 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Subdivisions - US
Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of what? Basically, a developer purchases a large tract of land and divides that tract into homesites (1). He subdivides, but why is the entire group of homes called a subdivision? It is the homesite that is the subdivision. Am I missing something? (1) It becomes a subdivision when the tract is broken up, but the progress from there can go two ways: the developer can build and sell a house on each homesite, or the developer can sell the undeveloped lot to individuals. Two more possibilities from that point: the individual can build a house for his own use, or build a house (called a "spec house" on the site and sell it to someone else.(1a) It bears mention that some developers, who are also builders, can sell the lots to individuals, but require that the individuals have the home built by him (the developer/builder), and also require that construction be commenced within a certain time frame. The houses, then, are "custom" and not "spec". (1a) In a subdivision where the homes are built on spec (speculation), they are "tract houses" if they are modest in price by local standards, and "spec houses" if they are above the modest level of price.  SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as > "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of > what? > > Basically, a developer purchases a large tract of land and divides > that tract into homesites (1). Good Lord, Coop. "Homesites"? That can't be the proper term. I know that the Realtor(R) (= ApproxBrE "estate agent") profession likes to use "home" instead of "house", "condo", "rental apartment", etc., but does the land development profession also do so? Say it ain't so, To'. What happened to the traditional AmE term "lot", for goodness' sake? > He subdivides, but why is the entire > group of homes called a subdivision? It is the homesite that is the > subdivision. > > Am I missing something? It's an interesting question. I think it must be "subdivision" not in the sense of "one subsidiary division" (one lot), but "subdivision" = "act of subdividing into different lots". SignatureBuckwheat Soba >> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >development profession also do so? Say it ain't so, To'. What happened >to the traditional AmE term "lot", for goodness' sake? I mentioned the difference between a tract house and a spec house in another post. A spec house is just a tract house that sells for a higher price. The same applies to a "residential lot" and a "homesite". They're both just a piece of ground upon which nothing has been constructed. Expect to pay more for a homesite, though. >> He subdivides, but why is the entire >> group of homes called a subdivision? It is the homesite that is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >sense of "one subsidiary division" (one lot), but "subdivision" = "act of >subdividing into different lots". Yeah, but the act happened a long time ago. My first house in Florida is in a subdivision that still exists, but the sub-division was done almost 30 years ago. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >>> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >another post. A spec house is just a tract house that sells for a >higher price. It costs a great deal of money to build all those houses, and developers sell the houses before they are built to acquire the finances to continue, using a couple of alrady constructed homes as models. If, in a rising real estate market, they decide to invest some of their own money in building houses, or borrow to do so, then the houses are built "on spec", on the speculation that the house will quickly sell. If the real estate market is falling developers can lose their shirts if they build spec houses. If all the houses in the development are built to a limited set of blueprints, so they all look pretty much the same, they are referred to as "tract houses" (think Leavittown). From 1987 to 2001 we lived in a house in Daly City, California, bordering San Francisco, the area having inspired Malvina Reynolds to write the song about "little houses, all made out of ticky-tack". Definitely tract houses. >The same applies to a "residential lot" and a "homesite". They're >both just a piece of ground upon which nothing has been constructed. >Expect to pay more for a homesite, though. Well.... I dunno. I think of a "homesite" as a larger residential lot. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >If all the houses in the development are built to a limited set >of blueprints, so they all look pretty much the same, they are >referred to as "tract houses" (think Leavittown). I think you miss my point. A tract house is a spec house in that is it built on speculation. There may be savings provided by the sameness of design, but they are still spec houses if they are constructed before they are sold. >>The same applies to a "residential lot" and a "homesite". They're >>both just a piece of ground upon which nothing has been constructed. >>Expect to pay more for a homesite, though. > >Well.... I dunno. I think of a "homesite" as a larger residential >lot. Sure you do. That's the result of upgrading the expectation based on the term. You might go out to look at advertised homesites, but not go out to look at advertised residential lots just based on the term used to describe them. If you didn't know the areas, or the lot sizes, you would be more likely to go look at the advertised "Homesites now available in Willow Glen" rather than the "Residential lots now available in Willow Glen". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Good Lord, Coop. "Homesites"? That can't be the proper term. I know that >the Realtor(R) (= ApproxBrE "estate agent") Wrong. A Realtor (R) is specifically a member of the National Association of Realtors, and the term is registered so that non-members may not apply it to themselves. The generic US term would be "real estate agent". All real estate agents, whether Realtors (R) or not, are required to have state licenses. The Realtors are having a time of it trying to keep the term from becoming genericized, though. >profession likes to use "home" >instead of "house", "condo", "rental apartment", etc., but does the land >development profession also do so? Say it ain't so, To'. What happened >to the traditional AmE term "lot", for goodness' sake? It appears on the subdivision maps, each lot being a subdivision of the entire tract, and each lot number appears within the outline of each lot. When you buy such a property it would be described in the paperwork as "Lot 75 of the Paseo Vista subdivision". >> He subdivides, but why is the entire >> group of homes called a subdivision? It is the homesite that is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >sense of "one subsidiary division" (one lot), but "subdivision" = "act of >subdividing into different lots". The term comes from the application of the word for the act to the entire development. Note that "Paseo Vista subdivision" is the act. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] > Wrong. A Realtor (R) is specifically a member of the National > Association of Realtors, and the term is registered so that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The Realtors are having a time of it trying to keep the term from > becoming genericized, though. NAR radio ads that I've heard recently have stressed the last syllable in a way I'm not used to ... "Real Tor", approximately. My prior experience with the word was headed well to the generic, and was more like "Realtur", with very little stress on the final syllable. /dps >> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >sense of "one subsidiary division" (one lot), but "subdivision" = "act of >subdividing into different lots". Am I correct in assuming that these "subdivisions" of which youse speak would be "private (housing) estates" in BrE? In other words, the local council doesn't sweep the streets or replace any streetlamp bulbs, and private security rather than the police do the rounds because the whole site is privately owned? SignatureRoss Howard On 02 Nov 2006, T.H. Entity wrote >>> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >>> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the police do the rounds because the whole site is privately > owned? No: the streets can be public -- there's no connotation at all of private-estateship. (I designed lot layouts for subdivisions when I lived in Canada. Soul-destroying work.) It's a "subdivision" siimply because one large freehold property has been legally subdivided into a number of smaller, individual freehold properties. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 02 Nov 2006, T.H. Entity wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> the police do the rounds because the whole site is privately >> owned? No -- that might be more like the monstrous "gated communities" one finds in certain US suburbs. > No: the streets can be public -- there's no connotation at all of > private-estateship. (I designed lot layouts for subdivisions when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > has been legally subdivided into a number of smaller, individual > freehold properties. You are correct, sir. SignatureBuckwheat Soba > > It's a "subdivision" siimply because one large freehold property > > has been legally subdivided into a number of smaller, individual > > freehold properties. > > You are correct, sir. There is a fairly extensive Wiki article on the subject of land subdivision (including historical background) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivision_(land) Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego > > > It's a "subdivision" siimply because one large freehold property > > > has been legally subdivided into a number of smaller, individual [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is a fairly extensive Wiki article on the subject of land > subdivision (including historical background) at That link didn't come out right; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivision_%28land%29 Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego >>> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >>> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >bulbs, and private security rather than the police do the rounds >because the whole site is privately owned? Not at all. When a subdivision is built, the developer is responsible to construct the streets, erect the streetlights, run the electric and water lines, etc. After that, though, the maintenance of these things is done by the city, county, or utility involved. Law enforcement is the responsibility of whatever public agency has authority for that area. The only area (other than their own property) that is the responsibility of the subdivision residents is the common entrance. Many subdivisions have an area at the entrance to the subdivision that is landscaped and attractively planted. Maintenance of this area is done by the residents on a volunteer basis. Subdivisions with a homeowner's association use dues to maintain the area. Subdivisions without a homeowner's association collect donations for this. In a gated community, maintenance of the gate, the personnel if there is any, and the fencing is contracted by the homeowner's association and paid for by dues from the homeowner's. There's no requirement for a subdivision to have a homeowner's association. The developer can make one mandatory by building the requirement in the deed restrictions, but the government can't do so. In an already developed area, the residents can form a homeowner's association, but membership is voluntary. Some social pressure, but no legal pressure. It's very common for the local planning board (that function has many names according to the locale) to require a developer to donate land for a school or a park when they build a large subdivision. The donated land becomes the responsibility of the school system, the municipality, or the county/state. BTW...the above applies to subdivisions that are private housing areas; individually owned lots and houses. In condominium complexes, things are different in many points. We wouldn't call a large condominium complex a "subdivision" even though it has as many residents as a private residential area. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > Not at all. When a subdivision is built, the developer is responsible > to construct the streets, erect the streetlights, ... etc. Now I would have said "is required to construct... erect... etc." or "is responsible for constructing... erecting... etc." Is this an eddo or is it correct usage for you? > In a gated community, maintenance of the gate, the personnel if there > is any, For me that has to be "if there are any" -- and hey, that means that "personnel" is a plural mass noun, so "graffiti" isn't the only one I have. Good! > and the fencing is contracted by the homeowner's association > and paid for by dues from the homeowner's. Ouc'h! SignatureMark Brader First, the next time you buy a house, get one that msb@vex.net costs exactly $100,000. It makes the math easier. Toronto -- John Gilmer My text in this article is in the public domain. >> Not at all. When a subdivision is built, the developer is >> responsible to construct the streets, erect the streetlights, ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "is responsible for constructing... erecting... etc." Is this an > eddo or is it correct usage for you? Why now? (And you talk about commas?) >> In a gated community, maintenance of the gate, the personnel if there >> is any, > > For me that has to be "if there are any" -- and hey, that means that > "personnel" is a plural mass noun, so "graffiti" isn't the only one > I have. Good! "Personnel" is *usually* thought of as a singular entity in AmE. That's not your lingo, I understand. >> and the fencing is contracted by the homeowner's association >> and paid for by dues from the homeowner's. > > Ouc'h! SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ Tony Cooper: >>> ... the developer is responsible to construct the streets ... Mark Brader: >> Now I would have said "is required to construct..." > Why now? (And you talk about commas?) I see what you mean, but I see the comma that I didn't use there as optional. >>> In a gated community, maintenance of the gate, the personnel if there >>> is any, >> For me that has to be "if there are any" -- and hey, that means that >> "personnel" is a plural mass noun ... > "Personnel" is *usually* thought of as a singular entity in AmE. Interesting, I never noticed that (but have done enough web research to confirm that it's common usage). > That's not your lingo, I understand. Well, on matters of singular vs. plural my own usage, and I think usage in Canada generally, typically follows American usage pretty much exactly. That's why this one surprised me. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "I conducted a Usenet poll ... on this subject ... msb@vex.net | Laura is single. By a 2-1 margin." --Ken Perlow My text in this article is in the public domain. > Tony Cooper: >>>> ... the developer is responsible to construct the streets ... > > Mark Brader: >>> Now I would have said "is required to construct..." I agree. One summer I worked for a surveying outfit (civil engineers) who were contracted by a developer to lay out the streets for Palma Ceia subdivision in Hayward. >> Why now? (And you talk about commas?) > > I see what you mean, but I see the comma that I didn't use there as > optional. You might think that, but a comma there eliminates ambiguity or misunderstanding. M-W Online: Main Entry: 1now Pronunciation: 'nau Function: adverb [...] 3 -- used with the sense of present time weakened or lost to introduce an important point or indicate a transition (as of ideas) <now, this may seem reasonable at first> SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ Mark Brader: >>>> Now I would have said "is required to construct..." >>> Why now? (And you talk about commas?) Mark Brader: >> I see what you mean, but I see the comma that I didn't use there as >> optional. > You might think that, but a comma there eliminates ambiguity or > misunderstanding. Reduces, maybe. > M-W Online: > Main Entry: 1now [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > important point or indicate a transition (as of ideas) <now, this may seem > reasonable at first> This only shows that it's permissible to use a comma. I have no problem with that. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "No weapons of any kind are allowed on msb@vex.net | White Sands Missile Range" -- U.S. Army > Mark Brader: >>>>> Now I would have said "is required to construct..." [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > This only shows that it's permissible to use a comma. I have no > problem with that. OK, then there is this: http://www.unt.edu/cjus/resources/punctuation.htm#commas Use a comma to separate short introductory elements from the rest of the sentence. Such elements may be: yes, no, well, why, still, or now. Example: Still, the reporter distorted the facts. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>>It's an interesting question. I think it must be "subdivision" not >>>in the sense of "one subsidiary division" (one lot), but [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > involved. Law enforcement is the responsibility of whatever public > agency has authority for that area. [I didn't see your caveat below about condominium complexes until after I wrote the following paragraphs.] As one of the things I did yesterday was call an electrician to get a quote on replacing the bulb for one of our streetlamps, I think I can safely say "it depends". I also (as treasurer) write out a check to the city every two months for the water line to our fire hydrants. The street has never seen a street sweeper (and, strangely, has never caused anybody to suggest that we call a private one. They really don't seem to be necessary for low-traffic streets). We pay for painting the curb red, although it's the city that declared it a fire lane. When a tree fell completely across the street, we had to call (and pay for) our landscaping people to come out in the middle of the night to cut it up enough to allow access. On the other hand, when a sewer-related access cover in the street broke about a month or so, the city was out within a day with a new one free of charge. And they pick up our garbage and recycling (at the individual houses). > BTW...the above applies to subdivisions that are private housing > areas; individually owned lots and houses. In condominium complexes, > things are different in many points. We wouldn't call a large > condominium complex a "subdivision" even though it has as many > residents as a private residential area. I go back and forth on whether I'd consider our block a subdivision. Certainly, it is, technically. Looking at the original plans, what would become the entire block has a single street address on our nearest cross street. But I don't think I've ever heard anybody actually call it one. Maybe in order to be a "subdivision" it needs to be a partitioning of a really large property. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read >>>> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >>>> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >homeowner's association use dues to maintain the area. Subdivisions >without a homeowner's association collect donations for this. I'm confused. So what's the difference between a subdivision and any ordinary street or estate or housing development? And what if I bought and pulled down one of the houses and put up another one that had nothing to do with the original developer. Would it still be part of the subdivision or an island of non-subdivisionality in the middle of it. >In a gated community, maintenance of the gate, the personnel if there >is any, and the fencing is contracted by the homeowner's association >and paid for by dues from the homeowner's. Hmm. I'm even more confused now. If Joe Blow's taxes are paying for your garbage collection, why can't Joe drive down your street the same as any other street? In fact, why can't Joe just plough through that gate -- which should be illegal since it's blocking a public right of way -- with his huge winnebago and park it right oustide your or any other house within the "gated community"? SignatureRoss Howard Ross Howard: > I'm confused. So what's the difference between a subdivision and any > ordinary street or estate or housing development? ... For me a subdivision *is* an "estate or housing development", I think. I think there is also an connotation of newness; once it's been around long enough to feel like an ordinary part of the city, it might still technically be a subdivision, but the word wouldn't be used. > And what if I bought > and pulled down one of the houses and put up another one that had > nothing to do with the original developer. Would it still be part of > the subdivision or an island of non-subdivisionality in the middle of > it. Here, I have some spare ?'s for you: ????????????????? I'd say that when that sort of thing starts going on, it's a sign that the subdivision is feeling like an ordinary part of the city. SignatureMark Brader | "Modern security actually worked most of the time. Toronto | There hadn't been a city lost in more than five years." msb@vex.net | --Vernor Vinge, "Rainbows End" My text in this article is in the public domain. > Ross Howard: >> I'm confused. So what's the difference between a subdivision and any >> ordinary street or estate or housing development? ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > long enough to feel like an ordinary part of the city, it might still > technically be a subdivision, but the word wouldn't be used. Here it is still used in real estate ads as a marker for the more desirable neighborhoods. The houses in our subdivision are always mentioned as being in Fairway Park, and they are fifty years old. While not a pretentious neighborhood, Fairway Park is a well established and peaceful one, quite unlike some of the other areas of Hayward. >> And what if I bought >> and pulled down one of the houses and put up another one that had [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd say that when that sort of thing starts going on, it's a sign that > the subdivision is feeling like an ordinary part of the city. Probably. In our subdivision, though, there have been no tear-downs, but there have been quite a few expansions or second stories added to the existing houses. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > > Ross Howard: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > established and peaceful one, quite unlike some of the other areas of > Hayward. Where I live, the subdivision name is part of the county record. From the county's web site you can check the details on any address, which bothers some people. Subdivisions often have streets with related names. In my particular case, the subdivision is called Stonehaven and all the streets have "stone" in their names. We have a big entrance sign from one of the major roads, which is fairly unusual as far as the area goes. As mentioned by others, there are a relatively few basic house plans in use, mostly ranches with about 25% or so two-story ones. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >Probably. In our subdivision, though, there have been no tear-downs, but >there have been quite a few expansions or second stories added to the >existing houses. I'm not in a subdivision, but I am in an area where there are still some 50s houses. They're being purchased, leveled, and new houses are being built on the lots. The builder leaves one wall or part of the foundation and pulls a remodeling permit This avoids some impact fees for new housing, so the price of a house and lot can be a better deal than a lot alone. Also, there's not much in the way of vacant lots in this area. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >I'm confused. So what's the difference between a subdivision and any >ordinary street or estate or housing development? A subdivision is just another term for a housing development. The key is "developed". One person (individual or corporate) buys a large tract of land and subdivides it into to individual parcels. The ordinary street is different because it was not developed by any one person. Since we don't use "estate" here in the US, you'll have to define that. >And what if I bought >and pulled down one of the houses and put up another one that had >nothing to do with the original developer. Would it still be part of >the subdivision or an island of non-subdivisionality in the middle of >it. It would still be part of the subdivision. And, it is done. The area is the subdivision. Whatever is in the area - newly built or old construction - is part of the subdivision. In this area, many of the older subdivisions that are in attractive areas are seeing this. >Hmm. I'm even more confused now. If Joe Blow's taxes are paying for >your garbage collection, why can't Joe drive down your street the same >as any other street? In fact, why can't Joe just plough through that >gate -- which should be illegal since it's blocking a public right of >way -- with his huge winnebago and park it right oustide your or any >other house within the "gated community"? Good point. You'd have to ask an attorney about the legality issue. My guess - and I emphasize "guess" - is that the developer who built the streets *didn't* make them public right of ways. Since he owned the property and assumedly deeded them over to the (city, county, municipality), he might have put restrictions in the deed. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > > I'm confused. So what's the difference between a subdivision and any > > ordinary street or estate or housing development? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the property and assumedly deeded them over to the (city, county, > municipality), he might have put restrictions in the deed. Very few subdivisions where I live have private streets. The ones that do often don't restrict traffic. My Friend The Vice President lives in a subdivision with private streets, that means that city (or county) does not maintain the streets, the homeowners pay for maintenance. If they wanted, they could gate the community. Around here, trash collection isn't paid for by taxes. Some municipalities have a designated company and set fee that's paid by the homeowners. Where I live, each homeowner is free to contract with the company they prefer (or even not to have one at all). Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >Very few subdivisions where I live have private streets. The ones that >do often don't restrict traffic. My Friend The Vice President lives in >a subdivision with private streets, that means that city (or county) >does not maintain the streets, the homeowners pay for maintenance. If >they wanted, they could gate the community. I wouldn't attempt a count of gated subdivisions in a 25 mile radius of my home, but I'd guess the figure is three digits. I have no idea who maintains the streets in any of them. In my own neighborhood (not a subdivision, and not gated) the streets are maintained by the county. There were some unpaved streets, and the residents living on those streets wanted them paved. The county did pave them, and now maintains them, but each homeowner involved has a special assessment on their annual property taxes that will pay for the paving over a period of 15 years. >Around here, trash collection isn't paid for by taxes. Some >municipalities have a designated company and set fee that's paid by the >homeowners. Where I live, each homeowner is free to contract with the >company they prefer (or even not to have one at all). The fees for my trash collection are added to my tax bill. The real estate tax is collected by the county. My cost is $189 annually. Each resident in this area used to contract for their own trash collection, but that led to too many trucks making noise at 6:30 AM. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > > Very few subdivisions where I live have private streets. The ones > > that do often don't restrict traffic. My Friend The Vice President [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of my home, but I'd guess the figure is three digits. I have no idea > who maintains the streets in any of them. If they're gated, problem the homeowners, but I don't know. > In my own neighborhood (not a subdivision, and not gated) the streets > are maintained by the county. The city does ours. We only become part of the city proper recently, having been in an incorporated area previously. > > Around here, trash collection isn't paid for by taxes. Some > > municipalities have a designated company and set fee that's paid by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The fees for my trash collection are added to my tax bill. The real > estate tax is collected by the county. My cost is $189 annually. I'm not sure I'd call it a tax exactly, but a means of collecting the fee. In particular, yours pays for your usage, not anyone else's I'd guess. > Each resident in this area used to contract for their own trash > collection, but that led to too many trucks making noise at 6:30 AM. There's been some talk about that here too. I prefer the current system. As a single person, I like getting the minimum service possible, plus changing providers if I'm unhappy with the service (I did that once). Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >> The fees for my trash collection are added to my tax bill. The real >> estate tax is collected by the county. My cost is $189 annually. > >I'm not sure I'd call it a tax exactly, but a means of collecting the >fee. In particular, yours pays for your usage, not anyone else's I'd >guess. No, no. It's not a tax. It's a fee added to the tax bill. Line item listed as an "ad valorem assessment". >> Each resident in this area used to contract for their own trash >> collection, but that led to too many trucks making noise at 6:30 AM. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >possible, plus changing providers if I'm unhappy with the service (I >did that once). I prefer it our way. When we contracted individually, the drivers never seemed to know which house subscribed to which service, there were too many trucks around, and there wasn't any one service to point the finger at if damage - like a mail box run into - was done and trash blowing around that was always the "other guy's" problem. The prices were all about the same. I haven't had a complaint in years with the new system. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > > There's been some talk about that here too. I prefer the current > > system. As a single person, I like getting the minimum service [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > prices were all about the same. I haven't had a complaint in years > with the new system. How many days a week pickup? Is recycling optional? What about yard waste? Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >> > There's been some talk about that here too. I prefer the current >> > system. As a single person, I like getting the minimum service [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >How many days a week pickup? Is recycling optional? What about yard >waste? The trash man cometh twice a week - Tuesday and Friday - and picks up house waste. The recycler comes once a week - Friday, earlier than the house waste truck - for newspapers and plastic and glass bottles. Yard waste is picked up on Wednesday. Recycling is optional in that I can bag everything for the Tuesday-Friday man if I don't wish to set out different containers. We don't have color-coded bags or containers. Bottles go in open containers, so you can see how much wine your neighbor drinks, and if he's buying the good stuff or the Boone's Farm. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > > How many days a week pickup? Is recycling optional? What about yard > > waste? > > The trash man cometh twice a week - Tuesday and Friday - and picks up > house waste. Can you get it once a week (for a lesser amount)? I can barely fill one measly can once a week, and that's without recycling. > Yard waste is picked up on Wednesday. Is it optional? As elsewhere, optional means you can elect not to pay for it. > Recycling is optional in that I can bag everything for the > Tuesday-Friday man if I don't wish to set out different containers. I meant optional as in, "don't have to pay for it." Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >> > How many days a week pickup? Is recycling optional? What about yard >> > waste? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Can you get it once a week (for a lesser amount)? I can barely fill one >measly can once a week, and that's without recycling. No. The charge is a flat annual fee. We are not required to set out a bag, though. The trash man doesn't come knocking and demand a bag of trash if none is placed by the curb. >> Yard waste is picked up on Wednesday. > >Is it optional? As elsewhere, optional means you can elect not to pay >for it. Nope. Part of the flat annual fee of $189. Keep in mind, though, that this is Florida where things grow 12 months of the year, so there's no shortage of yard waste to put out. >> Recycling is optional in that I can bag everything for the >> Tuesday-Friday man if I don't wish to set out different containers. > >I meant optional as in, "don't have to pay for it." Flat fee. If I never set out a container of recyclables, or if I set out a full container each week, I still pay $189 annually. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > > Can you get it once a week (for a lesser amount)? I can barely fill > > one measly can once a week, and that's without recycling. > > No. The charge is a flat annual fee. We are not required to set out > a bag, though. The trash man doesn't come knocking and demand a bag > of trash if none is placed by the curb. About what I figured. That's what usually happens with those municipal contracts, a "one size fits all" that doesn't fit some people well at all. I get once a week pickup, so I pay less. Hurray for me. > >> Yard waste is picked up on Wednesday. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this is Florida where things grow 12 months of the year, so there's no > shortage of yard waste to put out. What about people who compost and don't generate any? > >> Recycling is optional in that I can bag everything for the > >> Tuesday-Friday man if I don't wish to set out different containers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Flat fee. If I never set out a container of recyclables, or if I set > out a full container each week, I still pay $189 annually. I will say that's a pretty good price. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >> > Can you get it once a week (for a lesser amount)? I can barely fill >> > one measly can once a week, and that's without recycling. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >What about people who compost and don't generate any? I understand that you are pleased that you can pick and choose, but I have to admit that I don't devote a lot of worrying to the people in my neighborhood who compost their yard trash and have nothing to set out on Wednesdays. Since I have to make several runs to the county landfill each year (free) to dispose of the yard trash that is too bulky for me to set out on Wednesdays, I'll make a note to note who in the neighborhood has a compost pile and see if I can make arrangements for me to sneak over some my excess to their curb. >> >> Recycling is optional in that I can bag everything for the >> >> Tuesday-Friday man if I don't wish to set out different containers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I will say that's a pretty good price. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > > What about people who compost and don't generate any? > > I understand that you are pleased that you can pick and choose, but I > have to admit that I don't devote a lot of worrying to the people in > my neighborhood who compost their yard trash and have nothing to set > out on Wednesdays. I just prefer flexibility in these matters. Especially in the matter of being able to switch providers in the case where service is not to my liking. Different strokes and all that. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >> > What about people who compost and don't generate any? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >being able to switch providers in the case where service is not to my >liking. Different strokes and all that. I could always sell my house. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > Recycling is optional in that I can bag everything for the > Tuesday-Friday man if I don't wish to set out different containers. > We don't have color-coded bags or containers. Bottles go in open > containers, so you can see how much wine your neighbor drinks, and if > he's buying the good stuff or the Boone's Farm. I've never heard of Boone's Farm, but I hear from my daughter tells me that "Two-Buck Chuck" is the wine she brings out for dinner with her friends. Apparently it's now a cult: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/02/eveningnews/main556620.shtml Fran >> Recycling is optional in that I can bag everything for the >> Tuesday-Friday man if I don't wish to set out different containers. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/02/eveningnews/main556620.shtml Best wine buy for the money, although here in Arizona it's three-buck Chuck. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> > Very few subdivisions where I live have private streets. The ones >> > that do often don't restrict traffic. My Friend The Vice President [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >The city does ours. We only become part of the city proper recently, >having been in an incorporated area previously. Generally, the city or county accepts platted streets if they are dedicated as public rights of way. The streets mustalso meet city or county construction standards, or they will not be accepted. When I worked in public works engineering in Palo Alto we had a couple of streets that simply could not have been brought up to city standards, and they remained private streets. Gated communities, by definition, do not have public rights of way, and street maintenance is usually a duty of the owners' association. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >Generally, the city or county accepts platted streets if they are >dedicated as public rights of way. "Platted" (and "plat"). I had to look that one up. Never met it in BrE, and I'd never knowingly come across it on any of my stays in America. How pleasant to have the gaps in one's education filled. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ [...] > The city does ours. We only become part of the city proper recently, > having been in an incorporated area previously. "Incorporated" or "Unincorporated"? Around SoCal, at least *west* of San Bernadino and Riverside (cities of), the UIAs generally have service under the administration of the county; I think this was the way in the parts of Oregon I frequented (also urbanized: Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties; I should know more about Lincoln County, but I slipped on that). East of those 2 cities, the eponymous counties have some large, sparsely settled areas, with a few pockets of incorporation; other than the Sheriff's office and the Fire Departments, I'm not sure what services are provided in the distant UIAs, but county roads are maintained by the county (to some extent -- Mary can no doubt find examples where the budget hasn't reached). /dps > [...] > > The city does ours. We only become part of the city proper recently, > > having been in an incorporated area previously. > > "Incorporated" or "Unincorporated"? Unincorporated, sorry. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) [...] > In my own neighborhood (not a subdivision, and not gated) the streets > are maintained by the county. There were some unpaved streets, and > the residents living on those streets wanted them paved. The county > did pave them, and now maintains them, but each homeowner involved has > a special assessment on their annual property taxes that will pay for > the paving over a period of 15 years. Maybe a "Special Improvement District" ? Kinda like a water district, but short-lived (by comparison). /dps [...] > Good point. You'd have to ask an attorney about the legality issue. > My guess - and I emphasize "guess" - is that the developer who built > the streets *didn't* make them public right of ways. Since he owned > the property and assumedly deeded them over to the (city, county, > municipality), he might have put restrictions in the deed. They might be deeded over to the neighborhood association. And we might be talking about the difference between an easement and a right-of-way. Both of which require at least token use to be remain in effect, but have different benefits. /dps >[...] >> Good point. You'd have to ask an attorney about the legality issue. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >They might be deeded over to the neighborhood association. I doubt that. It's not uncommon to see that someone is suing the city because the view at an intersection was blocked, and an accident occur. Or suing the city because a bump in the road caused an accident. A neighborhood association wouldn't want the liability risk of owning a street. >And we might be talking about the difference between an easement and a >right-of-way. Both of which require at least token use to be remain in >effect, but have different benefits. I'm think of the streets within a subdivision. There can be miles of them. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL [...] > >They might be deeded over to the neighborhood association. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accident. A neighborhood association wouldn't want the liability risk > of owning a street. Perhaps more common in a gated community. > >And we might be talking about the difference between an easement and a > >right-of-way. Both of which require at least token use to be remain in > >effect, but have different benefits. > > I'm think of the streets within a subdivision. There can be miles of > them. Indeed there can, but there may still be streets which are easements rather than public right-of-ways. /dps >[...] >> >They might be deeded over to the neighborhood association. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Perhaps more common in a gated community. As I mentioned in another post, by definition the streets in a gated community are not public rights of way (that's the whole point of the gates) and any liability falls on the property owners via the homeowners' association. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>[...] >>> Good point. You'd have to ask an attorney about the legality [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > an accident. A neighborhood association wouldn't want the liability > risk of owning a street. The homeowners association in my complex owns my street, but it's not a throughway. I doubt it would happen with a through street. I'm not even sure it would be allowed. If the entire network of streets stemmed from a single entrance (or small set of controlled entrances) to the subdivision, it might. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them. | Albert Einstein kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > The homeowners association in my complex owns my street, but it's not > a throughway. I doubt it would happen with a through street. I'm not > even sure it would be allowed. If the entire network of streets > stemmed from a single entrance (or small set of controlled entrances) > to the subdivision, it might. That's how my friend's subdivision works. There's a single entrance of the main thoroughfare, and all the other roads branch off it (really a bunch of loops and cul-de-sacs. The roads, along with a "lake", are commonly owned and maintained using dues or fees or assessments or whatever you'd call it from the individual homeowners. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >The homeowners association in my complex owns my street, but it's not >a throughway. I doubt it would happen with a through street. I'm not >even sure it would be allowed. My employer owns a few minor public streets -- which the city deeded over in exchange for not having to maintain them. Since we are the only abutter, there was no issue with access to other employers or residences. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >[...] >> Good point. You'd have to ask an attorney about the legality issue. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >right-of-way. Both of which require at least token use to be remain in >effect, but have different benefits. Legally, rights of way dedicated to the public are considered easements to the public. Note that even a bike path is a public right of way. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>[...] >>> Good point. You'd have to ask an attorney about the legality issue. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >easements to the public. Note that even a bike path is a public >right of way. I want to add a little to this. When I first went to work for the city of Palo Alto I didn't understand the nature of a public street. Streets are not owned by the city, but rather the city simply stands in for the public to which the street is dedicated. It has no more rights than a franchised utility. In general the public utility companies work together with the city, but we had big problems when so many companies were laying fiberglass cable. We had a few companies that insisted that they were simply going to run their fiber any damn place they pleased. Our hook was to tell them we would sue them if they damaged our concrete or paving. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] > I want to add a little to this. When I first went to work for the > city of Palo Alto I didn't understand the nature of a public > street. Thanks for the clarification. I know that there are certain rituals and incantations involved, but the details are usually deeper than I've gone. How long did you work for Palo Alto, and did you work for another agency later, or go straight into hiding^H^H^H^H^H^Hretirement? Or are you in another line of work now? /dps (who'd like to be hired to be a "gentleman of leisure") >[...] >> I want to add a little to this. When I first went to work for the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >agency later, or go straight into hiding^H^H^H^H^H^Hretirement? Or are >you in another line of work now? I worked for Palo Alto from 1987-2001, when I retired. Before that I worked as a construction engineer or quality engineer at or for several nuclear power plants, on-line or a-building. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] > I worked for Palo Alto from 1987-2001, when I retired. Before > that I worked as a construction engineer or quality engineer at > or for several nuclear power plants, on-line or a-building. I know a retiree who helped DWP (Los Angles, Cafilornia) get all steamed up, when he wasn't making a damsite better. /dps > Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as > "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of > what? > > Basically, a developer purchases a large tract of land and divides > that tract into homesites (1). No, 'lots'. > He subdivides, but why is the entire > group of homes called a subdivision? Idiom. > It is the homesite that is the > subdivision. No, it is a 'lot'. > Am I missing something? Si! >> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No, 'lots'. To say "No, 'lots'." is to say "'Homesites' is an incorrectly used word, and 'lots' is the word that should have been used. That is patently untrue. We have this concept in English called "synonyms" where several words have the same or similar meaning. One chooses from that group the word that best fits the application. Developers of subdivisions do not offer "lots for sale". They offer "homesites for sale". You find "lots" in trailer parks. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > "UC" wrote: >>> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >>> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You find "lots" in trailer parks. Naah, them's spaces. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > To say "No, 'lots'." is to say "'Homesites' is an incorrectly used > word, and 'lots' is the word that should have been used. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Developers of subdivisions do not offer "lots for sale". They offer > "homesites for sale". Maybe in Florida they do; around here we see signs reading "LOTS STILL AVAILABLE! SEE MODEL HOME FOR DETAILS!" That's in moderately posh neighbourhoods; the really high-end ones get "homesites". > You find "lots" in trailer parks. There too. -=Eric >>> Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as >>> "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >You find "lots" in trailer parks. It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they are planted, with their wheels forever removed. Today, they are the poor man's house, are they not? FWIW, I dated a divorced Indian woman in Maine for awhile, with a young son as wild as any wild man, who lived in one. SignatureCharles Riggs The Charles Riggs entity posted thusly: >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:24:28 GMT, Tony Cooper ><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote: >>To say "No, 'lots'." is to say "'Homesites' is an incorrectly used >>word, and 'lots' is the word that should have been used. Every place I have lived, "lots" are the preferred term for the divisions in a subdivision. This is not to say that "homesites" is incorrect; just that in some areas, it just isn't used. >>That is patently untrue. We have this concept in English called >>"synonyms" where several words have the same or similar meaning. One >>chooses from that group the word that best fits the application. >>Developers of subdivisions do not offer "lots for sale". They offer >>"homesites for sale". Depends on where you are. In my experience, a "lot" is a small tract of land, perhaps (or even usually) one chunk of a subdivision. An "acreage" is a larger tract of land, usually in a rural area. A "homesite" I might equate with "yard site" (or just "yard"), when the meaning is that it is a tract of land containing the living quarters, and separate from a larger tract of land on a farm. >>You find "lots" in trailer parks. Mostly, you find "pads" in trailer parks in Canada. Trailers may also be on "lots" where not prohibited by law. In rural areas and small tows/villages/hamlets in Saskatchewan, trailers are very common, both in the villages and in (more) rural areas. On my farm, I have two "yards", one of which contains a house, and one of which contains a double-wide trailer. The trailer has been here since the mid-60s. >It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they >are planted, with their wheels forever removed. Yes, and they will often have additions and other modifications that make it extremely difficult to move them even if wheels were put on. In this way, they are not much different than a house, which can be moved from one place to another, a common method of obtaining a house in my area. >Today, they are the poor man's house, are they not? FWIW, I dated a >divorced Indian woman in Maine for awhile, with a young son as wild as >any wild man, who lived in one. I suppose they are, though a new one will rival an "RTM" (Ready To Move) house in cost. They will also be slightly cheaper to move, since only a single-widepiece need be moved (the double-wides will be moved in two single-wide pieces). > The Charles Riggs entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > divisions in a subdivision. This is not to say that "homesites" is > incorrect; just that in some areas, it just isn't used. I think evidence will demonstrate that Coop's "homesite" is a realtorism/real-estate-agentism of some sort. "Lot" is the proper term. Surely no deed would refer to a "homesite". SignatureBuckwheat Soba >> The Charles Riggs entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >realtorism/real-estate-agentism of some sort. "Lot" is the proper term. >Surely no deed would refer to a "homesite". Who in the hell is talking about what word is used on a deed? This group is about usage, and usage is not determined by what is used on legal documents. I made it perfectly clear that "homesite" is used by developers to describe property that is for sale to people who intend to build a residence on that property. The developer has chosen that particular term because that term connotes something more desirable than "lot" to the buyer. That's what we do with usage; we choose words that fit what we want to get across. This idea you have of some words being "real estate speak" is bullshit. It's not limited to the segment of society that sells land and houses. We use the same words in our own conversations and writing if the words fit our intent to convey a particular description. Furthermore, the upgrading of description by choice of words is not limited to any occupational group. The term "entertainment center" is not "electronics sales speak" just because Circuit City sells "entertainment centers" and not radio/tape deck/CD player combinations. Joe Sixpack describes his combination as an entertainment center and talks about his "sound system" instead of his speakers. An industry may have coined "breakfast nook" to mean "table in the kitchen", "surround sound" to mean more than one speaker, "media center" to mean "a room with gadgets that bring in sound and pictures", and "SUV" to mean "bigger, boxier, station wagon", but once the general public starts using the word or terms they are no longer (industry) speak. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >The Charles Riggs entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >of land, perhaps (or even usually) one chunk of a subdivision. An >"acreage" is a larger tract of land, usually in a rural area. You're viewing this in the literal sense. And, you are correct, in that sense. You have to read between the lines a bit to understand my point, though. Developers sell "homesites", and not "lots", because the word "homesite" has a certain appeal that the word "lot" does not. "Lot" is a functional word that describes a designated area of dirt. "Homesite" is a word that describes the starting point for the construction of man's castle. In other threads, "real estate agent speak" has been spoken of. There is no such thing, of course, but the real estate agent does describe the mundane in terms designed to pique the interest. Bedrooms become master suites. Porches become verandas. Pokey little corners become home offices. A few stone slabs or bricks placed in the dirt become a terrace. >A "homesite" I might equate with "yard site" (or just "yard"), when >the meaning is that it is a tract of land containing the living [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >tows/villages/hamlets in Saskatchewan, trailers are very common, both >in the villages and in (more) rural areas. In the same vein, these are not trailers. They are mobile homes. They are not in trailer parks; they are in mobile home communities. Synonyms are not always words that just have the same or similar meaning. They are sometimes words that are used with the intent to upgrade the image. They are sometimes words that are chosen to affect perception. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: >>Mostly, you find "pads" in trailer parks in Canada. Trailers may also >>be on "lots" where not prohibited by law. In rural areas and small [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >upgrade the image. They are sometimes words that are chosen to affect >perception. OK, but realtor-speak is not reality-speak. >The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >OK, but realtor-speak is not reality-speak. I'm not sure what you mean here. If you see an ad for a "Secluded homesite on spacious, tree-shaded half-acre in the exclusive gated community of River Oaks", are you saying that this is not a realistic description of a residential half-acre lot with trees growing on it that is located in Block D, Tract 12 of the River Oaks subdivision because a Realtor wrote the description? You may find, on inspection, that the property is not as secluded as you would like your building site to be, that there are not enough trees to provide adequate shade in your estimation, and that "exclusive" just means that the price is so high that certain people you think are undesirable as neighbors won't buy a lot in River Oaks. But is the description unrealistic? I think the description is not reality-speak if the property advertised is a weed-grown, treeless downtown lot with access only through the canning factory's chain link gate, but I don't think the use of enticing terminology makes the statement unrealistic. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>OK, but realtor-speak is not reality-speak. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that is located in Block D, Tract 12 of the River Oaks subdivision > because a Realtor wrote the description? I think that what he means is that if you ask somebody who responded to the ad what they did, they're unlikely to say "I went to look at a homesite". Just as people understand what "bathroom tissue" is but are highly unlikely to actually call the stuff that, I can't recall ever hearing someone outside of the real estate trade actually describe a place they own or are contemplating buying as a "homesite". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most |punctilious compliance with the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do (650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking |well. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger >>>OK, but realtor-speak is not reality-speak. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >ever hearing someone outside of the real estate trade actually >describe a place they own or are contemplating buying as a "homesite". The thread has been broken up into segments, but my original comment was: TC: Basically, a developer purchases a large tract of land and divides that tract into homesites (1). UC: No, 'lots'. TC: To say "No, 'lots'." is to say "'Homesites' is an incorrectly used word, and 'lots' is the word that should have been used. TC: That is patently untrue. We have this concept in English called "synonyms" where several words have the same or similar meaning. One chooses from that group the word that best fits the application. Developers of subdivisions do not offer "lots for sale". They offer "homesites for sale". (end) It's a legitimate word used for a purpose. I don't think you can say "No, the word is 'lot'". If the developer's style of describing the property is part of the reason the buyer or potential buyer comes out to see the property, it's a perfectly legitimate use of a synonym. Whether or not the buyer or potential buyer uses the word, he's responding to the description. He's visualizing more than just a parcel of dirt. If we say - as UC has - that we should limit our descriptive usage of words to the minimal word available to describe something, and we attribute all more-than-minimal descriptive words and terms to (industry)-speak, we have to start thinking that restaurants should not offer "a fine dining experience" and offer, instead, a "meal" because "a fine dining experience" is restaurant-speak. Or avoiding "fragrance" because it's marketing-speak for "smell". Or not using "riveting" because it's publishing-speak for "interesting". Oleg says that "Realtor-speak" is not "reality-speak". In my view, the reality of what we want is not a meal, a smell, interesting reading matter, a lot, or a house. We want what the (industry)-speak term conjures up in our mind. It's kind of strange to me that, in a newsgroup that focusses on words and usage, there's a feeling that the use of words and terms that do more than minimally convey the description of something are denigrated. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: >>>>OK, but realtor-speak is not reality-speak. >>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >more than minimally convey the description of something are >denigrated. It seems strange to me that some discussions seem to totally dismiss regional differences in usage. >It seems strange to me that some discussions seem to totally dismiss >regional differences in usage. I'm only vaguely aware of what your region is. I think you are in Canada, but I'm not sure. My region is obvious from my sig. If, in your region, the word "homesite" never appears, then substitute some other term that real estate agents use in your area that the general public does not use. The argument that that word still has legitimate and realistic use still holds. A word need not be used by the entire population to be legitimate and realistic. It is not unrealistic just because it has limited use. It is not realistic, in my opinion, to dismiss a word or term because it is not used in the region of the hearer or reader. I can't dismiss "semi-detached" as a description of a housing style because that term is not used in my region. While "semi-detached" is used both by estate agents and the general public, I'm sure there are estate-agent-speak terms in the region where "semi-detached" is used. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: >>It seems strange to me that some discussions seem to totally dismiss >>regional differences in usage. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >estate agents and the general public, I'm sure there are >estate-agent-speak terms in the region where "semi-detached" is used. Agreed, but as I pointed out, words have different meanings and connotations in different areas. Offering a piece of a subdivision in a city as a "homesite" would, in some areas, be considered misrepresentation. In other words, in some cases, "realtor speak" is not "reality speak". >Agreed, but as I pointed out, words have different meanings and >connotations in different areas. Offering a piece of a subdivision in >a city as a "homesite" would, in some areas, be considered >misrepresentation. In other words, in some cases, "realtor speak" is >not "reality speak". We need to let this one go because it's at the dead horse stage, but I have to know why it's a "misrepresentation". A subdivision lot is a site on which a home can be constructed. What is misrepresented? To misrepresent means to describe something as something it isn't. To describe it with an unfamiliar word is not describing it as something it isn't. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>Agreed, but as I pointed out, words have different meanings and >>connotations in different areas. Offering a piece of a subdivision in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have to know why it's a "misrepresentation". A subdivision lot is a > site on which a home can be constructed. What is misrepresented? Coop, do you see how much you've been influenced by RealtorE? You refer to houses or other dwellings as "homes". A home is where the heart is, not necessarily where the hearth is. "Homesite" is a euphemism, plain and simple, and ought to be avoided unless and until it becomes majority usage. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >"Homesite" is a euphemism, Euphemism: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also : the expression so substituted So you are saying that "homesite" is an agreeable substitution for a offensive term. So "lot" is an offensive term? > plain and simple, and ought to be avoided Why should we avoid an agreeable substitution? >unless and until it becomes majority usage. If we avoid it, how can it gain majority usage? If you go with the majority of posters on this topic, "homesite" is not at all an agreeable substitution. I dunno, Areff, but it seems that what you suggest is a bit illogical. Wait, though. Is that "euphemism" in the standard sense, or is there an Areffian word that is always written with surrounding quotes and means "not really a euphemism, but has the exact opposite of the standard meaning"? Personally, I'd say that "homesite" is a synonym for the phrase "residential building site". On the house/home issue, it is a house when it is constructed, and a home when someone lives there. However, I don't see a problem with interchanging the words. A vacant house, vacant because the owner has moved out and no new owner has moved in, is still a home if the vacant status is temporary. An apartment may be "home", but not "a home". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>"Homesite" is a euphemism, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you are saying that "homesite" is an agreeable substitution for a > offensive term. So "lot" is an offensive term? I suspect that the Realtors think so. Maybe "lot" to them suggests an ugly vacant lot or a parking lot or something. Maybe they're from Brooklyn (FLCIA) and they're thinking of New Lots. >> plain and simple, and ought to be avoided > > Why should we avoid an agreeable substitution? Because it represents a failure to squarely address the truth of the situation. Parcels of land are lots, not "homesites" or "mansionbases" or whatever term you want to invent. The insistence on using "home" instead of "house", a barbarous invention of the Realtor community, has permeated General American speech, with disastrous results. Let's not make the problem worse, Coop. >>unless and until it becomes majority usage. > > If we avoid it, how can it gain majority usage? Well, see how you are? > Personally, I'd say that "homesite" is a synonym for the phrase > "residential building site". I'd say it's an effort to avoid using "lot" unless I can be convinced otherwise. > On the house/home issue, it is a house when it is constructed, and a > home when someone lives there. However, I don't see a problem with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > An apartment may be "home", but not "a home". Realtors who sell apartments (condos, etc.) and their cousins who rent or lease them don't hesitate to call them "homes" in their marketing materials. At the very least you have to admit it's twee, as the British say. SignatureBuckwheat Soba > [...] Parcels of land are lots, not "homesites" or > "mansionbases" or whatever term you want to invent. [...] >> Personally, I'd say that "homesite" is a synonym for the phrase >> "residential building site". > > I'd say it's an effort to avoid using "lot" unless I can be convinced > otherwise. Well ... there are lots that are not homesites. My brother once owned one of those. Good for mountain goats and such, but not much else. Oh, yeah -- he had to pay taxes on it. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > > [...] Parcels of land are lots, not "homesites" or > > "mansionbases" or whatever term you want to invent. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of those. Good for mountain goats and such, but not much else. Oh, yeah -- > he had to pay taxes on it. I have no horse in this race, but it seems to me that "homesite" is more specific than "lot". It implies, for example, that its zoning is compatible with construction on it of a single family residence. Richard R. Hershberger >> > [...] Parcels of land are lots, not "homesites" or >> > "mansionbases" or whatever term you want to invent. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >more specific than "lot". It implies, for example, that its zoning is >compatible with construction on it of a single family residence. Of course. Even businesses are built on lots. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * } Tony Cooper wrote: ... }> An apartment may be "home", but not "a home". } } Realtors who sell apartments (condos, etc.) and their cousins who rent or } lease them don't hesitate to call them "homes" in their marketing } materials. At the very least you have to admit it's twee, as the British } say. To the people that live in them, their apartment is "my house" (never "my home" and rarely "my apartment" [except when talking to the rental office or condo office]). I spent most of my life in the one apartment, but I don't find I miss it. I thought I'd miss being able to walk to the supermarket around the corner, but I don't. (We've got a supermarket in North East and another one in Rising Sun and a couple, three in Elkton.) Signaturerjv > } Tony Cooper wrote: > ... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > home" and rarely "my apartment" [except when talking to the rental office > or condo office]). I live in an apartment, and I would never refer to it as "my house". "House" to me implies a free-standing structure, or at most half of a duplex. "My apartment", on the other hand, is unexceptional to me. Richard R. Hershberger On 10 Nov 2006, Richard R. Hershberger wrote >> } Tony Cooper wrote: >> ... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > most half of a duplex. "My apartment", on the other hand, is > unexceptional to me. Ditto for when I lived in an apartment in Edmonton, 30 years ago. "My place" - definitely; "my apartment" - fine; "my house" - never. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 10 Nov 2006, Richard R. Hershberger wrote [...] > >> To the people that live in them, their apartment is "my house" > >> (never "my home" and rarely "my apartment" [except when talking [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ditto for when I lived in an apartment in Edmonton, 30 years ago. > "My place" - definitely; "my apartment" - fine; "my house" - never. Even as a late-comer to apartments, I follow the "my place", "my apartment" trend ... mixed with "the apartment" and the occasional "my home". Or "my mess". /dps "See, I can take advice!" he said elliptically. >> To the people that live in them, their apartment is "my house" (never "my >> home" and rarely "my apartment" [except when talking to the rental office [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "House" to me implies a free-standing structure, or at most half of a > duplex. "My apartment", on the other hand, is unexceptional to me. Calling your apartment "my house" is common usage in New York (LCIA), though I don't know how prevalent it is elsewhere. One wouldn't, of course, speak of such an apartment as "a house". SignatureBuckwheat Soba } Richard R. Hershberger wrote: }> }> R J Valentine wrote: }>> }>> To the people that live in them, their apartment is "my house" (never "my }>> home" and rarely "my apartment" [except when talking to the rental office }>> or condo office]). }> }> I live in an apartment, and I would never refer to it as "my house". }> "House" to me implies a free-standing structure, or at most half of a }> duplex. "My apartment", on the other hand, is unexceptional to me. } } Calling your apartment "my house" is common usage in New York (LCIA), } though I don't know how prevalent it is elsewhere. One wouldn't, of } course, speak of such an apartment as "a house". Of course not. Signaturerjv [...] > Calling your apartment "my house" is common usage in New York (LCIA), Are you in any of the green areas as shown in <http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1109/csmimg/p13b_popup.gif> ? A catagory 3 would make the apartments "my soggy place" and New York would be (LMUIA). /dps The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: >>Agreed, but as I pointed out, words have different meanings and >>connotations in different areas. Offering a piece of a subdivision in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >We need to let this one go because it's at the dead horse stage, Agreed. If you hadn't said this, I was going to. > but I >have to know why it's a "misrepresentation". A subdivision lot is a >site on which a home can be constructed. What is misrepresented? Around here, "homesite" would, if it was taken as anything, be taken as a largish lot in a rural area, equivalent to what might normally be called an "acreage", or a "yard", being part of a farm used for a residence. A city subdivision would have lots, or perhaps even "building sites", reinforcing the idea that there are no houses currently on the parcels. >To misrepresent means to describe something as something it isn't. To >describe it with an unfamiliar word is not describing it as something >it isn't. To describe something with a word that has a different meaning, or that has different connotations than what is actually mean, is indeed misrepresentation. I have no doubt that a realtor advertising "homesites" in a city subdivision around here would influence the language eventually, perhaps even quickly (months, maybe), and I doubt that anyone would take the matter to court, but currently, "homesite" does not apply to what is being described. If I told you that the "patrol" came by yesterday, what would you think? Prior to my moving here to Saskatchewan, I would have associated the statement with a visit by either the police or a private security company. In fact, it was the road grader, pulling up gravel from the sides to spread it evenly across the road. If I were selling a house, and told you that the patrol came by regularly, would I be misrepresenting? I would not, in this area, but if I lived somewhere else, where the word had a different meaning and/or connotation, I could well be accused of misrepresentation. The grader is also known as the "maintainer", which was also a new one to me. >If I told you that the "patrol" came by yesterday, what would you >think? Prior to my moving here to Saskatchewan, I would have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >somewhere else, where the word had a different meaning and/or >connotation, I could well be accused of misrepresentation. Cast it as: The roads around this house for sale are routinely patrolled. If you wrote this in an ad in Saskatchewan newspaper, it would not be misrepresentation. It would still not be misrepresentation if I read the ad, and - not being at all familiar with that usage - took it to mean routine visits by the RCMP. I would misinterpret, but you would not be guilty of misrepresentation. If you wrote this in an ad and placed it in a Florida newspaper, it would misrepresent even if you were unaware the word did not have the same meaning in Florida. Even so, I don't think I'd charge "misrepresentation" unless I felt that there was a deliberate attempt to deceive. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL [...] > It's kind of strange to me that, in a newsgroup that focusses on > words and usage, there's a feeling that the use of words and terms > that do more than minimally convey the description of something are > denigrated. No, 'kettled'. The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: >>The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >that is located in Block D, Tract 12 of the River Oaks subdivision >because a Realtor wrote the description? I don't consider it a realistic description, for the area in which I live, not because the realtor wrote it, but rather because "homesite" is not used to describe such a place. >But is the description unrealistic? I think the description is not >reality-speak if the property advertised is a weed-grown, treeless >downtown lot with access only through the canning factory's chain link >gate, but I don't think the use of enticing terminology makes the >statement unrealistic. Again, depends entirely on where the words is spoke. >>The Charles Riggs entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >"Homesite" is a word that describes the starting point for the >construction of man's castle. Nevertheless, at closing the deed will tell you you have purchased, e.e., Lot 74 of the Paseo Vista subdivision. All the real estate agent speak disappears at closing. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >Nevertheless, at closing the deed will tell you you have >purchased, e.e., Lot 74 of the Paseo Vista subdivision. All the >real estate agent speak disappears at closing. Ah, yes, but Jayne Mansfield was said to have great tits. They were no less great because her death certificate did not list them. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL [...] > >You find "lots" in trailer parks. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > divorced Indian woman in Maine for awhile, with a young son as wild as > any wild man, who lived in one. If we're allowed a temporary excursion into superficial snobbishness, I'm given to understand that a redneck knows he's living in a bad area when somebody steals the wheels off his house. I imagine the name "trailer" sticks for the same sort of reason British "mobile homes" are still called "mobile homes" after they've had their wheels taken off: they look quite like houses, but people just feel they aren't the real thing. Planning law probably influences the choice of term, too: if it's nominally movable, it can be easier to get permission to park it than it would be to get permission for a permanent structure. Even more so, I think, for a genuine trailer (BrEtcE, usually "caravan"); though British rules sometimes won't let people live in a caravan on a particular site all the year round. (If I were not so dependent on books in unreasonable quantities, I could find the idea of caravan living quite attractive: Cheltenham today, Lake District tomorrow, Scotland next month, drag over to France next year...) There's a fair bit of overlap, but this is a mobile home: http://www.interlistings.com/67558FRONT.jpg and this is clearly a caravan: http://www.perry-caravan.no/Bilder/prestige05-19.jpg I used to have a trailer rather like this, but with a removable cage top: http://www.newforestfarm.com/images/p6.jpg SignatureMike. > I imagine the name "trailer" sticks for the same sort of reason > British "mobile homes" are still called "mobile homes" after they've [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be easier to get permission to park it than it would be to get > permission for a permanent structure. This is precisely the reason why they're used by people who can't afford a house. It's a cheap solution because it doesn't need to conform to local building regulations. In most (all?) of the caravan parks I've seen in Australia, a good number of the sites are for people who are genuine tourists, who will stay only for a night or a week or a month. The permanent residents are merely tourists who are staying a little longer. (But they'll move on when they die.) There are plenty of loopholes in the law for those park owners who can maintain the fiction that there are no permanent residents. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. The Peter Moylan entity posted thusly: >> I imagine the name "trailer" sticks for the same sort of reason >> British "mobile homes" are still called "mobile homes" after they've [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >when they die.) There are plenty of loopholes in the law for those park >owners who can maintain the fiction that there are no permanent residents. And then, in other places (non-Australian places, apparently), there are "trailer parks" that make no pretense of being anything other than a place for a fairly large number of permanent trailers (mobile homes), housing permanent residents (or at least as permanent as any other residents of single-family dwellings on city lots). As well, there need be no loopholes in the law if there are no laws prohibiting such places, in the city or town they are located in. >> I imagine the name "trailer" sticks for the same sort of reason >> British "mobile homes" are still called "mobile homes" after they've [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >when they die.) There are plenty of loopholes in the law for those park >owners who can maintain the fiction that there are no permanent residents. Do other parts of the world have the equivalent of the Australian 'on-site-van' - a caravan that can be rented by the night like a simple apartment. We found them a very cheap way to stay overnight when travelling about Australia, but I don't think I've come across them elsewhere. Why is it that tornados seem to be attracted to caravan sites? You always see pictures of devastated caravan sites when they are reporting high winds on the telly. Mike Page >Do other parts of the world have the equivalent of the Australian >'on-site-van' - a caravan that can be rented by the night like a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >attracted to caravan sites? You always see pictures of devastated >caravan sites when they are reporting high winds on the telly. A tornado touched down in Orlando on Tuesday of this week. Election day. To see what it can do to a "caravan", see http://tinyurl.com/yd2o53 and click to the images running down the left of the screen. Incidentally, those pictures were taken within 10 miles of my home. I was unaware that there had been tornado until the next day. There was heavy rain and some wind in my immediate neighborhood, but nothing of any particular concern. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > A tornado touched down in Orlando on Tuesday of this week. Election > day. To see what it can do to a "caravan", see [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was heavy rain and some wind in my immediate neighborhood, but nothing > of any particular concern. Yeah, and tornadoes just love to hit mobile home parks, doncha know. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > >> A tornado touched down in Orlando on Tuesday of this week. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yeah, and tornadoes just love to hit mobile home parks, doncha know. Apparently, that's an illusion, although I long believed that there might be something about the terrain that attracted both tornadoes and trailer parks. One page says - Okay, okay, so if trailers don't attract tornadoes, why do so many trailer parks get hit by tornadoes? There are probably hundreds(maybe more than a thousand) very small tornadoes that touch down in the USA every year, but are not recorded because they do no damage. However, since a mobile home flips over so easily in even the weakest tornado, trailers probably act as "mini tornado" detectors. This makes it seem like tornadoes are attracted to mobile homes, but that is because trailers are the only things that reveal the presence of what would otherwise be an unrecorded event. - How strong a wind does it really take to blow over a mobile home? Lightweight mobile homes can be flipped by a 60 mile per hour wind. Heavier mobile homes may not go until 70 or 80 miles per hour. And a tied down trailer might stay put at 110 miles per hour. http://www.tornadoproject.com/cellar/tttttttt.htm I like the notion of trailers as "mini-tornado detectors". The "Ask a Scientist" page at Argonne National Labs gives two answers: Answer 1: And earthquakes are attracted to big cities. Because mobile homes are easily damaged by tornadoes you hear about it more often. Also tornadoes tend to form over flat land (I wonder why?) which is conducive to trailer parks. Answer 2: Statistics from the National Severe Storms Forecast Center in Kansas City show that from 1975 to 1991 nearly 36% of all tornado deaths occurred in mobile homes. Tornadoes don't hit mobile homes more often than conventional homes, but mobile home are just that - mobile. They offer no protection in a tornado. In April, 1991 a violent tornado struck Andover Kansas. 84 frame homes and 14 businesses were destroyed or severely damaged. Then the tornado hit a mobile home park, destroying 223 trailers. 13 people were killed in Andover - all in the mobile home park. 200 residents of the mobile home park did survive in the park's storm shelter. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99010.htm SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The law of supply and demand tells us 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that when the price of something is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |artificially set below market level, |there will soon be none of that thing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |left--as you may have noticed the (650)857-7572 |last time you tried to buy something |for nothing. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke >>> A tornado touched down in Orlando on Tuesday of this week. >>> Election day. To see what it can do to a "caravan", see [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99010.htm Aww, and here was I, thinkin' that them tornadoes really enjoyed themselves raisin' some hell with the trailer-park folk. I'm crushed, finding out the truth. Devastated, even. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > Incidentally, those pictures were taken within 10 miles of my home. > I was unaware that there had been tornado until the next day. There > was heavy rain and some wind in my immediate neighborhood, but > nothing of any particular concern. Twenty-something years ago I slept through the only tropical cyclone ever to hit our city. My wife and I had visited friends in the evening, and when driving home the wind was so strong that I had trouble keeping the car on the road, but I decided that it was just a strong storm brewing. I went home and went to bed. In the morning I got up to find devastation all up and down the street. (Although the damage to us was negligible: one tree blown over, as I recall it.) Everyone else I met was unable to sleep that night, so I was the only one to miss the excitement. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >>Do other parts of the world have the equivalent of the Australian >>'on-site-van' - a caravan that can be rented by the night like a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Incidentally, those pictures were taken within 10 miles of my home. Except for when I've heard *home* from a real estate agent making a sale's pitch, I've taken it to mean one's current home town, but I take it you are referring to your house. As a relative newcomer to the British Isles, I don't know if this distinction is made by estate agents. SignatureCharles Riggs >>>Do other parts of the world have the equivalent of the Australian >>>'on-site-van' - a caravan that can be rented by the night like a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >British Isles, I don't know if this distinction is made by estate >agents. I think you're fighting a losing battle if you think that "home" is not used by ordinary people in the ordinary course of events to describe their personal residence. It's not a word choice one makes when writing a sentence like the choice between "infinite" or "endless". It's a mind-set thing where the word describes the feeling you have about the place in which you live. I live in a house, but that house is my home. Any statement that "home" is just some real estate agent's attempt to personalize something being purchased or sold is just prattle. It might make for an interesting discussion point in a usage group, but it's not a point that can be taken to the real world of usage and taken seriously. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL [...] > >>Incidentally, those pictures were taken within 10 miles of my home. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > an interesting discussion point in a usage group, but it's not a point > that can be taken to the real world of usage and taken seriously. "Within ten miles of my home" is completely unremarkable everyday style in all Englishes I know about. As is the English-language distinction between "house" and "home" which is often pointed out. Where I do go along with Charles, though, is that "home" _is_ often used rather differently in the trade. I think I perceive two reasons for it: first, and very reasonably, that it can include flats and maisonettes as well as houses properly so called; and second, in an ad-speak effort to seem all warm and cuddly where ordinary speech would use "house". We noticed that some cousins in Aus had, they said, "bought a home": that suggested that the ad-speak use had infected some people outside the business in Aus -- as far as I know, it hasn't in Britain or Ireland. A housing development down the road from me has a sign announcing that they're building "homes": I think they're all what I'd call "houses". Back to mobile homes (note, not "mobile houses"), the ones you buy already set up on a site seem to be called "park homes" in the UK business. SignatureMike. >[...] >> >>Incidentally, those pictures were taken within 10 miles of my home. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >A housing development down the road from me has a sign announcing that >they're building "homes": I think they're all what I'd call "houses". To be fair to the homies, there is a gap in ordinary BrE when for some reason we don't want to specify whether we live in a house, flat, duplex, loft or whatever; the right words exist but they're laughably archaic -- "dwelling" and "abode" -- and "place" is sometimes just too chatty. Note also that "homeowners" has been standard BrE to lump together the owners of houses, flats, duplexes, lofts, bijou caves and so on. SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) Coop wrote: > I think you're fighting a losing battle if you think that "home" is > not used by ordinary people in the ordinary course of events to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > an interesting discussion point in a usage group, but it's not a point > that can be taken to the real world of usage and taken seriously. I don't know, Coop. I am a contemporary speaker of American English and the excessively generalized usage of "home" just looks *wrong* to me, even though I see it used by AmE speakers all over the place, and I feel it is worthwhile for me to comment about it -- maybe just in a usage group. In my actual use of AmE in the Real World I will, consciously or not, use "home" in the more restricted way that seems proper to me, and I will, I suppose, tolerate the looser usages of my compatriots. It reminds me quite a bit of another change (or dialect difference that maybe was long there) I've seen happen in AmE, which is the generalized use of "mom" and "dad" in place of "mother" and "father". That is to say, "a mom" has become a replacement for "a mother" as a generic term for "maternal parent" rather than for the meaning "one's own mother, regarded in a familial context". But I suppose there's something more to it than that -- it's a political issue of some sort, I think. For example, I think that real estate interests and their fellow travelers have too much influence over public policy in the US -- so it bothers me that their influence extends not just to lobbying but also to changes in language use. I sense that you are more comfortable with that public policy distortion. One thing's for sure, Coop. This is an example of a usage change, and I'll bet if you went back to examine usages in your childhood you'd see "home" used in a much more confined manner. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >Coop wrote: >> I think you're fighting a losing battle if you think that "home" is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >though I see it used by AmE speakers all over the place, and I feel it is >worthwhile for me to comment about it -- maybe just in a usage group. Your comments are appropriate in a usage group because the focus of a usage group is micro-examine the use of words. It's when you start expanding your observations to include what you think the general public does that your comments start careening off to "raving lunatic" status. > In >my actual use of AmE in the Real World I will, consciously or not, use >"home" in the more restricted way that seems proper to me, and I will, I >suppose, tolerate the looser usages of my compatriots. Best you do tolerate outside of the environs of aue and similar venues. It can get embarrassing to be fitted for a tinfoil hat in social situations or at work functions. >But I suppose there's something more to it than that -- it's a political >issue of some sort, I think. For example, I think that real estate >interests and their fellow travelers have too much influence over public >policy in the US -- so it bothers me that their influence extends not >just to lobbying but also to changes in language use. I sense that you >are more comfortable with that public policy distortion. Comfortable? I think "not bothered" is a better term. I try to concentrate on what people mean when they talk to me or with me. It doesn't distract me when they use words or terms in ways that I would not if I can follow their intended meaning. I am comfortable in listening with a holistic approach to what is said. >One thing's for sure, Coop. This is an example of a usage change, and >I'll bet if you went back to examine usages in your childhood you'd see >"home" used in a much more confined manner. I see no way to dredge up any evidence of that. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: > >Coop wrote: > >> I think you're fighting a losing battle if you think that "home" is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > public does that your comments start careening off to "raving lunatic" > status. I would not say "careening" at all, I don't think. Here, I would say "careering". SignatureDavid ===== >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I would not say "careening" at all, I don't think. Here, I would say >"careering". I'm hesitant to impose "common" with this usage, but in the US a frequent use of "careen" is in the description of something wildly off-course. M-W supports this with "3 : to sway from side to side : LURCH <a careening carriage being pulled wildly...by a team of runaway horses". Americans, TTBOMK, would not use "careering" in this context, or even - for the most part - understand that usage. If I was not a regular reader of aue, I would think "careering" to be a typo for "careening" when used in this context. I think there are very few Americans who would associate "careening" with ships or boats even though this is meaning given as 1: and 2: by M-W. Some, certainly, but not many. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >with ships or boats even though this is meaning given as 1: and 2: by >M-W. Some, certainly, but not many. In my years of boating and of working for the US Navy, I never heard of ships or boats doing either. Ships pitch, yaw and roll, so what is this fourth degree of motion? SignatureCharles Riggs >>>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: >>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >of ships or boats doing either. Ships pitch, yaw and roll, so what is >this fourth degree of motion? The motion of turning a ship over on its side to clean the hull. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL The Charles Riggs entity posted thusly: >>>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: >>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >of ships or boats doing either. Ships pitch, yaw and roll, so what is >this fourth degree of motion? Well, you runs her inta the shoals, and waits fer the tide to go out. When she careens over, ya scrapes the barnacles off 'er. When the tide returns, ya sails 'er out. > I don't know, Coop. I am a contemporary speaker of American English and > the excessively generalized usage of "home" just looks *wrong* to me, even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "home" in the more restricted way that seems proper to me, and I will, I > suppose, tolerate the looser usages of my compatriots. When I've been out and about with my son and we're about to return to our house, I'll say "let's head home." Does that sound odd to you? SignatureSML jiggedy jig >> I don't know, Coop. I am a contemporary speaker of American English >> and the excessively generalized usage of "home" just looks *wrong* [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > When I've been out and about with my son and we're about to return to > our house, I'll say "let's head home." Does that sound odd to you? All together now: I wanna go home, I wanna go home, Oh, how I wanna go home! (_Detroit City_ lyrics) SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> I don't know, Coop. I am a contemporary speaker of American English and >> the excessively generalized usage of "home" just looks *wrong* to me, even [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > When I've been out and about with my son and we're about to return to > our house, I'll say "let's head home." Does that sound odd to you? Not at all. That's the traditional usage. The newfangled one is the one you hear in "I own my own home". I would argue that a home *can't* be owned. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >>> I don't know, Coop. I am a contemporary speaker of American English and >>> the excessively generalized usage of "home" just looks *wrong* to me, even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >you hear in "I own my own home". I would argue that a home *can't* be >owned. Well, let's take a look at the "oldfangled" usage...the usage that you've been maintaining didn't use "home" the way "home" is now used. It took less than two minutes of Googling to come up with: http://www.historians.org/Projects/GIroundtable/index.html These are pamphlets written for the War Department during WWII (a time so far back in history that it pre-dates you, Areff). On that page, click "Pamphlets" in the upper left, and then - on that page - click Pamphlet #32. Note the interchangeability of the words "House" and "Home" in the links on that page. Click any link, any link, and note the interchanging of "house" and "home". See, for example: Under "Should I build a house after the war", the first paragraph is "The question that will be uppermost in the minds of many people seeking better homes after the war isshall I buy or rent?" Under "How Many Houses Will We Need?", read the sentence "During the depression and the immediate prewar years, not enough new houses were built to take care of the demands." Houses, right? Now the next sentence: "The number of nonfarm homes built in 1925 reached a peak of nearly a million." "Homes", right? The two words used as synonyms in adjacent sentences. How about in the same sentence? Try this: "Suppose we assume for the sake of getting some idea of the housing picture after the war that (1) it will cost $3,400 to build the average nonfarm home (excluding land) and (2) of the 6 billion dollars that will be spent for house building, 70 percent will go for new nonfarm dwellings and 30 percent for other types of houses and repairs." In the Pamphlet title "Houses on the Postwar Horizon", we find: "Of course, not all home buyers will be interested in mass-production houses. Some will prefer custom-made homes just as they prefer custom-made clothes." OK, Arefff, these are pamphlets written for the American servicemen - certainly a cross-section of Americans - in the 1940s. When, exactly, did "newfangled" start? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > Well, let's take a look at the "oldfangled" usage...the usage that > you've been maintaining didn't use "home" the way "home" is now used. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > When, exactly, did "newfangled" start? Clearly it was already being used back then, Coop. But I think you'll agree that "house" is used more in those materials than you'd expect to see today. Maybe we need to check the early post-WWI period. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >> Well, let's take a look at the "oldfangled" usage...the usage that >> you've been maintaining didn't use "home" the way "home" is now used. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >Maybe we need to check the early post-WWI period. I would expect we would find the same thing: "house" and "home" used interchangeably like: "On one day, 100 homes were sold in one hour. Builders here started 50 houses a day. Cement trucks waited in a mile-long line to pour foundations for low-cost housing." http://www.pbs.org/fmc/segments/progseg9.htm Not written in the 50s, but an example of the interchangeability of the words. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >Clearly it was already being used back then, Coop. But I think you'll >agree that "house" is used more in those materials than you'd expect to >see today. > >Maybe we need to check the early post-WWI period. "We"? "We"? You have made an unsupported claim. I have made a counter-claim, and supported it. The input we need from "we" is from you or the fat lady is cued. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> I don't know, Coop. I am a contemporary speaker of American English and >>> the excessively generalized usage of "home" just looks *wrong* to me, even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >you hear in "I own my own home". I would argue that a home *can't* be >owned. I've put the usage of home and house as interchangeable as far back as the 40s in a separate post, but let's go back to 1935. From http://www.historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5106/ "This is not true of countries in which certain classes of people have been submerged for generations, and in which it is practically impossible for members of great sections of population ever to come into possession of their own homes." Newfangled in 1935? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> I don't know, Coop. I am a contemporary speaker of American English and >>> the excessively generalized usage of "home" just looks *wrong* to me, even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >you hear in "I own my own home". I would argue that a home *can't* be >owned. Shall we go back to the 20s searching for the beginning of "newfangled"? "The great majority of operatives in the cotton mills of the communities visited live in company-owned houses. Practically the only exception to this rule is in those cases where the mill is in or so near the city that the employees may with equal convenience live in homes of their own, or in houses rented outside the mill property." In the above case, on Page 7 of a report written in February, 1920, the writer seems to be using "house" when the dwelling is not owned by the occupant, but "home" when the dwelling is owned by the occupant. The writer, then, would disagree with your statement that "I own my own home" is not an allowable statement. In those "oldfangled" times. http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=hearth;idno=4284529 We done yet? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: >>>> I don't know, Coop. I am a contemporary speaker of American English and >>>> the excessively generalized usage of "home" just looks *wrong* to me, even [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >We done yet? Is that all you brought? Let's go back to the _Encyclopedia of Household Information_, 1890, where we find, in the tale of Contents, the phrase "SELECTING A HOME" or to _Sparks from My Forge_, 1879 "If I had as many hundred dol-lar bills as you have broken resolutions of reformation on your souls, I would buy a home for each of you, and have a good one left for myself." or to _How to Make a Living_, 1875 " which is that you cannot afford to buy a home with money which you need in your business, and that it is in the last degree dangerous to attempt it." or to _History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United State_, 1868 a snippet only, in the context of Freemen and property... "to buy a home for each dependent freeman and refugee." } The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: } }>On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:05:13 +0000 (UTC), Buckwheat Soba }><me@privacy.net> wrote: }> }>>Sara Lorimer wrote: }>>> Buckwheat Soba <me@privacy.net> wrote: ... }>>>> "home" in the more restricted way that seems proper to me, and I will, I }>>>> suppose, tolerate the looser usages of my compatriots. }>>> }>>> When I've been out and about with my son and we're about to return to }>>> our house, I'll say "let's head home." Does that sound odd to you? }>> }>>Not at all. That's the traditional usage. The newfangled one is the one }>>you hear in "I own my own home". I would argue that a home *can't* be }>>owned. }> }>Shall we go back to the 20s searching for the beginning of }>"newfangled"? ... } Is that all you brought? ... } or to _History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United State_, 1868 } a snippet only, in the context of Freemen and property... } "to buy a home for each dependent freeman and refugee." But those are all just conflations. Ms. Lorimer has put her finger on it: it's a matter of English usage. You head home; you don't head house. You _make_ your own home in the house or apartment you build or buy or rent. You _keep_ someone else's house. In a condominium [= BrE "condominum"] you own the home in the association's house. Home is the inside, where the hearth is; house is the outside, where the chimney is. Because there are looser usages to be tolerated doesn't mean there aren't stricter usages to be aspired to (so to say). Googling is great for unearthing loose usages, but it's the BucSos, SalVos, and Areffs of the world that keep us on the straight and narrow. Signaturerjv > Not at all. That's the traditional usage. The newfangled one is the > one you hear in "I own my own home". I would argue that a home > *can't* be owned. Clearly it's not the sort of thing that one would have heard in Brooklyn. How does it happen that the poor little home owner or the poorer home renter must clear his walk from snow, pay a fine for not doing so or go to prison, and that the empty lot owner has no trouble of this sort? [_Brooklyn Daily Eagle_, 3/2/1894] It was his opinion that a special discrimination should be shown in favor of the small home owner. [_Eagle_, 12/19/1895] In Brooklyn, at our office in the Eagle Building, we shall be pleased to give you information regarding very desirable property in all parts of Brooklyn, houses ranging in price from $3,000 to $20,000, and which we can sell you for a cash payment of 10 per cent of the value, and monthly payments ranging from $18.75 to $125; which monthly payments are payments upon the houses, and are less than these same houses can be rented for... The Mail and Express says of this Company: "It is every year converting hundreds of rent-payers into home-owners, thereby enriching its patrons, strenghtening the Company and benefitting the community at large." [_Eagle_, 3/21/1897] It appears to have sprung up and quickly become common there in the mid-1890s. It shows up a few years earlier on the other coast: I know that as the builders of this city and of the Nation your labor should be so given and distributed as to be a benefit to every person, of every class; and then that you shall be well paid for it, so that you may become a home-owner ... [_LA Times_, 8/24/1889] ... a great mass of respectable citizens, including business men, artisans, workingmen, home-owners and home protectors ... [_LA Times, 3/15/1890] SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Oh, forget it: I can't write about 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this anymore until I find a much Palo Alto, CA 94304 |more sarcastic typeface. | Bill Bickel kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Not at all. That's the traditional usage. The newfangled one is the >> one you hear in "I own my own home". I would argue that a home [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > doing so or go to prison, and that the empty lot owner has no > trouble of this sort? [_Brooklyn Daily Eagle_, 3/2/1894] Yes, but Areff's next line of defense is "But what *street* in Brooklyn?" SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > >Clearly it's not the sort of thing that one would have heard in > >Brooklyn. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes, but Areff's next line of defense is "But what *street* in > Brooklyn?" Probably the writer of that article wasn't really from Brooklyn. SignatureSML >> >Clearly it's not the sort of thing that one would have heard in >> >Brooklyn. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Probably the writer of that article wasn't really from Brooklyn. Is that Brooklyn or "Brooklyn"? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> >Clearly it's not the sort of thing that one would have heard in >>> >Brooklyn. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Is that Brooklyn or "Brooklyn"? Or Brooklyn-style pizza, or "Brooklyn-style" pizza, or Brooklyn-style "pizza". Or even one of the above sans hyphen. You may have seen that TV commercial* by now, in which the cabby says "I _am_ folding it like a man!"** The old lady in the window, I suppose, speaks with a Brooklyn accent. * I think (Horrors!) that the commercial is touting Domino's latest. But, then, Areff wouldn't admit to having seen it. But BS might be up for it. **I couldn't tell what kind of accent he has, but it may be that of some person born speaking an Arabic (or Farsi) language. > Or Brooklyn-style pizza, or "Brooklyn-style" pizza, or Brooklyn-style > "pizza". Or even one of the above sans hyphen. You may have seen that > TV commercial* by now, in which the cabby says "I _am_ folding it like a > man!"** The old lady in the window, I suppose, speaks with a Brooklyn > accent. You may suppose, but it sounds totally phony to me. Saying things like "You got a problem with that?" does not a Brooklyn accent make. > * I think (Horrors!) that the commercial is touting Domino's latest. > But, then, Areff wouldn't admit to having seen it. But BS might be up > for it. I've seen the commercial (and commented on it here). It's ridiculous, of course, to anyone *from* New York (LCIA), particularly Brooklyn (FLCIA). Domino's is strictly for the Goyim (although I admit to having occasionally eaten it in college). . SignatureBuckwheat Soba [...] > Domino's is strictly for the Goyim . Interesting. I imagine that most Sicilian and Tuscan providers would also be for the Goyim. /dps ... } I've seen the commercial (and commented on it here). It's ridiculous, of } course, to anyone *from* New York (LCIA), particularly Brooklyn (FLCIA). } Domino's is strictly for the Goyim (although I admit to having } occasionally eaten it in college). . In the spirit of English usage, I actually tried one of those the other day. Actually, half each of two: the card said they had two styles, pepperoni and sausage. It wasn't bad. It was better than the best Chicago "pizza" I've had. It looked okay, though the big slices of pepperoni and the big balls of sausage meat looked a little funny. For some reason, they had it sliced in sixes, rather than eights. I don't know if that was just a local fluke or if it was chain policy. But it made it so you _had_ to fold it, and it didn't have the substance to fold right (you don't fold real pizza; you sort of crimp it so the tip stands up, as it were). This one sort of collapsed into a sandwich (if you catch my drift), and I had to tip it sideways to take a bite. My general impression was that it was a little rubbery. They have a satisfaction guarantee on the box, so it's not a _big_ risk for people who might want to check my credibility, and it wasn't so bad that I'd invoke the guarantee. But the leftovers have been in the refrigerator ever since, and their ultimate fate will be left to others. It's been a long time since I've been in a Domino's, and the experience was worth the cost of the pizza. They actually seem to spread the dough by hand, though I didn't see anyone spin it in the air. They have a clever contraption that slides along the assembly line to be positioned over the target and *KAPOW* cover it with cheese bits. They have an authentic-looking paddle for transfering the pie from the preparation belt to the oven belt. They use those clever little tripod lid supports after it goes into the box. All in all worth the money to me, but I wouldn't recommend it to BucSo. Signaturerjv >It's been a long time since I've been in a Domino's Strange thing, the mind. The first Domino's I ever went to was in East Setauket in 1980, with a fellow-Brit who was, like me, working in SUNY in Stony Brook. We got there just before noon. It transpired that the fire station across the street from the Domino's was in the habit of sounding a siren every day at noon, and when this went off my companion, who'd been a child in London during the Blitz, leapt a mile and went quite ashen -- a conditioned reaction to air-raid sirens. And now I can't see the word "Domino's" without it being associated with the sound of that siren. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ } On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:38:03 +0000 (UTC), R J Valentine } <rj@TheWorld.com> wrote: } }>It's been a long time since I've been in a Domino's } } Strange thing, the mind. The first Domino's I ever went to was in } East Setauket in 1980, with a fellow-Brit who was, like me, working in } SUNY in Stony Brook. We got there just before noon. It transpired } that the fire station across the street from the Domino's was in the } habit of sounding a siren every day at noon, and when this went off my } companion, who'd been a child in London during the Blitz, leapt a mile } and went quite ashen -- a conditioned reaction to air-raid sirens. } And now I can't see the word "Domino's" without it being associated } with the sound of that siren. Small world. My niece and nephew both got degrees there (the nephew is still there working on a doctorate). Their mother went to the same college that Al Roker (NBC's weater guy, who was baptized in the same church I was baptized in in St. Albans) went to. I almost went there, myself, after college; but the government made me an offer I couldn't refuse. I'd guess both the niece and nephew ate at the same Domino's. Signaturerjv [...] > Strange thing, the mind. The first Domino's I ever went to was in > East Setauket in 1980, with a fellow-Brit who was, like me, working in > SUNY in Stony Brook. Strange phrase, for me: "working in SUNY". My version of this is "working at SUNY", or to emphasize the location, "working in Stony Brook at SUNY". I might also say "working for SUNY" if I was really an employee thereof. I'd describe my current employment as, "I work at X in CM CA, where I do stuff Y in the Z group. I've been working for X for YTM* years." /dps * Yea These Many >[...] >> Strange thing, the mind. The first Domino's I ever went to was in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"working at SUNY", or to emphasize the location, "working in Stony >Brook at SUNY". And I would probably say "working at SUNY Stony Brook", although one is apparently now supposed to say "working at Stony Brook University".[1] SUNY Buffalo is now supposed to be "University at Buffalo, State University of New York". At some point, the State Colleges all got upgraded as well. -GAWollman [1] Conversationally, "Stony Brook" is usually sufficent. SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>[...] >>> Strange thing, the mind. The first Domino's I ever went to was in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And I would probably say "working at SUNY Stony Brook", Right, that would be standard. "Working at SUNY" seems unlikely to me since SUNY has lots of conceptually distinct (in sufficiently relevant senses -- that is to say, distincter than, say, what particular 'campus' of HP Erk happens to work on, or at). If you work for the central SUNY administration, it would be "work for SUNY" -- or maybe that's one case where "work at SUNY" should be acceptable. > although one > is apparently now supposed to say "working at Stony Brook > University".[1] SUNY Buffalo is now supposed to be "University at > Buffalo, State University of New York". I don't know why they don't just go back to the fine name it had when it was a private university, the "University of Buffalo". SignatureSalvatore Volatile >[...] >> Strange thing, the mind. The first Domino's I ever went to was in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Brook at SUNY". I might also say "working for SUNY" if I was really an >employee thereof. I don't quite know why I didn't write "at", which would have been perfectly reasonable and normal for me. I can't now remember, but I might even have initially wrtten "working in Stony Brook" and then inserted "SUNY" and kept the "in". At any rate, "at" would be unexceptionable here too, but "in" wasn't odd enough to attract my attention. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > I don't quite know why I didn't write "at", which would have been > perfectly reasonable and normal for me. I can't now remember, but I > might even have initially wrtten "working in Stony Brook" and then > inserted "SUNY" and kept the "in". At any rate, "at" would be > unexceptionable here too, but "in" wasn't odd enough to attract my > attention. That's okay, there's no predicting what will jump out at me. And I have to admit I know of Stony Brook only by reputations (it's had more than one in my experience), although a lot New Yahkers went to my modest school. And out here, "Berkeley" is where reporters go, "Cal" is where the students go -- according to an informant offline. /dps > That's okay, there's no predicting what will jump out at me. And I > have to admit I know of Stony Brook only by reputations (it's had more > than one in my experience), although a lot New Yahkers went to my > modest school. New "Yahkers"? You must be CIC. SignatureSalvatore Volatile > > although a lot New Yahkers went to my > > modest school. > > New "Yahkers"? You must be CIC. Sorry, Woosh! My connection to NYC is near Ebbetts Field (at 1 remove), but my classmates came from various points of priviledge. Sons of Seagram's lieutenants and such. I am very proudly an Oregonian, living in exile for lo these many years. /dps >> > although a lot New Yahkers went to my >> > modest school. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am very proudly an Oregonian, living in exile for lo these many > years. Oregonian? CIC then, no doubt (NTTAWWBCIC). SignatureSalvatore Volatile > >> > although a lot New Yahkers went to my > >> > modest school. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Oregonian? CIC then, no doubt (NTTAWWBCIC). Still whooshed ... a quick google didn't help with that one, and I'm sure you don't mean "Commander In Chief". /dps } Salvatore Volatile wrote: }> > }> > Salvatore Volatile wrote: }> >> > although a lot New Yahkers went to my }> >> > modest school. }> >> }> >> New "Yahkers"? You must be CIC. }> > }> > Sorry, Woosh! }> > }> > I am very proudly an Oregonian, living in exile for lo these many }> > years. }> }> Oregonian? CIC then, no doubt (NTTAWWBCIC). } } Still whooshed ... a quick google didn't help with that one, and I'm } sure you don't mean "Commander In Chief". "Cot" is "caught". The other is "CINC", which is the opposite. Signaturerjv > } Salvatore Volatile wrote: > }> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > }> >> > }> >> New "Yahkers"? You must be CIC. [...] > } Still whooshed ... a quick google didn't help with that one, and I'm > } sure you don't mean "Commander In Chief". > > "Cot" is "caught". The other is "CINC", which is the opposite. Ah, yesssss. With that clarification, I am guilty as charged. The October Smithsonian lumps the Northwest dialect into the rest of the west, but the map in the old Websters accompaninying Charlton Laird's introduction showed a spot of New Yahk-ness in Portland floating atop the sea of of Midlands. This abbrev will stay with me for at least a few days, although "CINC" tickles some neurons that are vaguely aware of military designations, and claim to remember this as the military version of "Commander In Chief", perhaps with other letters after to designate theaters (PAC, for instance). Maybe I should poll the navy types in sci.space.* (who probably also visit rec.mil.whatever). /dps ... } This abbrev will stay with me for at least a few days, although "CINC" } tickles some neurons that are vaguely aware of military designations, } and claim to remember this as the military version of "Commander In } Chief", perhaps with other letters after to designate theaters (PAC, } for instance). Maybe I should poll the navy types in sci.space.* (who } probably also visit rec.mil.whatever). No need. You're right. Sparky'll tell you how important that is to him. Plus which somewhere he's got a list of abbreviations in semi-current use in alt.usage.english, most of which I don't think he's thrilled about and all of which can be safely ignored (or at least asked about; nobody's really out to make them too obscure, except maybe SalVo, and the secret there is that "NTTAWW" always means "Not that there's anything wrong with" and the rest is generally in the paragraph above it). Signaturerjv > and the secret > there is that "NTTAWW" always means "Not that there's anything wrong with" > and the rest is generally in the paragraph above it). ;-} Thanks! /dps > [...] >> Strange thing, the mind. The first Domino's I ever went to was in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Brook at SUNY". I might also say "working for SUNY" if I was really an > employee thereof. It's those fun-loving Brits, always pulling shenanigans "in" universities and "on" train stations. Just count yourself lucky it didn't come out "in Stony Brook University" or, worse, "in New York University"--as a Brit not acquainted with local institutions might be tempted to fall into. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > It's those fun-loving Brits, always pulling shenanigans "in" universities > and "on" train stations. Just count yourself lucky it didn't come out "in > Stony Brook University" or, worse, "in New York University"--as a Brit not > acquainted with local institutions might be tempted to fall into. Typically Brits mangle the names of US universities, so that New York University becomes "the University of New York", for example. I'm not sure why this occurs, though even the Brits can't seem to decide whether, say, Cambridge University is actually the University of Cambridge, or verse vicea. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >> It's those fun-loving Brits, always pulling shenanigans "in" universities >> and "on" train stations. Just count yourself lucky it didn't come out "in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >say, Cambridge University is actually the University of Cambridge, or >verse vicea. It doesn't take a Brit. I often see references to the "University of Indiana" when they mean "Indiana University". I don't mind when I see http://www.giftsforprofessionals.com/92588825-ths10235.html but it irritates me to see it in magazines or newspapers. Reputable newspapers, too, that wouldn't write "The London Times". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> It's those fun-loving Brits, always pulling shenanigans "in" >>> universities [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It doesn't take a Brit. I often see references to the "University of > Indiana" when they mean "Indiana University". The point is that IU has got an official order to its name and people care about it. Cambridge and Oxford and all the rest seems totally indifferent to this, quite irrespective of whether or not they have the name one way round as their legal or official name in English (and no one seems to know or care). Brits flip back and forth between saying or writing "Oxford University" and "the University of Oxford" with the sort of gay insouciance that North American academics can only dream about. It's kind of amusing to hear Brits talk about "California University" (e.g., Berkeley, which they mostly know not to pronouce as "Barclay" when they thing about it). "California University" is of course the fictional institution where the gang from the TV program "Beverly Hills 90210" received their tertiary education, not to be confused with the multi-campus and statewide University of California, nor with California State University (likewise multi-campus and statewide), nor with the University of Southern California (a private university in Los Angeles). SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. [...] > It's been a long time since I've been in a Domino's, and the experience > was worth the cost of the pizza. They actually seem to spread the dough > by hand, though I didn't see anyone spin it in the air. Seems to me that in the smaller Domino's, many moons ago, that hand-tossing was done -- not up like in the competitions, just enough to spin it to thin it out. All ingredients were pre-measured, to avoid guess work that might make the pizza *too* well covered (and increase company cost). /dps >>> Not at all. That's the traditional usage. The newfangled one is >>> the one you hear in "I own my own home". I would argue that a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yes, but Areff's next line of defense is "But what *street* in > Brooklyn?" This one I can answer. It was a letter by an E. Stillman Doubleday, who gave his address as 700 Lafayette Avenue. And the context makes it clear that he's talkng about "the corner opposite my window". So what do you say, Richard? Brooklyn enough for you? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Yes, but Areff's next line of defense is "But what *street* in >> Brooklyn?" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So what do you say, Richard? Brooklyn enough for you? Yes, yes. I think that's in or around what's now Bed-Stuy. Well, I still say something's not quite right. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >Coop wrote: >> I think you're fighting a losing battle if you think that "home" is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >"maternal parent" rather than for the meaning "one's own mother, regarded >in a familial context". As a step-father, I am reminded of the old adage "anyone guy with sperm can be a father, but not just any guy can be a dad." >But I suppose there's something more to it than that -- it's a political >issue of some sort, I think. For example, I think that real estate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I'll bet if you went back to examine usages in your childhood you'd see >"home" used in a much more confined manner. Like the very old saying "home is where the hearth is"? Or Or would you prefer the old saws to say stuff like "there's no place like house"? Most languages cannot distinguish between a home and a house. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] > It reminds me quite a bit of another change (or dialect difference that > maybe was long there) I've seen happen in AmE, which is the generalized > use of "mom" and "dad" in place of "mother" and "father". That is to say, > "a mom" has become a replacement for "a mother" as a generic term for > "maternal parent" rather than for the meaning "one's own mother, regarded > in a familial context". [...] Over here, too; and it infuriates me. It's almost as though journos and broadcasters have decided that "mother" and "father" are slightly near-the-knuckle words which need to be euphemised. Ditto "kids". Hell, Jenni Murray and the rest don't even know what I call my mother -- and it isn't "Mum". Many are the happy seconds I've spent suppressing "mum" in copy and substituting "mother". SignatureMike. > I live in a house, but that house is my home. Any statement that > "home" is just some real estate agent's attempt to personalize > something being purchased or sold is just prattle. Was it a home before you moved into it? (I'm assuming here that the previous occupants had already moved out, or that it was a previously unoccupied house.) I contend that it wasn't, and that's what irks me about the real-estate jargon. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >> I live in a house, but that house is my home. Any statement that >> "home" is just some real estate agent's attempt to personalize [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >unoccupied house.) I contend that it wasn't, and that's what irks me >about the real-estate jargon. Not that it makes a difference to your point, but I designed the house and had it built. It was a homesite (sic) before I moved in. I have previously posted that an unoccupied residence is a house. It is only a home when a family lives there. I don't find it irritating that real estate agents use "home" to describe unoccupied residences. "House" and "home" are interchanged enough in normal usage that this particular usage doesn't stand out. I have more objection to the use of words like "spacious" in ads to describe houses that are cramped little boxes. "Home" is not misleading and does not create a false impression. Other words used in ads are and do. Still, real estate agents are no more guilty of misleading statements than the majority of advertisers of products. At least, in real estate, the interested person gets to examine the product before purchase. You have to buy the book or the ticket to find out that a book's cover or a movie ad is completely misleading and patently false. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> I live in a house, but that house is my home. Any statement that >> "home" is just some real estate agent's attempt to personalize [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unoccupied house.) I contend that it wasn't, and that's what irks me > about the real-estate jargon. As Hal David put it (with the help of Burt Bacharach): A chair is still a chair, even when there's no one sittin' there But a chair is not a house and a house is not a home When there's no one there to hold you tight And no one there you can kiss goodnight SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> I live in a house, but that house is my home. Any statement that >>> "home" is just some real estate agent's attempt to personalize [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >When there's no one there to hold you tight >And no one there you can kiss goodnight Well, that should end the discussion on this, but I fear it won't. SignatureCharles Riggs >>>>Do other parts of the world have the equivalent of the Australian >>>>'on-site-van' - a caravan that can be rented by the night like a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >an interesting discussion point in a usage group, but it's not a point >that can be taken to the real world of usage and taken seriously. Are you wondering whether I'm all that serious? If we can prattle on and on about hamburgers and sandwiches over the years, I can mention usages of "home" now and again. SignatureCharles Riggs Why is it that tornados seem to be > attracted to caravan sites? You always see pictures of devastated > caravan sites when they are reporting high winds on the telly. Given the flimsiness of the structures, they probably suffer more. And there is more drama in an upturned caravan than a tile-denuded roof. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) [...] > Do other parts of the world have the equivalent of the Australian > 'on-site-van' - a caravan that can be rented by the night like a > simple apartment. We found them a very cheap way to stay > overnight when travelling about Australia, but I don't think I've > come across them elsewhere. [...] You'll find them in the UK too: I remember staying in a surprisingly comfortable and well-appointed one with the family in about '84, but I don't remember how we found out about it. And years ago my parents kept a holiday caravan on a small site by the seaside in Mid Wales: I know some of the other ones were rented out by their owners, so the practice is well enough established. SignatureMike. >[...] >> Do other parts of the world have the equivalent of the Australian [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >some of the other ones were rented out by their owners, so the practice >is well enough established. We did the same, WIWAL. I remember locking the whole family out and having to wait until the owner came back from the pub before we could get back in. It's being able to turn up and rent one for the night, which doesn't seem to be widely available in the UK, whereas, in Aus, it is/was frequently advertised. Mike Page > Mike Page wrote: [...] >> Do other parts of the world have the equivalent of the Australian >> 'on-site-van' - a caravan that can be rented by the night like a >> simple apartment. We found them a very cheap way to stay overnight >> when travelling about Australia, but I don't think I've come across >> them elsewhere. [...] They became my family's choice of holiday home after my knees complained too loudly about tent camping. (Although tent camping does allow you to get to more picturesque and less crowded places.) Subsequently I came to realise that they were a more sensible choice than a motel when having to stop overnight on a long drive. The sign you see from the road usually says "O'Nite Vans" - sometimes without the apostrophe - which can be confusing if you don't know the system. More and more often such places are offering "cabins", which are permanent structures that are marginally more luxurious than a caravan. (And more comfortable, I'd imagine, than a one-star hotel.) These, unfortunately, usually have to be booked well in advance, unless you're travelling outside the popular times. > You'll find them in the UK too: I wish they were available more widely. Right now I'm in the middle of trying to work out how to visit a small village in Ireland between Christmas and New Year without breaking the budget, a budget that has already been severely strained by the Australia/Europe air fares. I think I'm now close to figuring out how the buses work, but the available accommodation appears to be in hotels whose prices are, by Australian standards, five-star prices. It appears that the more economical solutions (guest houses, etc.) all close down over winter. And I don't really fancy pitching a tent in the snow. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they >are planted, with their wheels forever removed. Two questions. Is "mobile home" reserved for the huge all-in-one things -- and a subquestion: if so, what's the diff between a mobile home and a winnebago? And isn't "caravan", the BrE word for the type designed to be towed (although often left permanently on "caravan sites", à la AmE trailers in trailer parks), used in AmE? SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) > Two questions. Is "mobile home" reserved for the huge all-in-one > things -- and a subquestion: if so, what's the diff between a mobile > home and a winnebago? I'm no expert (= SAfrE "fundi") on these matters, but a Winnebago is a kind of "RV" (recreational vee-hickle) of the sort favored by Sparky and other Western United States Speakers (WUSSes) for actual travel. A mobile home is meant to serve as an actual home in a stationary sort of sense. The official US legislato-regulatory euphemism for mobile home is "manufactured home" (or is it "manufactured house"?). > And isn't "caravan", the BrE word for the type > designed to be towed (although often left permanently on "caravan > sites", à la AmE trailers in trailer parks), used in AmE? Never. There are trailers, RVs and mobile homes. In my dialect, "trailer" can be used informally to refer to all three (I suppose with increasing levels of disparagingness; cf. the term "trailer trash" to refer to the people who live in mobile home communities). Some purists like Sparky and, I think, Coop have objected to this, but its existence as common usage can't be denied. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >> Two questions. Is "mobile home" reserved for the huge all-in-one >> things -- and a subquestion: if so, what's the diff between a mobile [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The official US legislato-regulatory euphemism for mobile home is >"manufactured home" (or is it "manufactured house"?). No. A "manufactured home" is one made in parts at some central location as a sort of kit and then assembled at the site. It has no wheels (although it may be partially assembled and transported on temporary wheels); it will be permanently set on a lot somewhere. When I was on a job in Kansas we rented a home that looke pretty much like all the others in the neighborhood, including a basement. But it was a manufactured home with a manufacturers nameplate in the hallway. >> And isn't "caravan", the BrE word for the type >> designed to be towed (although often left permanently on "caravan [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >like Sparky and, I think, Coop have objected to this, but its existence >as common usage can't be denied. One of the differences between a mobile home and a Winnebago is that a Winnebago has a motor, being a large sort of bus or truck, while a mobile home is towed to its site. But a Winnebago might be called a "motor home"; it is also an RV. Some RVs are also towed, not being powered, but unlike your typical mobile home, are ready to go on a moment's notice, while mobile homes become somewhat temporarily permanent. Many mobile homes are left in one place so long they become immobile without a great deal of work. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * The Hatunen entity posted thusly: >>> Two questions. Is "mobile home" reserved for the huge all-in-one >>> things -- and a subquestion: if so, what's the diff between a mobile [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >on temporary wheels); it will be permanently set on a lot >somewhere. Again, it depends on where you are. If I say "manufactured home", most people I know will think "trailer", or "mobile home". If I say "prefab home", most people I know will think of what you just talked about, a house that is built is sections and put together at the lot or site where it will stay. The pieces may be small, (walls, largish floor sections, etc.) or large (entire rooms and sections of roof, etc.). >When I was on a job in Kansas we rented a home that looke pretty >much like all the others in the neighborhood, including a >basement. But it was a manufactured home with a manufacturers >nameplate in the hallway. We call that an RTM (Ready To Move). The entire house is pre-built somewhere (currently there are two RTMs being built on a lot in the town nearest me, and another being built in the lot of a lumberyard). When these are finished, they will be placed on a large flatbed trailer and towed to their final site. The two in town I mentioned are destined for another province entirely, a trip of about 1500 km or so. Turns out it's the best option because of a scarcity of construction workers in the destination province. Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat..com> had it: > The Hatunen entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Again, it depends on where you are. If I say "manufactured home", most > people I know will think "trailer", or "mobile home". That would not be the understood meaning in the UK. Actually, "manufactured home" doesn't have a readily understood meaning in the UK. Caves might not be manufactured, but all other homes are. SignatureDavid ===== > Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat..com> had it: >> Again, it depends on where you are. If I say "manufactured home", >> most people I know will think "trailer", or "mobile home". > > That would not be the understood meaning in the UK. Actually, > "manufactured home" doesn't have a readily understood meaning in the > UK. Caves might not be manufactured, but all other homes are. We do have prefabs, though. >> Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat..com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >We do have prefabs, though. We also have sectional housing. In Omrud territory: http://www.warrington.gov.uk/images/spg_Burtonwood&CollinsGreenSummary&Guideline s_tcm15-3933.pdf Google's HTML version of the above: http://tinyurl.com/yxo23z Burtonwood & Collins Green Village Design Statement <blah, blah, blah> New buildings should be well designed and properly proportioned and where possible make use of traditional materials and local features so that they enhance the village scene. No three-storey housing should be built where such development would be visually obtrusive in the generally flat landscape. --> No concrete sectional housing to be erected. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat..com> had it: [...] > > >No. A "manufactured home" is one made in parts at some central > > >location as a sort of kit and then assembled at the site. It has [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "manufactured home" doesn't have a readily understood meaning in the > UK. Caves might not be manufactured, but all other homes are. In the modern sense of "manufactured", as in "built in factory", most homes above cave-level use manufactured *components*, but are site-assembled. "Manufactured home" or (in some areas) "modular home" are pre-built in a factory (which may be an open lot, or it may be indoors -- I've seen pics in magazines, but haven't googled for them) to at least a large section of a wall or floor. These pre-assembled sections are then transported to a destination, and then a smaller crew does final assembly. In a site assembled house, 1 person can do almost the whole thing (given something to fasten the block-and-tackle on ;-} ), but it takes forever. More common is for a team to work on it, and these days there are usually specialists, but they are still taking individual components and building the home in-place. 1 2x4 at a time for the framing, 1 sheet of plywood at a time for the exterior or the underlayment, 1 piece of gyp board at a time for the interior. Often pieces are cut to size only when they are about to be nailed in place. For the factory-built housing, the 2x4s are already hidden behind the panelling and plywood by the time they reach the customer. Also, the cutting-to-length of the 2x4s may have been ahead of time, and the different lengths warehoused for a short time, with the assemblers just pulling what they need from the proper bin. /dps [...] > For the factory-built housing, the 2x4s are already hidden behind the > panelling and plywood by the time they reach the customer. Okay, here I'm talking about the final location > Also, the > cutting-to-length of the 2x4s may have been ahead of time, and the > different lengths warehoused for a short time, with the assemblers just > pulling what they need from the proper bin. And here, I've switched back to the factory. /dps Single-threaded? What's that? >The Hatunen entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Again, it depends on where you are. If I say "manufactured home", most >people I know will think "trailer", or "mobile home". That is a misconception that the manufacturers of manufactured homes would like to get rid of. >If I say "prefab >home", most people I know will think of what you just talked about, a >house that is built is sections and put together at the lot or site >where it will stay. The pieces may be small, (walls, largish floor >sections, etc.) or large (entire rooms and sections of roof, etc.). Oddly enough, I haven't seen or heard the phrase "pre-fab home" since the early 1950s. >>When I was on a job in Kansas we rented a home that looke pretty >>much like all the others in the neighborhood, including a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >When these are finished, they will be placed on a large flatbed >trailer and towed to their final site. No, I don't think so. The house was obviously a "double-wide", with an obvious seam down the center. It was apparently hauled in two halves on trucks. >The two in town I mentioned are >destined for another province entirely, a trip of about 1500 km or so. >Turns out it's the best option because of a scarcity of construction >workers in the destination province. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > > Two questions. Is "mobile home" reserved for the huge all-in-one > > things -- and a subquestion: if so, what's the diff between a mobile > > home and a winnebago? > I'm no expert (= SAfrE "fundi") on these matters, but a Winnebago is a > kind of "RV" (recreational vee-hickle) of the sort favored by Sparky and > other Western United States Speakers (WUSSes) for actual travel. A mobile > home is meant to serve as an actual home in a stationary sort of sense. > The official US legislato-regulatory euphemism for mobile home is > "manufactured home" (or is it "manufactured house"?). > > And isn't "caravan", the BrE word for the type > > designed to be towed (although often left permanently on "caravan > > sites", à la AmE trailers in trailer parks), used in AmE? > Never. There are trailers, RVs and mobile homes. In my dialect, > "trailer" can be used informally to refer to all three (I suppose with > increasing levels of disparagingness; cf. the term "trailer trash" to > refer to the people who live in mobile home communities). Some purists > like Sparky and, I think, Coop have objected to this, but its existence > as common usage can't be denied. I would rephrase that to "ignorant usage can't be denied". A trailer is a wheeled carrier that is towed by a motor vehicle. "Trailer" embraces everything from little cargo trailers that are big enough to haul a load of trash to the dump to fifth wheelers that may be forty or so feet long and will have most of the comforts of home. A trailer that is to be lived in while vacationing or weekending is called a travel trailer to distinguish it from a cargo trailer. But "trailer" is widely understood to mean "travel trailer". It's a widespread error to call a fifth wheeler a "fifth wheel". (Come to think of it, the term may be so pervasive that it's no longer considered an error, but there will always be nitpickers who will call you on it.) The fifth wheel is a mechanism in the bed of a truck that provides the support for the nose of the trailer. A fifth wheeler is a travel trailer that uses a fifth wheel for attachment to the tow vehicle. A motor home is a vehicle that contains most of the comforts of home and has it's own engine and drive train. Motor homes come in sizes from about eighteen feet to forty or more feet. They can in no proper sense be called trailers. Winnebago is one brand of motor home. "Winnebago" is to "motor home" as "Kellogg's" is to "corn flakes". "RV" stands for "recreational vehicle". In theory it embraces trailers and motor homes, but when most informed people say "RV" they mean "motor home". A camper is a live-in-able box that's carried on the bed of a truck. It can be removed while the truck is being used for other purposes. The camper usually has an extension that projects over the roof of the cab and contains one of the beds. The bigger campers extend a few feet beyond the back end of the truck bed, so there's room for, again, most of the comforts of home. "Mobile home" refers to a vehicle that in theory can be towed, but in practice mobile homes are installed in mobile-home parks, where they remain as long as the owner and the landlord get along, or until the owner has some other reason for wanting to move. It's standard procedure to engage a house moving company to move a mobile home from one location to another. Mobile homes normally have visible wheels in place, because--in California anyway--they would be taxed differently if they were not theoretically towable. (That's thirty-year-old information; I wonder if it's still true.) Manufactured homes are made of large sections that are built in a factory and assembled on the owner's lot. They are in no sense recreational vehicles. A caravan is, so far as I know, what the British call our travel trailer. My own experience in this area has mostly been limited to the ownership of three different travel trailers over a period of about twenty five years, although we had rented a motor home for one vacation and a tent trailer for another before we bought our first travel trailer. We sold our last trailer a few months ago. Oh yeah, "tent trailer". A tent trailer is like a hard-sided travel trailer, but the sides are canvas. The whole thing is collapsed into the bed of the trailer while it's not to be used for living purposes. The hard roof of the trailer becomes the cover of the cargo compartment. The height of the cargo compartment when the structure is collapsed is something like two to three feet, so the trailer with its low wind resistance is marvelous for towing. I think I've seen "tent trailers" that had collapsible hard sides. One of our more prolific alt.usage.english contributors said years ago that RV's, motor homes, trailers, and campers can all be properly called campers. If he still says that, he's as wrong as ever. >Manufactured homes are made of large sections that are built >in a factory and assembled on the owner's lot. They are in >no sense recreational vehicles. That's a "modular home". The mobile home industry has adopted "manufactured home" as the new name for their product. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL ... } "Mobile home" refers to a vehicle that in theory can be } towed, but in practice mobile homes are installed in } mobile-home parks, where they remain as long as the owner } and the landlord get along, or until the owner has some } other reason for wanting to move. It's standard procedure } to engage a house moving company to move a mobile home from } one location to another. Mobile homes normally have visible } wheels in place, because--in California anyway--they would } be taxed differently if they were not theoretically towable. } (That's thirty-year-old information; I wonder if it's still } true.) ... How about double-wides? Are they mobile homes? Do they have them in California? Do wheels have to be showing on both wides? Erk'll know. Did you notice how people are talking like Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Signaturerjv > ... > } "Mobile home" refers to a vehicle that in theory can be [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Speaker? > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know that on Monday there was some conjecture about the battle she would have to be elected Speaker--going up agains Conyers and other committee chairmen. Now that the issue becomes real, I don't hear a word about it. Late last night some commontaters were even talking about how she isn't a typical leftish SF/CA politico(a), but had some Maryland stock in her background. Isn't Areff's Steny from there? Frankly, if we can just stop labeling people by the regions they come from, we might not have to fight the Civil War all over. But then, Bush goes and nominates still another Texan. Doesn't he know anyone from outside that area? >> Did you notice how people are talking like Nancy Pelosi will be >> Speaker? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about how she isn't a typical leftish SF/CA politico(a), but had some > Maryland stock in her background. Isn't that a bit of a non sequitur? There was something silly in one of the BrE news publications -- _The Guardian_, I think -- that suggested that the "east coast conservatives" were trembling at the thought of Pelosi becoming Speaker. Huh? California may be a blue state, but it's a lot redder than any of the Northeastern states that properly form the East Coast (LCIA). I'll grant you that Pelosi's district is about as blue as you can get in the US, particularly west of the Mississippi. Do the British journalists think of the South as being "the east coast"? > Isn't Areff's Steny from there? Steny Hoyer is from Laurel, Md. Nancy D'Alessandro Pelosi is originally from Baltimore. Incidentally, if elected speaker, she would become the first Italian-American speaker of the House of Representatives (and the first woman speaker as well). Truly. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >Do the British journalists think of the South as being "the east >coast"? That's certainly what a normal person would expect from the geography. After all, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida are all *on* the east coast. They're just not the "East Coast", and that's not a distinction you would expect a non-local to understand. (And you don't have to go very far inland to find some fairly red bits: Western New York is little different, culturally, from other North Coast regions. Tom Reynolds was re-elected -- but so was Louise Slaughter.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>Do the British journalists think of the South as being "the east >>coast"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > coast. They're just not the "East Coast", and that's not a > distinction you would expect a non-local to understand. Point. > (And you > don't have to go very far inland to find some fairly red bits: Western > New York is little different, culturally, from other North Coast > regions. Well, I'm the one here who gets in trouble for saying Upstate New York is in the Midwest. Some people don't realize that Ithaca is (metaphorically) flat. Still, I think Western New York is a fair amount bluer than its cultural cousin regions in the Upper Midwest proper. Big cities aside, and I've always argued that a city like Chicago (TLCIA), nominally blue, is culturally quite conservative even if it is solidly (though rather moderately) Democratic. The axing of Donald Rumsfeld, a native and lifelong resident of the Chicago region, is deeply significant; it represents a blow to Chicago, among other things. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >>>Do the British journalists think of the South as being "the east >>>coast"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Point. Actually, I think most moderately world-aware Brits would expect the US "East Coast" to end where "the South" begins. For me at least, what I assume Americans mean by the "East Coast" is roughly what you pass through travelling from Maryland and New England. A puzzle: There are probably a few areas that are a good distance from the coast that I've always assumed were part of what people refer to as "(back) East" if not the East Coast proper -- wouldn't Pittsburgh (and other W. Pennsylvania stuff) qualify? It's certainly not in the Midwest, is it? Or is there some kind of buffer strip between the "Midwest" and the "East Coast" whose name has escaped me? SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) > A puzzle: There are probably a few areas that are a good distance from > the coast that I've always assumed were part of what people refer to > as "(back) East" if not the East Coast proper -- wouldn't Pittsburgh > (and other W. Pennsylvania stuff) qualify? It's certainly not in the > Midwest, is it? Or is there some kind of buffer strip between the > "Midwest" and the "East Coast" whose name has escaped me? I think the buffer strip is called "Pennsylvania". It's a big place, especially measured from east to west. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > > A puzzle: There are probably a few areas that are a good distance from > > the coast that I've always assumed were part of what people refer to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I think the buffer strip is called "Pennsylvania". It's a big place, > especially measured from east to west. More specifically, the Alleghenies? Being on one side of a mountain range tends to emotionally distance you from the kids on the other side. /dps >>> A puzzle: There are probably a few areas that are a good distance >>> from the coast that I've always assumed were part of what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > range tends to emotionally distance you from the kids on the other > side. All of a sudden I've reached a clearer understanding of that Dylan song "With God on Our Side". You've even explained why Mohamet must go to the mountain. Thank you. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >>>> A puzzle: There are probably a few areas that are a good distance >>>> from the coast that I've always assumed were part of what [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "With God on Our Side". You've even explained why Mohamet must go to the > mountain. Thank you. All 's I know is that when I drove across Penna. I started in what was clearly a Northeastern state (New Jersey) and ended up in what was equally clearly a midwestern one (Ohio). Eastern Pennsylvania is in the East; western Pa. is, well, western Pa. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > All 's I know is that when I drove across Penna. I started in what was > clearly a Northeastern state (New Jersey) and ended up in what was equally > clearly a midwestern one (Ohio). Eastern Pennsylvania is in the East; > western Pa. is, well, western Pa. Oh, another thing I've observed (here) is that even when you're still in Eastern Pennsylvania you start to get lots of evangelical fire 'n' brimstone Christian radio stations as you drive into Penna., as well as their fellow travellers, country music stations. Pennsylvania is, clearly, a culturally transitional state. Another thing I noticed on my first trip 'cross country was that once you get into Western Pennsylvania you stop seeing very many nonwhite people and all the white people have very blond hair. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >Oh, another thing I've observed (here) is that even when you're still in >Eastern Pennsylvania you start to get lots of evangelical fire 'n' >brimstone Christian radio stations as you drive into Penna., as well as >their fellow travellers, country music stations. Um, we have those in eastern New England in pretty decent numbers. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > <...> Eastern Pennsylvania is in the East; > western Pa. is, well, western Pa. Western Pennsylvania is in the Midwest because the people there call sweetened carbonized beverages "pop". > Actually, I think most moderately world-aware Brits would expect the > US "East Coast" to end where "the South" begins. That's pretty much how I'd define things. > For me at least, what > I assume Americans mean by the "East Coast" is roughly what you pass > through travelling from Maryland and New England. Well, that's unclear unless by that last "and" you meant "to". Maryland was, arguably, once in the South, but I've always thought of it as an East Coast state. It may be said that the East Coast is moving southward, and now includes, in addition to the District of Columbia, the Erkesque suburban sprawl of northern Virginia. Query what "Mid-Atlantic" means. > A puzzle: There are probably a few areas that are a good distance from > the coast that I've always assumed were part of what people refer to > as "(back) East" if not the East Coast proper -- wouldn't Pittsburgh > (and other W. Pennsylvania stuff) qualify? It's certainly not in the > Midwest, is it? Or is there some kind of buffer strip between the > "Midwest" and the "East Coast" whose name has escaped me? It shows you the non-usefulness of the standard definitions. We think of Pennsylvania as an East Coast state. But culturally (and even visually) speaking, western Pennsylvania is hardly distinguishable from eastern Ohio. (This extends to politics, too: eastern Pennsylvania is bluer, like the solidly blue East Coast, but as you get into western Pennsylvania you enter redder [though not blood-red] country, which, along with Pennsylvania's large population, makes it a very important state in national elections, much as Ohio is a very important state.) Something similar applies to New York State. Western New York state is even more clearly Midwestern in culture than western Pennsylvania is. Having said all that, I've driven westward through Pennsylvania many times, and I've always felt like some big cultural border is passed when you enter Ohio. Likewise, travelling back in the other direction, I feel like I'm "almost back in normal country" when I cross the Pennsylvania border. There's something deeply frightening about Ohio, I think. SignatureBuckwheat Soba ... } Well, that's unclear unless by that last "and" you meant "to". Maryland } was, arguably, once in the South, but I've always thought of it as an East } Coast state. It may be said that the East Coast is moving southward, and } now includes, in addition to the District of Columbia, the Erkesque } suburban sprawl of northern Virginia. "Once"? "Arguably"? I've seen more Confederate flags here in Cecil County (quite possibly the county with the most Mason-Dixon Line adjacent to it of all counties in the world, but I haven't checked that) in the last year (hanging from cranes adjacent to the Interstate as you enter the county, on the backs of pickup trucks, flying from the backs of tractors at the tractor pull at the county fair, and so on) in the last year than I ever have anywhere else ever. Until the Bush Massacre of 2006 we even had a Republican Governor. It's not for nothing that they call Maryland "America in Miniature". DC and NoVa are of course part of the Fourth Largest Metropolitan Area in America and get their coastishness from that. } Query what "Mid-Atlantic" means. ... Governed by Verizon (Once the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company). Signaturerjv >> Actually, I think most moderately world-aware Brits would expect the >> US "East Coast" to end where "the South" begins. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >now includes, in addition to the District of Columbia, the Erkesque >suburban sprawl of northern Virginia. I agree, south to Manassas. SignatureCharles Riggs [...] > Still, I think Western New York is a fair amount bluer than its cultural > cousin regions in the Upper Midwest proper. Big cities aside, and I've > always argued that a city like Chicago (TLCIA), nominally blue, is > culturally quite conservative even if it is solidly (though rather > moderately) Democratic. A study noted in a recent issue of Sci Am concludes that "red state, blue state" is a fiction pushed by those wanting easy-to-draw conclusions from the 2K and 2K+4 elections, and not supported by looking at actual voter attitudes. Almost all states are more blended then the electoral vote indicated. So we should talk about how purple your state/county/city/ward is, maybe. /dps > [...] >> Still, I think Western New York is a fair amount bluer than its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > conclusions from the 2K and 2K+4 elections, and not supported by > looking at actual voter attitudes. Of course. I think the description of red and blue states doesn't indicate any actual study, but the actual election determination as depicted on one or the other of the national TV networks. The fact that people are judging the overall attitudes of the voters (conservative or liberal) based on the outcome of the 2000 presidential election shows the oversimplification that commentators are prone to use. It's called "talking down to the audience", and has no relationship to the actual issues at stake then and now. We can like a candidate because he has charisma, and that may be enough to persuade voters to elect him, but the underlying issues (lies and misleading proposals, war, and border security) remain until the electorate votes on the issues. Then the voters show their true colors. Come to think of it, I haven't looked at any maps since Tuesday to see how the nation looks today, with the final Senate and House decisions painted in. Wisconsin, my state, I think was blue in 2000, but I think we went even deeper blue now, since one conservative US Rep retired, and his Republican replacement lost. Still, we have one of the most conservative representatives in James Sensenbrenner. And in our state house, while the gov is typical libDem, his victory margin was less than expected, and the state atty general is very conservative--pro gun, pro death penalty and pro same-sex marriage ban (the latter 2 items were on referenda that passed easily). We gave up the death penalty in Wisconsin back in 1857. . .and they want it back after 150 years. I don't even think the ultra conservatives are making the headway here. It is the less reputable branch of the libertarian movement, stirring up the hotbed of the posse comitatus movement. They just do it by stealth, now, and lies. ... } I know that on Monday there was some conjecture about the battle she } would have to be elected Speaker--going up agains Conyers and other } committee chairmen. Now that the issue becomes real, I don't hear a } word about it. Late last night some commontaters were even talking } about how she isn't a typical leftish SF/CA politico(a), but had some } Maryland stock in her background. Isn't Areff's Steny from there? Areff knows where his bread is buttered. Steny represents the 5th Congressional District in Maryland (and has since Gladys Noon Spellman [of Parkway fame] died at the Laurel Mall; before that he was President of the Senate in Maryland ["America in Miniature"]), and has been re-elected with ever-increasing landslides, even after the Republican redistricting put him in the middle of one of the most conservative districts in Maryland (while still including Laurel proper, at the heart of the FLMAIA). He was Minority Whip when Nancy Pelosi leapfrogged over him to become Minority Leader, and probably remembers how leapfrogging works. He's still Minority Whip, and the election for Speaker won't be until there is a vacancy. Anybody who allows a reporter to address her as "Madame Speaker To-be" is presumptuous in the extreme, at least by reflection. But she of course is from the FLMAIA, also. Even I spent most of my life there. Even Trey has [= BrE "have"] visited there. ObAUE: "Commontaters": good one. } Frankly, if we can just stop labeling people by the regions they come } from, we might not have to fight the Civil War all over. But then, Bush } goes and nominates still another Texan. Doesn't he know anyone from } outside that area? Soon they'll be saying the same thing about the Laurelplex (FLMAIA: you heard it here first on alt.usage.english). Signaturerjv > ObAUE: "Commontaters": good one. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you > heard it here first on alt.usage.english). Holding my breath. Not. > I'm no expert (= SAfrE "fundi") on these matters, but a Winnebago is a > kind of "RV" (recreational vee-hickle) of the sort favored by Sparky and > other Western United States Speakers (WUSSes) for actual travel. Huh. My wife's grandparents are the only people I know well with an RV of that sort, and they're from Maine. > > And isn't "caravan", the BrE word for the type > > designed to be towed (although often left permanently on "caravan > > sites", à la AmE trailers in trailer parks), used in AmE? > > Never. There are trailers, RVs and mobile homes. As surprising as it seems to me, Bucky is not wrong here. The only usage I see for "caravan" is when several people (at least 3; you can't have a caravan of only 2) are driving to the same destination, and only the person in front knows how to get there. There are special techniques required for caravaning that are not immediately obvious to many people (which case is frustrating for those of us trying to follow them). > In my dialect, "trailer" can be used informally to refer to all > three (I suppose with increasing levels of disparagingness; cf. the > term "trailer trash" to refer to the people who live in mobile home > communities). Some purists like Sparky and, I think, Coop have > objected to this, but its existence as common usage can't be denied. I also object; 'trailer' is used for mobile homes and tow-behind campers, but never for RVs. -=Eric >>It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >>these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they >>are planted, with their wheels forever removed. > >Two questions. Is "mobile home" reserved for the huge all-in-one >things Not in the US. Any trailer - the type that is placed on a lot as a residence - is a mobile home, and any mobile home is a trailer. The choice of word/term is based on how you want the accommodation perceived. If you want to describe the accommodation as a low-class place where "trailer trash" live, you use "trailer". If you want to describe the accommodation as an acceptable place where nice people live, you use "mobile home". >-- and a subquestion: if so, what's the diff between a mobile >home and a winnebago? "Winnebago" should be capitalized since it is a brand name. Winnebago Industries makes RVs (recreational vehicles) or Motor Homes. They are self-contained and self-propelled travel vehicles like http://www.mnstate.edu/wasson/winnebago.jpg . The word has become almost generic since "Winnebago" may be used to describe some other maker's product, but it would describe a similar vehicle. A "mobile home" is permanently placed. It can be moved, but they are normally placed in one location as a permanent residence at that location. They are shipped from the factory with wheels for transporting them to their eventual location, but the wheels are removed when the mobile home is installed. The unit is usually placed on a built-up foundation of blocks and then tied-down with steel straps and wires. There's another classification of RV that is towed behind a car and used by vacationers or campers. http://www.wilderrv.com/Ameri-Camp_TT.jpg or http://www.lightweight-rv-news.com/images/chalet_rv.jpg These might be called "travel trailers" or "camper trailers", but the industry prefers to call them RVs. The word "trailer" by itself, in the US, is generally used only to describe a utility trailer: http://www.trlrs.com/5X9utility.jpg used to haul things. (The exception is the person who uses "trailer" to describe a mobile home in a derogatory way.) I'll leave "caravan" to be explained by someone in the UK since we don't use that term in the US in the same way it's used in the UK. We use "caravan" to mean a group of trucks or cars going the same place by an affiliated group. For example, if we go to a sports event in a different city, and a group of us go in separate cars, we say we are going to "caravan" over there. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL [...] > I'll leave "caravan" to be explained by someone in the UK since we > don't use that term in the US in the same way it's used in the UK. We > use "caravan" to mean a group of trucks or cars going the same place > by an affiliated group. For example, if we go to a sports event in a > different city, and a group of us go in separate cars, we say we are > going to "caravan" over there. It also has the historical "romantic" connotations associated with Marco Polo and the Silk Road. Then there's The Doors' song, "Spanish Caravan". I couldn't tell you if they are using the historical sense or the Brito-Continental sense, although the references to galleons is perhaps a clue. Or a red herring. /dps [...] > >Two questions. Is "mobile home" reserved for the huge all-in-one > >things > > Not in the US. Any trailer - the type that is placed on a lot as a > residence - is a mobile home, and any mobile home is a trailer. [...] See picture links in my earlier post for the UK difference. > A "mobile home" is permanently placed. It can be moved, but they are > normally placed in one location as a permanent residence at that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on a built-up foundation of blocks and then tied-down with steel > straps and wires. [...] Same here; but the wheels and chassis of UK ones wouldn't be up to a road journey. They're there mainly to stop the house being called a permanent structure, but partly to help move it into position once it's arrived on a flat-bed. > I'll leave "caravan" to be explained by someone in the UK since we > don't use that term in the US in the same way it's used in the UK. [...] See my picture links again. SignatureMike. >>>It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >>>these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >on a built-up foundation of blocks and then tied-down with steel >straps and wires. I don't beleive that's quite right. Manufactured homes are permanently placed and any transit wheels are removed, the home usually being placed on a prepared foundation. Manufactured homes are usually wider than a trailer, at least twice as wide. Although you will see mobile homes with the wheels removed in some trailer/mobile home parks, they remain mobile homes, although as the ownere sets it more and more permanently the line can become a bit vague. >There's another classification of RV that is towed behind a car and >used by vacationers or campers. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >describe a utility trailer: http://www.trlrs.com/5X9utility.jpg used >to haul things. Hm. In my part of the country those things you live or camp in have always been "trailers". Despite the uspscaling of the terminology, there are still many trailer parks around. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>>It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >>>>these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >usually being placed on a prepared foundation. Manufactured homes >are usually wider than a trailer, at least twice as wide. The only difference between what I have said and what you have said is that you have used "permanently placed" and I have said they "can be moved". Well, they *can* be moved. In Florida, it's fairly common for someone to purchase a mobile home park (trailer park/manufactured home park) with the intent of converting that property to a shopping center or some other use. In the case, the manufactured homes may be moved to other sites. There's a cost factor and certain other building code factors involved in whether or not they can be moved. Current rules are that mobile homes (manufactured homes is just another industry-coined term for a mobile home or trailer) are built on a permanent steel chassis and equipped with hurricane-proof tie-downs. If the unit is fairly new, and meets current code for the new site, it can be moved. >>There's another classification of RV that is towed behind a car and >>used by vacationers or campers. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Hm. In my part of the country those things you live or camp in >have always been "trailers". This ties in with the Realtor-speak issue. The term "RV" was once industry-speak for "camping trailer" or "motor home". However, people who buy a $40,000 camping trailer don't want to call it a "trailer", so they've adopted the term RV. "RV" has gone from industry-speak to everyday-speak by everyman. >Despite the uspscaling of the >terminology, there are still many trailer parks around. Look on the sign out in front. That place you call a "trailer park" for campers is probably now called a "RV Resort". At the very least, it's a "campsite". You may call it a "trailer park", but they probably don't. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>>>It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >>>>>these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >that you have used "permanently placed" and I have said they "can be >moved". Well, they *can* be moved. So can an old Victorian built about 1880. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [snip explanations] Ta, TC. All clear now. But do you use "convoy" as well as "caravan" when friends travel together in several cars? SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) >[snip explanations] > >Ta, TC. All clear now. But do you use "convoy" as well as "caravan" >when friends travel together in several cars? Yes, but "convoy" is more likely to be used to describe a group of truckers traveling in a group. While the word might be appropriate for a group of cars, the song "Convoy" (#1 hit in the mid-70s) associated the word with CB radios and truckers. The phrase "We got us a convoy" comes from that song, and is used as a joking reference to any group that hooks up. http://lyrics.rare-lyrics.com/C/C.W.-McCall/Convoy.html If you use "convoy" instead of "caravan" to describe a group, you have to be prepared for Rubber Duck and Pig Pen jokes. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>[snip explanations] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >for a group of cars, the song "Convoy" (#1 hit in the mid-70s) >associated the word with CB radios and truckers. What about "in convoy"? Would you use "in convoy" for two cars, as in "I didn't want to tuck in between that white Volvo and the blue Golf, because the way they're driving looks as if they're in convoy" or "You're going to Bill's too? Oh well then, we may as well go in convoy"? SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>[snip explanations] >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >"You're going to Bill's too? Oh well then, we may as well go in >convoy"? I'm not saying that "convoy" isn't used. I'm just saying that "convoy" is so associated with truckers and CBers that it is normally reserved for highway groups. The tucking in above would be the highway use, but when you say it in that context the phrase "Good buddy" just has to pop to mind. Even in your second example, I'd be tempted to say "Breaker, breaker" as I got in the car. This association may fade over time. There's a generation out there that has never seen a CB radio. Maybe they text requests for information about the location of the Bears. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>[snip explanations] >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "You're going to Bill's too? Oh well then, we may as well go in > convoy"? I think that "in convoy" is a correct usage, but wouldn't appear very often in everyday discussions of car travel. It might be considered picturesque. Especially during summers in our state, military convoys occupy one lane of the freeways, as National Guard units mush along to various training centers. I think some of the trips are just to practice convoyage (-ing?). Maybe because of my age, I associate the term mainly with escorted and protected groups of vehicles, as in fleets and the supply ship convoys carrying troops or supplies to war areas. The presidential limousine parades, with motorcycle escorts are other examples of convoys. I don't think I have ever heard the term used with planes, but, of course, they don't _have_ to maintain a follow-me kind of line. The truckers in the song are using a special lingo that is reminiscent of military and police chivvying the slowpokes to get them in line, especially when the speaker points out the presence of the non-trucker Jesus-freaks in their midst. >>>[snip explanations] >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "You're going to Bill's too? Oh well then, we may as well go in > convoy"? Sorry. I see that Tony adequately described US usage. I let my compulsion to pedantry overwhelm my better sense. > If you want to describe the accommodation as a low-class place where > "trailer trash" live, you use "trailer". If you want to describe the > accommodation as an acceptable place where nice people live, you use > "mobile home". See, for example, this: <http://www.usatoday.com/money/gallery/2005/7-05-milliontrailer/flash.ht m>, which can also be seen at <http://tinyurl.com/ydydtn>. I have no opinion on the niceness of this person. I merely point out the use of "mobile home." SignatureSML >It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >divorced Indian woman in Maine for awhile, with a young son as wild as >any wild man, who lived in one. Speaking only of Florida, they are not just for the poor. There are some quite posh mobile home communities in Florida for the affluent. Usually the retired affluent. There are also some trailer parks that fit your description. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > > It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted > > on these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > There are also some trailer parks that fit your description. My brother and his wife used to live in a mobile home. It was pretty nice inside, they could have the whole clan over for Christas day festivities with no problem. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) > It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on > these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they > are planted, with their wheels forever removed. "Planted" = good one. Anyway, they're often called "mobile homes." > Today, they are the poor man's house, are they not? Or the young couple's first nest, or the older couple's "retirement haven." As for the poor-man label, Tony is right: some "mobile home communities" can be quite upscale. > .......FWIW, I dated a > divorced Indian woman in Maine for awhile, with a young son as wild as > any wild man, who lived in one. Did they both live in the trailer, or just the divorced Indian mother of the young son (who was as wild as any wild man)? Oh, yes: dot or feather? I presume feather. SignatureMaria >> It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >> these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they >> are planted, with their wheels forever removed. > "Planted" = good one. > > Anyway, they're often called "mobile homes." >> Today, they are the poor man's house, are they not? > Or the young couple's first nest, or the older couple's "retirement haven." > > As for the poor-man label, Tony is right: some "mobile home communities" can > be quite upscale. It implies a situation where the main cost of a home is its construction rather than the land it sits on. A "mobile home", being single storey and having to be surrounded by space takes up rather a large amount of land. If, as in much of England, the main cost element of a home is the land, a mobile home isn't a cheap option. Matthew Huntbach >>> It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >>> these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >of land. If, as in much of England, the main cost element of a home >is the land, a mobile home isn't a cheap option. The "upscale" mobile home communities here are more expensive because of the amenities offered to the residents. Many of them have community swimming pools, gyms, halls for Bingo and other activities, extensive landscaping, social programs, security guards, etc. There are many mobile home communities where the resident does not own the land. Actually, the word is probably "most" or "almost all" and not "many". The resident owns the mobile home, but not the ground on which it sits. The property ownership is a condominium-type arrangement where the property owner maintains the grounds and the facilities, and the resident maintains the living unit. Unlike a condominium, though, the resident is responsible for both the inside and outside of the residence. It's also possible to buy a piece of property and place a mobile home on that property. In this area, current regulations require that the property be at least one-half acre in size for a mobile home permit to be granted. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > There are many mobile home communities where the resident does not own > the land. Actually, the word is probably "most" or "almost all" and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > condominium, though, the resident is responsible for both the inside > and outside of the residence. I agree with the "most" part. In fact, "all" the mobile home parks I have ever chatted about charged "space rent". That's why I mentioned before that the name of the spot where one places a mobile home in a mobile home park is "space". I have never lived in a mobile home. I have owned a tent trailer, a camper (on a pickup truck), a camper van, like http://www.geocities.com/opus731/77dodgevan , and a mini motor home, like http://www.geocities.com/opus731/1974Fireball.jpg , but not at all the same time. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >I agree with the "most" part. In fact, "all" the mobile home parks I have >ever chatted about charged "space rent". Ground rents were once very common elsewhere. I know that one of the reasons few older commercial buildings in London survived long enough to be destroyed in the Blitz was that many were built on land under a 99-year lease; the ground landlords frequently required their tenants to tear down the old building and construct a new one at the start of each lease term. (The theory, I suppose, was that new buildings make adjoining property more attractive for tenants, so the landlords were able to charge more for those other properties.)[1] -GAWollman [1] Source: William S. Baring-Gould's /The Annotated Sherlock Holmes/, which cites either Michael Harrison's /In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes/ or Augustus J.C. Hare's /Walks in London/. I'm away from my library so can't check. SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > Ground rents were once very common elsewhere. I know that one of the > reasons few older commercial buildings in London survived long enough > to be destroyed in the Blitz was that many were built on land under a > 99-year lease; the ground landlords frequently required their tenants > to tear down the old building and construct a new one at the start of > each lease term. I've never heard of such a practice. Usual practice is that ownership of the property reverts to the freeholder to whom the ground rent was paid, when the lease expires. The Duke of Westminster is the richest man in England because his ancestor was given some cabbage fields to the west of London on which are now built the Georgian terraces of Westminster on which he receives the ground rent. Those Georgian terraces don't get torn down when their lease expires. Having Scrope ancestry, I have, of course, particular reason for enmity with the Duke of Westminster. Matthew Huntbach >> It has long seemed odd, at least to me, that the residences planted on >> these lots are still called trailers, since few are moved once they [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Did they both live in the trailer, or just the divorced Indian mother of >the young son (who was as wild as any wild man)? They both did. I never did learn where the chief had disappeared to, by the way, which is just as well. >Oh, yes: dot or feather? I presume feather. Your presumption is a safe one. In those days, at least, dotted Indians were few and far between in Maine. SignatureCharles Riggs > Thinking of "subdivisions" (which I hyphenated incorrectly as > "sub-divisions") makes me wonder about that word. Sub-divisions of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that tract into homesites (1). He subdivides, but why is the entire > group of homes called a subdivision? It's not "division" in the sense of "part"; it's "division" in the sense of "dividing up". As far as the county is concerned, there will be one map that shows how the old lot was divided into new lots. That plan is the subdivision of the old lot, and it will show the boundaries of each of the new lots. In the case of my complex (according to our documents), it's "that Map entitled Tract No. 8330, filed for record on the 23rd day of May, 1990, in Book 614 of Maps at page(s) 6 and 7, in the records of Santa Clara County". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > In the case of my complex (according to our documents), it's "that Map > entitled Tract No. 8330, filed for record on the 23rd day of May, > 1990, in Book 614 of Maps at page(s) 6 and 7, in the records of Santa > Clara County". Subdivision seems to apply mainly, as noted elsewhere, to a single large property divided into many smaller properties. But I seem to recall that one house I lived in as a child was considered to be part of a subdivision that wasn't a single developer-single property thing, but a platted area incorporated into the city (small 'c' -- although it grew to ~14,000 population before I left). This was called "First Addition Neighborhood", and all the streets were laid out at one time (grid, despite the hills), but the houses were built individually at various times. The end of 9th street where I lived had houses that were pretty close in age, but closer to A Avenue the houses were mostly about 10 years older, IIRC. >From my experience, subdivisions run the gamut from bare-bones areas with simple grid layouts (easier for the builders and pavers), to extremely pretentious areas with shared landscaping ("common areas" or "greenways") and short cul-de-sacs off of various tributary streets. A subdivision may be 10 houses or it may be 400 houses. (the term as used by planning commissions may extend down to as few as 3 houses). Gated communities don't usually call themselves subdivisions, BTW. Too toffee-nosed for, to borrow from across the pond. But here in California (which is not where I started), the security staff in the gate houses are often distaff staffers. Retired gentlemen make up another signficant bloc of staff. /dps |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.