a complement, some time ago it may have been an insult or complement and further back it definitely would have been an insult as nice has evolved from meaning silly to fussy to dainty to precise to kind. I'd guess that Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew have had similar changes with the added bonus with Hebrew that they leave out the vowels so sometimes it's hard to say what the word actually was. See the argument on Thou shall not kill or was that murder and even what the word that was translated to day in genesis actually meant.
http://etymonline.com/?term=nice

OK, so it's "nuclear".

But is there any real reason it should be?

Check out the etymology for nucleus:

1704, "kernel of a nut," 1708, "head of a comet," from L. nucleus "kernel," from nucula "little nut," dim. of nux (gen. nucis) "nut,"

Now compare to "nucule"

Etymology
From Latin nucula ("little nut")
Noun
nucule (plural nucules)
A nutlet; a small nut.

Since nucleus and nucule are both from nucula, how is nucular pedantically wrong? In fact, pedants being wont to go to "original" pronunciations and "back to the Latin", nucular should actually sound better than nuclear.

Nucular is actually more faithful to the Latin than nuclear.

Nucular power. Sic.

Etymology seems to agree with you that news indeed meant to convey age --but "news" is a french loan word. Despite the french's power to loan out so many words to spanish and english culture it had a very minor effect on the spanish "news." I don't know if Spain considers the english meaning of "news" still. If you try this in the rest of the spanish-speaking world in daily life, as in "I've got good news," you'll get weird stares even from bible students.

In spanish, "noticias" is the right word to use, which is akin to "[information] notices" or maybe notes, and the wordplay is completely alien, invalid and never, ever, even considered even by bible-educated people outside of a single archaic usage. "News" as "recent events" using of the spanish word "nuevas" still exists in spanish translations of the Bible. It is a bad "false friend" (drop-in replacement of loan words by local words that don't mean what the translators think) in "the good news of the kingdom of God" as "las buenas nuevas del reino de Dios."

They prefer the term Aquaursus. Bears' real name was originally in German which they spoke ... later they would go on to form ancient Slavic languages as well and star in Bugs Bunny cartoons. The Ursidae Cabal knew that knowing their real name with give power over them including being able to merge with one to become a werebear (you might heard of one .. ColBEAR). The story of owlbears is too gross, but Aquaursus were ancient protobears that evolved into a highly intelligent republic of entities - retaining individuality while having the benefits of a hive collective. They are waiting on humanity to fuck up and/or help them crack the Earth Egg releasing their next form: the Space Bear. (BTW, humanities real name, given to us by the Honeybadgers, is also lost. It translates to "Givers of Plastic" or "Suckers" depending on who believe.)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bear

Also see, Hayao Miyazaki's "Howl's Moving Castle" which is an allegory for this tale.

"Winged bear? Oh My God it's the end times!" - crow, 814 - Riding With Death

If they are going to bust your balls over that, they need to not use any euphemisms like gosh, jeez, or bear (yea.. bear)

"Terror" is a noun. "Terrorize" (or, since you seem to be speaking Her Majesty's variant, "Terrorise") is a verb, and a very old one.

Can we block redneck bigots from this site? You are aware that the word redneck evolved as a racial slur for people who were born in the United States to mixed parents of Native American and Caucasian descent right?

WTF? Do you have a citation for your etymology, aside from "pulled out of your ass". Mine is below. It's about white-skinned field workers who got sunburnt necks.

redneck
"cracker," 1893; attested 1830 in more specialized sense ("This may be ascribed to the Red Necks, a name bestowed upon the Presbyterians in Fayetteville," from Ann Royall, "Southern Tour I," p.148). According to various theories, red perhaps from anger, or from pellagra, but most likely from mule farmers' outdoors labor in the sun, wearing a shirt and straw hat, with the neck exposed.

*Snicker* That's delightful. So you want to start all Americans off with a moderation handicap because of the cruel words of one American?

*Hee haw* No, it was "irony", demonstrating how idiotic the original post was by making an equally stupid and bigoted suggestion. Though responses like yours make it seem more reasonable.

Er, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=albeit&searchmode=none

You don't really want to know what onelook.com has to say about it either.

I did kind of misuse it to mean "on the contrary" rather than "in spite of", which is its more accurate sense.

And you'll never get rid of analogies the way you'll never get rid of people who want to drive their cars despite the noise, cost, danger, waste, and pollution.

The term "Nerd" was coined by Dr. Suess in the 1950 children's story "If I Ran The Zoo" [wikipedia.org].

Take it up with Mr. Harper.

Dr. Seuss (note spelling) didn't use it with the meaning we assign to the word, but the previous spelling of "nert" corresponds with what we think of as a nerd.

I disagree. Etymology is always past-looking, its a neat concept to tract the evolution of speech, but is inappropriately used for 'coining a phrase'. The first use of a word is what makes it unique and new. The word 'finger' is not 30,000 years old, as English was not around back then...even if there was a grunt or motion to indicate the concept. The concept of a 'system the governs the body' has been around since Galen, circa 160 AD.

I like this date better.

Those who infringe on copyright (or what we call Intellectual Property these days) have been called pirates since the 1700's. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pirate

Certainly.

Online Etymological dictionary entry for pirate: 'Meaning "one who takes another's work without permission" first recorded 1701;'

Statue of Anne considered the first copyright statute dates back to 1709. Strictly speaking the term predates the first complete copyright act, rather than any form of copyright restriction such as printing guild rules and the like, so apologies for imprecision in my language.

You can't use the word 'Troll' or the Tolkien estate will be after you all.

Nope, prior art....lol...

troll (n.)

"ugly dwarf or giant," 1610s, from O.N. troll "giant, fiend, demon." Some speculate that it originally meant "creature that walks clumsily," and derives from P.Gmc. *truzlan, from *truzlanan (see troll (v.)). But it seems to have been a general supernatural word, cf. Swed. trolla "to charm, bewitch;" O.N. trolldomr "witchcraft." The old sagas tell of the troll-bull, a supernatural being in the form of a bull, as well as boar-trolls. There were troll-maidens, troll-wives, and troll-women; the trollman, a magician or wizard, and the troll-drum, used in Lappish magic rites. The word was popularized in English by 19c. antiquarians, but it has been current in the Shetlands and Orkneys since Viking times. The first record of it is from a court document from the Shetlands, regarding a certain Catherine, who, among other things, was accused of "airt and pairt of witchcraft and sorcerie, in hanting and seeing the Trollis ryse out of the kyrk yeard of Hildiswick." Originally conceived as a race of giants, they have suffered the same fate as the Celtic Danann and are now regarded in Denmark and Sweden as dwarfs and imps supposed to live in caves or under the ground.

I am pretty sure, without looking...I know very very brave of me - not to look..., that Tolkien (oops violated that one...Good one LordEd) was born sometime after 1610. Either that or he lived to over 300 years old...or there abouts.

On a more serious note, yes hard to believe that any of us would get serious about this topic..., if you enjoyed Tolkien's Trilogy, "Lord of the Rings". I know I did back in the day, you need to visit your nearest book source and read:

• Dragons of Autumn Twilight (April 1984), Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, (ISBN 0-88038-173-6)
• Dragons of Winter Night (April 1985), Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, (ISBN 0-394-73975-2)
• Dragons of Spring Dawning (September 1985), Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, (ISBN 0-88038-175-2)

Good luck putting them down, assuming of course you enjoyed Lord of the Rings.

And if they make those into movies, I sincerely hope they do them justice! How about 6 movies from 3 books, hint, hint...

For many words the OE genitive ending is -es, which in Modern English becomes 's.
Old English did have genitives that did not use -es. So the fact that 'his' and 'her' didn't evolve from -es (note that 'its' did so evolve at least in a sense) is irrelevant. Look up the etymologies of his, her, their, your: All of them came from genitives whether they ended in -es or not.
Moreover the etymology is hardly the issue: In Modern English--and by Modern I mean from say 1600--these words are unquestionably and universally treated grammatically as possessive genitives.
So again, what is not "true" about them?

For many words the OE genitive ending is -es, which in Modern English becomes 's.
Old English did have genitives that did not use -es. So the fact that 'his' and 'her' didn't evolve from -es (note that 'its' did so evolve at least in a sense) is irrelevant. Look up the etymologies of his, her, their, your: All of them came from genitives whether they ended in -es or not.
Moreover the etymology is hardly the issue: In Modern English--and by Modern I mean from say 1600--these words are unquestionably and universally treated grammatically as possessive genitives.
So again, what is not "true" about them?

For many words the OE genitive ending is -es, which in Modern English becomes 's.
Old English did have genitives that did not use -es. So the fact that 'his' and 'her' didn't evolve from -es (note that 'its' did so evolve at least in a sense) is irrelevant. Look up the etymologies of his, her, their, your: All of them came from genitives whether they ended in -es or not.
Moreover the etymology is hardly the issue: In Modern English--and by Modern I mean from say 1600--these words are unquestionably and universally treated grammatically as possessive genitives.
So again, what is not "true" about them?

For many words the OE genitive ending is -es, which in Modern English becomes 's.
Old English did have genitives that did not use -es. So the fact that 'his' and 'her' didn't evolve from -es (note that 'its' did so evolve at least in a sense) is irrelevant. Look up the etymologies of his, her, their, your: All of them came from genitives whether they ended in -es or not.
Moreover the etymology is hardly the issue: In Modern English--and by Modern I mean from say 1600--these words are unquestionably and universally treated grammatically as possessive genitives.
So again, what is not "true" about them?

The US Constitution was adopted in 1787. What did "press" mean back then?

Specific sense "machine for printing" is from 1530s; extended to publishing houses by 1570s and to publishing generally (in phrases like freedom of the press) c.1680. This gradually shifted c.1800-1820 to "periodical publishing, journalism." Meaning "journalists collectively" is attested from 1926.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=press

It seems that at the time, the word meant "publishing", not "machine for printing" or "journalism". Thus, "freedom of the press" is the freedom of publishing, not the freedom of journalists, and although the grandparent is wrong about the meaning of "press", it's still closer to the originally intended meaning than you are.

No, impeachment is a political institution, which is why it originates in the House and is decided in the Senate, with the only Judicial Branch involvement being the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate "trial", but with no jurisprudential power other than what the Congress votes to give them in the specific case.

It is reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Misdemeanors are mismanagement or misleadership in the language of the day.

The goal of Republicans is indeed to impeach Obama, as they have said throughout his term. Just like they impeached Clinton, to paralyze the elected government (a frequent Republican priority). Just because Republicans abuse impeachment to override electoral politics doesn't mean that impeachment isn't still correct when an official abuses their power. In the case of Supreme Court justices, impeachment is the only way to check their power when they abuse it. Just because we haven't impeached and removed justices before doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Indeed, the corrupt and dysfunctional condition of our officials shows we impeach far too infrequently - the lack of precedent argues for more impeachment, not less.

The actual harm is that foreign corporations, foreign monarchs, are exercising more influence in American elections than nearly all Americans can. Not to mention the adequately unacceptable influence in elections of American corporations. None of which is acceptable in a national democracy - corporations aren't people.

The simple fact is that you are a Republican, so you don't want to see fellow Republicans impeached. An exclusively political reason that you are dressing up in neutralized terms, but which protects Republicans. At all costs.

Why in your opinion do the hard working have a duty to carry the lazy on their shoulders?

That's actually a really good question, and possibly the key to this whole discussion.
In my opinion, the answer is: because they, for their own personal reasons, want to show solidarity to "the lazy" (as you call them).
Seeing as how most of the viewing audience of Slashdot seems to be Americans, and I've read discussions where the word was painstakingly circumscribed, you may want to look that word up in a dictionary.
It's a difficult word, "solidarity".
But I think it's an essential component of any viable society (another difficult word, "society" comes from "socius", "companion". Or "comrade" as you describe it ;-). But you don't always have to like your "companions"--it's more neutral than "comrade").
The essence, I think, is that you're not required to like solidarity, but many people see it as something that is necessary nevertheless (maybe like paying taxes).
Maybe it depends on a mental picture of exchanging places with someone else, which would leave most people with a feeling that it's not good that people have it much worse than themselves. I can't explain it better than this unfortunately :-( Any sociologists around here??

Why in your opinion do the hard working have a duty to carry the lazy on their shoulders?

That's actually a really good question, and possibly the key to this whole discussion.
In my opinion, the answer is: because they, for their own personal reasons, want to show solidarity to "the lazy" (as you call them).
Seeing as how most of the viewing audience of Slashdot seems to be Americans, and I've read discussions where the word was painstakingly circumscribed, you may want to look that word up in a dictionary.
It's a difficult word, "solidarity".
But I think it's an essential component of any viable society (another difficult word, "society" comes from "socius", "companion". Or "comrade" as you describe it ;-). But you don't always have to like your "companions"--it's more neutral than "comrade").
The essence, I think, is that you're not required to like solidarity, but many people see it as something that is necessary nevertheless (maybe like paying taxes).
Maybe it depends on a mental picture of exchanging places with someone else, which would leave most people with a feeling that it's not good that people have it much worse than themselves. I can't explain it better than this unfortunately :-( Any sociologists around here??

A song, a radio station, a musician, or a band can rock. Nothing else can rock, sorry.

So when I sit on that chair on my porch I'm, what, tipping back and forth? But not rocking?
More on point, anything that gets you up and moving can rock, even if it is not music.
Besides, rock and roll originally had a meaning before being applied to music: among other things, it refered to movements associated with sex.

rock (v.1)
"to sway," late O.E. roccian, related to O.N. rykkja "to pull, tear, move," Swed. rycka "to pull, pluck," M.Du. rucken, O.H.G. rucchan, Ger. rücken "to move jerkily." For musical senses, see rock (v.2). Rocking horse is first recorded 1724; rocking chair is from 1766. To rock the boat is attested from 1931. Rock-a-bye first recorded 1805 in nursery rhyme. rock (v.2)
"to dance to popular music with a strong beat," 1948 (first attested in song title "We're gonna rock"), from rock (v.1), in earlier blues slang sense of "to cause to move with musical rhythm" (1922); often used at first with sexual overtones (cf. 1922 song title "My Man Rocks Me (with One Steady Roll)"). Sense developed early 1950s to "play or dance to rock and roll music." Noun sense of "musical rhythm characterized by a strong beat" is from 1946, in blues slang. Rock star attested by 1966. Rocksteady, Jamaican pop music style (precursor of reggae), is attested from 1969.

It was a pejorative retasked to insult homosexuals from the start.

Neither of you are entirely right.

"gay" has meant "full of joy and mirth" or "brilliant, showy" since around the 13th century. Victorians used the words "mandrake" or "buggerer" to disparage homosexual men. Or just "homosexual"; that was bad enough.

However, "gay" began to take on the meaning of "promiscuous" or "male prostitute" (who sleeps with men or women, not exclusively men) around the late 19th century. It took until the 1930s to become established as slang for homosexual men.

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay

arbitrate
1580s, from L. arbitratus, pp. of arbitrari "to give a decision," from arbiter (see arbiter). In modern usage, an arbiter makes decisions of his own accord and is accountable to no one but himself; an arbitrator (early 15c.) decides issues referred to him by the parties.

- Source

'disease' but that term implies a virus, bacteria, or other etc external agent

The word comes from the 14th century, before viruses and bacteria were known to be separate causes of sickness than genetic disorders. More importantly though, most people do seem to refer to genetic disorders as diseases. So I'd say no it doesn't.

Sucks and blows were originally euphemisms for oral sex, specifically homosexual acts. Saying "he sucks" was pretty insulting back in the day.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=suck