 |
 | 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 / January 2007Big N' Tasty
McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me as very odd and unjustified; but the omission of the first apostrophe for the omitted "A" in "and" seems almost universal in American signage. What do you think? Not an easy one to check in Google since it and most other search engines ignore apostrophes. McDonald's has used "Big Tasty" instead in Britain. Interesting choice. I'd love to know what debates led to the making of this decision. > McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." > Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > McDonald's has used "Big Tasty" instead in Britain. Interesting choice. > I'd love to know what debates led to the making of this decision. Over here the commercial " 'n' " thing is perhaps the most widely-derided bit of perceivedly American advertese. We even use it in speech when concocting examples of that kind of language. They were wise to avoid it: I hope more will follow their example.  SignatureMike. Mike Lyle (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message <1168022760.982209.238390@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>: >> McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." >> Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me as [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > speech when concocting examples of that kind of language. They were > wise to avoid it: I hope more will follow their example. Similarly certain business who include an 'R' (sometimes mistakenly replaced by the Cyrillic letter that looks like its reflection) in their name. SignatureTerms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. Subject to status. Contains moderate language. Always read the label. Keep out of children. Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Mike Lyle (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message ><1168022760.982209.238390@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>: >>> McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." >>> Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me as [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Similarly certain business who include an 'R' (sometimes mistakenly replaced > by the Cyrillic letter that looks like its reflection) in their name. Let's not mince words. You mean "Toys Are We." SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> I hate laundry month. > > Similarly certain business who include an 'R' (sometimes > > mistakenly replaced by the Cyrillic letter that looks like its > > reflection) in their name. > > Let's not mince words. You mean "Toys Are We." They have a (spin-off? subsidiary?) called "Babies Я Us". -=Eric The Lars Eighner entity posted thusly: >> Mike Lyle (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message >><1168022760.982209.238390@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Let's not mince words. You mean "Toys Are We." Isn't that "We Be Toys" in some areas? Oleg Lego (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message <64jup2hhe3ulkg4oko178t9dq4ihkddgdb@4ax.com>: >>> Similarly certain business who include an 'R' (sometimes mistakenly >>> replaced by the Cyrillic letter that looks like its reflection) in their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Isn't that "We Be Toys" in some areas? The name is actually a play on Laz'R'Us, the corrected spelling of which is the name of the original (possibly also current) owner. SignatureTerms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. Subject to status. Contains moderate language. Always read the label. Keep out of children. Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > The name is actually a play on Laz'R'Us, the corrected spelling of > which is the name of the original (possibly also current) owner. How did I not know that? That's my bit of interesting trivia for the day. Thanks. Looking at the corporate history, they say that the store was originally "Children's Bargain Town" in Washington, DC, in 1948, but changed to "Toys R Us" a decade later with the second store. But I remember going to Bargain Town in/near Chicago, and I wasn't born until 1964. I think it changed by us in the early '70s. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > I think it changed by us in the early '70s. Maybe I haven't been paying attention but I can't recall seeing "by us" used like that before. Sounds to me like a Germanism ("bei uns") - not criticising, just curious. SignatureLes > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like that before. Sounds to me like a Germanism ("bei uns") - not > criticising, just curious. I suspect Evan intended a meaning similar to "nearby," and I'd call that usage idiomatic. As for the slogan "Toys R [ya] Us", my own recollection is that it was originally just that, a slogan and nothing more. In the DC area the toy stores bore the name "Children's Supermart" and used the slogan as slogan until the late 70s or early 80s. I know it was in the time frame when I was patronizing toy stores, and that's the time frame. I can recall, when my son was quite young, trying to find "Toys R Us" in the phone book and strking out, then plowing through the yellow pages until I found "Children's Supermart." They later branched out into "Kids R US" (children's clothing) and "Babies R Us" (obvious, I trust). I don't know what did them in. Probably Wal-Mart -- they get blamed for everything. In the Pentagon City neighborhood of Arlington is a shopping mall named "Fashion Centre. [sic; centRE]" Everyone calls the mall "Pentagon City," so the management surrendered and started calling it "Fashion Centre at Pentagon City." But the default name for the mall remains "Pentagon City" or, if ambiguity might result, "Pentagon City Mall." This is so even though "Pentagon City" has been the name of the neighborhood since before the mall was built and there are now other malls in the neighborhood. I know I was calling the "Children's Supermart" stores "Toys R Us" long before the official name change, and I was hardly alone. Good names are often accidents. SignatureBob Lieblich Anyone seen "Old Farts R Us"? [...] > I know I was calling the "Children's > Supermart" stores "Toys R Us" long before the official name change, > and I was hardly alone. Good names are often accidents. Just as an aside, the Austrians are very punctilious punctuators: <http://tinyurl.com/yd8pdo> [quote] TOYS"R"US Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H Ikeaplatz 4 A - 4053 Haid [endquote] SignatureLes > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > [endquote] And is Ikeaplatz really named after a certain Swedish firm? Cheers, Sage >> Just as an aside, the Austrians are very punctilious punctuators: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Cheers, Sage Seems so: <http://tinyurl.com/yzjshy> <http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IkeaNearYouView?storeId=8&catalogI d=10103&langId=-21&StoreName=store_haid> Herzlich willkommen bei IKEA Haid! [...] Adresse: IKEA Einrichtungshaus Haid Shopping Center Haid IKEAplatz 1 4053 Haid SignatureAlec St.Petersburg, Russia [30E18 59N56] >Similarly certain business who include an 'R' (sometimes mistakenly replaced >by the Cyrillic letter that looks like its reflection) in their name. I always call them "Toys Ya Us". Hmm, from my two postings on this thread, this seems to be something I have a thing about. SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon > >Similarly certain business who include an 'R' (sometimes mistakenly replaced > >by the Cyrillic letter that looks like its reflection) in their name. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hmm, from my two postings on this thread, this seems to be something I > have a thing about. There's a toy store (a very good one, actually) near me named Math 'n Stuff. SignatureSML Similarly certain business who include an 'R' (sometimes mistakenly replaced by the Cyrillic letter that looks like its reflection) in their name. No, Silly. Surrealics are a special alphabetic cereal for the imaginary friends of kids. -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Culture is Shakespeare AND Bullwinkle.) The brians@wsu.edu entity posted thusly: >McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." >Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me as >very odd and unjustified; but the omission of the first apostrophe for >the omitted "A" in "and" seems almost universal in American signage. I would wonder more about the missing apostrophe standing for the "Neither" at the beginning of the name, which obviously expands to "Neither Big Nor Tasty" >What do you think? Not an easy one to check in Google since it and most >other search engines ignore apostrophes. > >McDonald's has used "Big Tasty" instead in Britain. Interesting choice. >I'd love to know what debates led to the making of this decision. > McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." > Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > McDonald's has used "Big Tasty" instead in Britain. Interesting choice. > I'd love to know what debates led to the making of this decision. I've often wondered about the apostrophe in the McDonald's name. McDonald was the name of the brothers who owned the first store; so surely that would have been McDonalds'. [snip] > I've often wondered about the apostrophe in the McDonald's name. McDonald > was the name of the brothers who owned the first store; so surely that would > have been McDonalds'. This Wiki article excerpt gives one Dave Fox some credit in the development of "McDonald's" as the franchise name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_and_Mac_McDonald "...The brothers began franchising in 1953, beginning in Phoenix, Arizona with Dave Fox. At first, they only franchised the system, not the name and atmosphere of their restaurant. It's said that when Dick went to check on Dave, he was shocked to see an exact replica of his San Bernardino store, right down to the name "McDonald's". When he asked Fox why he had kept the same design and hadn't called the restaurant "Fox's", Dave said "Why change it? It's great as it is," and from then on the brothers started franchising the entire concept...." Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego > I've often wondered about the apostrophe in the McDonald's name. McDonald > was the name of the brothers who owned the first store; so surely that > would have been McDonalds'. Clearly it could've been, but it wasn't. Look: http://www.legendsofamerica.com/Route66/1stMcDonaldsSanBarnadinoCA.jpg Maybe they just thought the possessive plural was too fancy. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "If we gave people a choice, there would be chaos." msb@vex.net | -- Dick McDonald In alt.usage.english, Fred wrote: >I've often wondered about the apostrophe in the McDonald's name. McDonald >was the name of the brothers who owned the first store; so surely that would >have been McDonalds'. Perhaps "McDonald" was for the name of the family rather than the individuals. It being a family restaurant, 'n'all. Digressing, we don't seem to have "y'all" for quite some time. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > I've often wondered about the apostrophe in the McDonald's > name. McDonald was the name of the brothers who owned the first > store; so surely that would have been McDonalds'. I'd think it would have to be "The McDonalds'". The article doesn't appear to be optional for me. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If you think health care is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I've often wondered about the apostrophe in the McDonald's >> name. McDonald was the name of the brothers who owned the first >> store; so surely that would have been McDonalds'. > > I'd think it would have to be "The McDonalds'". The article doesn't > appear to be optional for me. It's hard to see why. If Bill and Joan Smith own a house, it's Smiths' house. 'Students' books' does not need to be 'the students' books. "Fred" and Evan Kirshenbaum write: >>> I've often wondered about the apostrophe in the McDonald's >>> name. McDonald was the name of the brothers who owned the first >>> store; so surely that would have been McDonalds'. >> I'd think it would have to be "The McDonalds'". The article doesn't >> appear to be optional for me. Good point. > It's hard to see why. If Bill and Joan Smith own a house, it's Smiths' > house. It certainly is not. > 'Students' books' does not need to be 'the students' books. No, but "the students' books" does. Bill and Joan Smith are specific Smiths, so they're "the Smiths". SignatureMark Brader "You have a truly warped mind. Toronto I admire that in a person." msb@vex.net -- Bill Davidsen > "Fred" and Evan Kirshenbaum write: >>>> I've often wondered about the apostrophe in the McDonald's [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > No, but "the students' books" does. Bill and Joan Smith are specific > Smiths, so they're "the Smiths". But the restaurant belongs to McDonalds - not McDonald. >> "Fred" and Evan Kirshenbaum write: >>> It's hard to see why. If Bill and Joan Smith own a house, it's >>> Smiths' house. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > But the restaurant belongs to McDonalds - not McDonald. The restaurant belonged to Dick and Mac McDonald, the McDonalds, not to McDonalds in general. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of |modern English without inadvertently kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them. (650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> "Fred" and Evan Kirshenbaum write: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The restaurant belonged to Dick and Mac McDonald, the McDonalds, not > to McDonalds in general. Someone agrees with me. http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/ >>>> "Fred" and Evan Kirshenbaum write: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Someone agrees with me. >http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/ Ah, that's just Valparaiso's Law in action: "Somewhere, however misguided, risible or just plain wrong your beliefs may be, in some remote backwater of the Internet you're always going to find someone who agrees with you." SignatureArchie Valparaiso >>>>>"Fred" and Evan Kirshenbaum write: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > remote backwater of the Internet you're always going to find someone > who agrees with you." With the corollary that that someone will always be loonier than you are. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) [...] > >>Someone agrees with me. > >>http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > With the corollary that that someone will always be loonier than you are. Which, together with a claret which got a bit better towards the end, emboldens me to enquire when people first heard or read of the "greengrocers' apostrophe". I know this is the kind of thing which the greatest minds of any generation arrive at independently, but I do remember thinking I was mightily perceptive to think of, and use, the expression back in the early sixties. Those RRs, and RR's, who may momentarily be disposed to spare my delicate feelings need have no fears on that score: my thirst is for knowledge, not for glory. So bring on the antedatings. Even if they come from a printed source I must surely have read and have embarrassingly forgotten in a conveniently Freudian way, spare me not. SignatureMike. >[...] >> >>Someone agrees with me. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >must surely have read and have embarrassingly forgotten in a >conveniently Freudian way, spare me not. You could try asking this question in the ng alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe Be forewarned: they will wish to play with your apostrophes. "Greengrocers' apostrophe" is not wrong, but more commonly the 'postrophe is more forward: "greengrocer's apostrophe". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) [...] > >"greengrocers' apostrophe". [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Greengrocers' apostrophe" is not wrong, but more commonly the > 'postrophe is more forward: "greengrocer's apostrophe". YAC'S. I blame the indifferent claret. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Which, together with a claret which got a bit better towards the > end, emboldens me to enquire when people first heard or read of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > source I must surely have read and have embarrassingly forgotten in > a conveniently Freudian way, spare me not. I think you're safe. It doesn't show up in the _New York Times_ until 2001, in Google Books until 1996, and on Usenet until 1993. AUE was the first real newsgroup it appeared in, although it appeared on the WORDS-L Bitnet list the day before. One 1991 book, though, suggests that it was on some people's minds earlier: Even the price-label in the greengrocer's shop may shed light on what happened to the apostrophe in English two hundred years ago. cited to "[Noel] Osselton 1970", but the bibliography isn't part of the available preview. Amazon has a 1970 book by him entitled _The Well-Languag'd Poet_, but it's not searchable. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Any programming problem can be 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |solved by adding another layer of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |indirection. Any performance |problem can be solved by removing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Which, together with a claret which got a bit better towards the >> end, emboldens me to enquire when people first heard or read of the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >the available preview. Amazon has a 1970 book by him entitled _The >Well-Languag'd Poet_, but it's not searchable. The earliest citation in OED is Keith Waterhouse 1991 English their English. Mike Page > >> Which, together with a claret which got a bit better towards the > >> end, emboldens me to enquire when people first heard or read of the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The earliest citation in OED is Keith Waterhouse 1991 English > their English. Nice to know, thank you both. I suppose it's conceivable that the notion spread virally from me; but it would be hard to believe others hadn't made the same observation. Greengrocers, be it noted, are more likely than most traders to have to write a lot of fresh signs by hand, so they'd be in the frame for most observers. OT, a friend's grandfather was a London greengrocer, and took some pride in neatly writing about his latest offering on the shop window in that whitewash stuff they used to use. When he had a new delivery of hazelnuts from Kent, the message would read "Kentish cobs. . .", and people would regularly knock off the top of the "e" to make it into a "u". SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Ah, that's just Valparaiso's Law in action: "Somewhere, however > misguided, risible or just plain wrong your beliefs may be, in some > remote backwater of the Internet you're always going to find someone > who agrees with you." Which is itself a corrolary to Skif's Law of the Internet: Any thought you've ever had, no matter how fleeting or inconsequential, is somebody's lifelong obsession. And they have a website. Also relevant is Willy's Corrolary: There is no subject so obscure that there are not at least two websites about it, and the webmasters of each violently hate each other. -=Eric >>> But the restaurant belongs to McDonalds - not McDonald. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Someone agrees with me. > http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/ I suspect that someone would have a hard time finding examples of that "Joneses' bakeries". 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/ >>>> But the restaurant belongs to McDonalds - not McDonald. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I suspect that someone would have a hard time finding examples of that > "Joneses' bakeries". I don't know about Joneses' but I often pass a building signwritten as Musicians' club. I'll get them to change it, and while I'm at it I'll talk to the bookshop that has students' books advertised. >>>>> But the restaurant belongs to McDonalds - not McDonald. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as Musicians' club. I'll get them to change it, and while I'm at it > I'll talk to the bookshop that has students' books advertised. You probably should. As it stands, those signs could well be interpreted as implying that the club was for musicians in general and the books for students in general. Not those two musicians and those five students. If Fred Jones ownes a bakery and Bob and Betty Jones own another bakery, and there was something about those bakeries that distinguished them from bakeries owned by people named Smith or Wong, it would make sense to talk about "Joneses' bakeries". But Fred's is "Jones's Bakery" and and Bob and Betty's would be "the Joneses' Bakery". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |On a scale of one to ten... 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it sucked. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I suspect that someone would have a hard time finding examples of >> that "Joneses' bakeries". >> > I don't know about Joneses' but I often pass a building signwritten as > Musicians' club. I'll get them to change it, and while I'm at it I'll > talk to the bookshop that has students' books advertised. If it's a club for more than one musician, the sign is correct. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary Paul Brians: > McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." > Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me as > very odd and unjustified; but the omission of the first apostrophe for > the omitted "A" in "and" seems almost universal in American signage. > > What do you think? My first reaction on reading this was that they had deliberately misspelled it to make the trademark more memorable, like "Cheez Whiz" and so many others. On the other hand, if "shan't" can have letters deleted in two places with only one apostrophe, why can't "and" be "n'"? > Not an easy one to check in Google since it and most > other search engines ignore apostrophes. Actually Google does not always ignore apostrophes -- "brian's" gets four times as many hits as "brians". But it does treat variously apostrophizationated versions of this particular phrase as identical. I suspect that there's some special treatment being applied either to "n'" and "'n'", or to one-letter words in general (like the way it treats "w. s. gilbert" and "ws gilbert" as identical). > McDonald's has used "Big Tasty" instead in Britain. Interesting choice. Indeed. I've posted this before, but can't resist repeating it: http://wilmaray.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/moabutah.jpg The letters are about 12 feet high. The official web site of the place spell the name correctly in the URL, and in various other ways in the page: http://www.theholeintherock.com/ SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "The walls have hearsay." msb@vex.net -- Fonseca & Carolino My text in this article is in the public domain. > Paul Brians: > > McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and so many others. On the other hand, if "shan't" can have letters > deleted in two places with only one apostrophe, why can't "and" be "n'"? Not to mention "won't", which changes an entire vowel. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." >Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >McDonald's has used "Big Tasty" instead in Britain. Interesting choice. >I'd love to know what debates led to the making of this decision. When a local pub rechristened itself the Flute n' Jig I took to referring it to as the "Flute No Jig" or - in more pythonish moments - as the "Flute Ni! Jig". After all, what other word could it be? SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon > McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." > Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me > as very odd and unjustified; Maybe it's pronounced _En_. I hesitated before deciding to send this in, but I'm quite serious. Is it still politically incorrect if it's subliminal? > [...] > McDonald's has used "Big Tasty" instead in Britain. Interesting > choice. I'd love to know what debates led to the making of this > decision. Is there an identifiable group in the UK, associated with the word "nasty", that is known to eat at MD's in disproportionate numbers? The CDB entity posted thusly: >> McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." >> Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in, but I'm quite serious. Is it still politically incorrect if it's >subliminal? Subliminal? In what way is "N" subliminal? > The CDB entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Subliminal? In what way is "N" subliminal? Corporations like McDonald's don't make careless decisions relating to publicity. They spend hundreds of thousands getting their commercials just right, and their product names are decided on by experts in the manipulation of public attitudes. I contend that one reason for the "N'" in the American name of this product is their wish to appeal to American Blacks, who are known to eat at their outlets in disproportionately large numbers. The name "Big N' Tasty" is intended to suggest the N-word at a subliminal level: the burgers are "Big-N Tasty". People in the target audience, who would react with outrage at the open use of the word "nigger" to them by an outsider, accept it unconsciously as an indication that the corporation is in some way a member of their group, the only people who can use the word without offence. I think "Big N' Tasty" is also intended to suggest "Big Nasty", appealing to the colloquial use of "nasty", still common among the young, to mean "good". I don't think the truth or falsity of the assumptions that underlie the practice of subliminal advertising is at issue here. There is enough evidence in advertising copy to convince me (for one) that they are accepted and acted upon by at least some corporations. > Corporations like McDonald's don't make careless decisions relating to > publicity. They spend hundreds of thousands getting their commercials [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > appealing to the colloquial use of "nasty", still common among the > young, to mean "good". I think you're *way* overanalyzing it. Since, at the very least, "Rock-n-roll", "n", with various appostrophizations, has been common in American names. When I was growing up in Chicago in the '70s, there was a chain of drive-in restaurants specializing in hot dogs and root beer called "Dog n Suds". I've see "n", "n'", "'n", and "'n'", although the last tends to make it look like it's surrounded by quotation marks. To explain "n'", think of it as a further reduction of "an'", with a reluctance too add a second apostrophe. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [Big *N* Tasty: something that begins with "co"?] > I think you're *way* overanalyzing it. Since, at the very least, > "Rock-n-roll", "n", with various appostrophizations, has been common [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think of it as a further reduction of "an'", with a reluctance too > add a second apostrophe. It was more the capitalization of the "N", a word-stub that is not usually capitalized (as your list of variants also suggests), in a phrase that is not all capitals, that made me look for dirty work. I concede that what I wrote is merely a suspicion, but I also suspect that nobody ever lost out by underestimating the honesty of a corporation. Anybody else here see the HBO documentary _Hacking Democracy_? Fascinating. We used Diebold voting machines in the recent Ottawa municipal elections, unexpectedly won for the right wing by the former CEO of an IT company. The machines we used leave a paper trail, but that's no use unless someone checks it by hand. The CDB entity posted thusly: >> The CDB entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >enough evidence in advertising copy to convince me (for one) that they >are accepted and acted upon by at least some corporations. Reminds me of folks that go to extreme lengths to find offence in everything. "You called it 'Jewellery! That's anti-semitic!" > The CDB entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>> Tasty." Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital >>>>> strikes me as very odd and unjustified; [ The "Big N'": dark suspicions] > Reminds me of folks that go to extreme lengths to find offence in > everything. "You called it 'Jewellery! That's anti-semitic!" Except that I have not suggested that I feel any offense, or that any was intended by the corporation. I find the manipulative techniques of publicists, of which I think this case may be an example, very interesting; and I hoped some others might find the possibility, at least, interesting too. That's all. The CDB entity posted thusly: >> The CDB entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >interesting; and I hoped some others might find the possibility, at >least, interesting too. That's all. I did not mean to imply tat you felt any offense; just that associating the N' in that ways seems to be quite a stretch, regardless of who is doing it. > The CDB entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> [The "Big N'": dark suspicions] [no 'fense] > I did not mean to imply tat you felt any offense; just that > associating the N' in that ways seems to be quite a stretch, > regardless of who is doing it. It would generally have to be quite a stretch, to keep it from going supraliminal. The question is whether all those black customers' subconscious minds would sit up and take notice when they saw a burger that wasn't just Tasty, but "Big N" Tasty. I'm going to stop protesting now. Even though I've argued for the idea, I don't by any means propose it as an established fact; it's just an interesting possibility to keep in mind when looking at McD's advertising and nomenclature in future. > I'm going to stop protesting now. Even though I've argued for the > idea, I don't by any means propose it as an established fact; it's > just an interesting possibility to keep in mind when looking at McD's ^^^^^^^^^^^ I believe you mispelled "raving batshit loony". You might want to let your spell-checked know about this problem if you're likely to repeat it. The chances of your "theory", and I use the word with as much disapprobation as possible, being true are approximately equal to that of Mel Brooks' having filmed "Blazing Saddles" as a documentary. > advertising and nomenclature in future. Um, right. -=Eric >> I'm going to stop protesting now. Even though I've argued for the >> idea, I don't by any means propose it as an established fact; it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I believe you mispelled "raving batshit loony". That seems extreme. It also seems closer to raving than anything I've seen in this discussion so far. >You might want to > let your spell-checked know about this problem if you're likely to > repeat it. The chances of your "theory", and I use the word with > as much disapprobation as possible, You also use it in quotation marks. That's interesting, because I don't think anybody but you has used the word in this discussion. Don't even scare quotes usually enclose something that has been said somewhere? Otherwise, taking this instance as an example, you are deploring the use of a term of which you are the introducer and sole user. > being true are approximately > equal to that of Mel Brooks' having filmed "Blazing Saddles" as a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Um, right. Contemptuous dismissal has killed some good ideas in its time, and has been deliberately employed to do so. I have said this idea is an interesting possibility, and I believe that that is true. You're entitled to your opinions, of course. I suppose you're also free to act out your frustrations in public. > Contemptuous dismissal has killed some good ideas in its time, and has > been deliberately employed to do so. On the other hand, as Sagan is reported to have put it, They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. (Of course, they were right to laugh at Columbus. His crackpot theory was completely wrong.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Contemptuous dismissal has killed some good ideas in its time, and >> has been deliberately employed to do so. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (Of course, they were right to laugh at Columbus. His crackpot > theory was completely wrong.) I feel my shoes deflating. > >> I'm going to stop protesting now. Even though I've argued for the > >> idea, I don't by any means propose it as an established fact; it's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That seems extreme. It also seems closer to raving than anything I've > seen in this discussion so far. No, I think it sounds about right. Seriously, there's no way McDonalds would intend the N in Big N' Tasty to stand for "Nigger". Just Not Happening(tm). It's like saying the "Mac" in "Big Mac" is short for "MacGodCanYouBeliveTheFuckwittedIdiotsBuyingThisShit". > >You might want to > > let your spell-checked know about this problem if you're likely to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > deploring the use of a term of which you are the introducer and sole > user. They're called scare quotes. Look it up. I mean that you proposed a theory-- regardless of whether that word had been used or not, it was a theory-- behind the name of the Big N' Tasty. That theory deserves little more than to be mocked roundly, so I did. > Contemptuous dismissal has killed some good ideas in its time, and has > been deliberately employed to do so. I have said this idea is an > interesting possibility, and I believe that that is true. I have said it's raving batshit loony, and I'm quite positive that is true. Note that I have yet to express an opinion about you, though you're rapidly rendering that unnecessary. > You're entitled to your opinions, of course. I suppose you're also > free to act out your frustrations in public. Thanks for your permission. If I ever have any, I will. -=Eric >>>> I'm going to stop protesting now. Even though I've argued for >>>> the idea, I don't by any means propose it as an established [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > McDonalds would intend the N in Big N' Tasty to stand for "Nigger". > Just Not Happening(tm). As I have said, more or less, the "theory" is not that people will perceive "N'" as standing for "nigger", but that Black people will have an unexamined feeling of association with the corporation after seeing it repeatedly. Whether this is true or not is only indirectly relevant to the question of whether McD might believe it and act upon it. One reason I am willing to seriously consider the possibility that the Friends of Ronald would use such a tactic is that it is far-fetched. Any such suggestion as I have made is open, as you have demonstrated, to mockery; and, indeed, to accusations of racism, from which I thank you for sparing me. [reductio, persiflage] >>> The chances of your "theory", and I use the word with >>> as much disapprobation as possible, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was a theory-- behind the name of the Big N' Tasty. That theory > deserves little more than to be mocked roundly, so I did. I proposed two "theories", if you like. The first one, mine, would have deserved the scare quotes, if I had used the word, since it is more in the nature of a speculation. It was that the McCorp had entertained the second "theory", about the effect of their new product name, as written, on one of their target groups. I think I know what scare quotes are. The obAUE sort of question that I raised in the paragraph above is the one that interests me. As the proximate user of the quotes at issue, perhaps having looked again at the question as put, do you not now feel that their use ought to be confined to the mocking of terms that have already been introduced? >> Contemptuous dismissal has killed some good ideas in its time, and >> has been deliberately employed to do so. I have said this idea is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is true. Note that I have yet to express an opinion about you, > though you're rapidly rendering that unnecessary. I am warned. But, having come this far, I'll probably end up pressing "send" anyway. >> You're entitled to your opinions, of course. I suppose you're also >> free to act out your frustrations in public. > > Thanks for your permission. If I ever have any, I will. My permission is naturally not required; in any case, I hadn't mentioned it. > As I have said, more or less, the "theory" is not that people will > perceive "N'" as standing for "nigger", but that Black people will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > One reason I am willing to seriously consider the possibility that the > Friends of Ronald would use such a tactic is that it is far-fetched. Yes, by that logic, you might as well contend that the Big Mac will give people of Scottish descent an unexamined feeling of association. It don't work that way, and McDonald's, for all their faults (which are legion) are not stupid enough to think it does. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary of course-- so far you haven't proffered any. > Any such suggestion as I have made is open, as you have demonstrated, > to mockery; and, indeed, to accusations of racism, from which I thank > you for sparing me. You are no more racist than anyone else here. You are a damn sight more credulous than just about anyone else here. > I proposed two "theories", if you like. The first one, mine, would > have deserved the scare quotes, if I had used the word, since it is > more in the nature of a speculation. It was that the McCorp had > entertained the second "theory", about the effect of their new product > name, as written, on one of their target groups. But the second one is also yours, because you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone at McDonald's entertained it. You made it up, you proposed it, and then ascribed it to someone else under auspices which might be charitably described as completely nuts. > I think I know what scare quotes are. The obAUE sort of question that > I raised in the paragraph above is the one that interests me. As the > proximate user of the quotes at issue, perhaps having looked again at > the question as put, do you not now feel that their use ought to be > confined to the mocking of terms that have already been introduced? No. Regardless of whether or not you introduced the term 'theory', you introduced two theories, if you like (personally, I view them as aspects of the same theory). Therefore, I don't see a problem scare-quoting the word. -=Eric >> As I have said, more or less, the "theory" is not that people will >> perceive "N'" as standing for "nigger", but that Black people will [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Unless you have any evidence to the contrary of course-- so far you > haven't proffered any. Scottish-Americans do not, as far as I know, eat under the arches in disproportionate numbers; American Blacks, I am told, do. Is a citation to that effect the kind of evidence, sorry, "evidence", you're talking about? If not, I wonder what kind of "evidence" you think there would be, available for proffering, in support of speculation about what would necessarily be a secret decision. Damning admissions incautiously committed to writing? Nope. Other uses of subliminal advertising? They are common enough, especially in visual imagery, and just as easy to deny. Let me repeat the "logic" that I find lurking in the thickets of deniability: "It doesn't cost extra; it might help; it can't hurt, because nobody will believe it of us. If anybody mentions it, we will laugh them to scorn. Better yet, the literal-minded will do it for us." >> Any such suggestion as I have made is open, as you have >> demonstrated, to mockery; and, indeed, to accusations of racism, >> from which I thank you for sparing me. > > You are no more racist than anyone else here. You are a damn sight > more credulous than just about anyone else here. Credulous? I'm not the one who puts his trust in Ronald. I admit that I have had a special dislike for him since finding out that he once tricked me into eating some freedom-fries that were not free of beef extract. >> I proposed two "theories", if you like. The first one, mine, would >> have deserved the scare quotes, if I had used the word, since it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But the second one is also yours, In the sense that I (may have) proposed it first, ascribing it to the corporation; not in the sense that I subscribe to it myself, except as a possibility. > because you have absolutely no > evidence whatsoever that anyone at McDonald's entertained it. You > made it up, you proposed it, and then ascribed it to someone else > under auspices which might be charitably described as completely > nuts. Tell me, gently please, how you would describe it if you weren't so long-suffering and kind. >> I think I know what scare quotes are. The obAUE sort of question >> that I raised in the paragraph above is the one that interests me. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > aspects of the same theory). Therefore, I don't see a problem > scare-quoting the word. I've finally taken your advice and looked up the term, on Google. How do you feel about the two accounts of the practice found at the URLs below? They're just the first two hits on the first page. Maybe you have some other account in mind, because these seem to support my contention, the text of which you snipped ("... their use ought to be confined to the mocking of terms that have already been introduced [not necessarily by the person being addressed*, as you assumed above, but by someone other than the scare-quoter**] ..."). http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/doc/punctuation/node31.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes I don't expect to convince you, or anyone else maybe, that the second "theory" is worth entertaining (that's *my* theory). You will not convince me that it is not possible for a corporation, or for that corporation in particular, to entertain it. I don't see any point in continuing the back-and-forth on that subject, but I would still like to know what you think about how those definitions of "scare-quotes" apply to your original usage. *In this case, me. ** In this case, you. > Scottish-Americans do not, as far as I know, eat under the arches in > disproportionate numbers; American Blacks, I am told, do. Is a > citation to that effect the kind of evidence, sorry, "evidence", > you're talking about? No, because it doesn't say anything about the motivations of McDonald's in naming the Big N' Tasty. Also, you don't actually have any evidence anyhow-- at least I don't consider "I am told" a reliable citation. > If not, I wonder what kind of "evidence" you think there would be, > available for proffering, in support of speculation about what would > necessarily be a secret decision. Damning admissions incautiously > committed to writing? Nope. Other uses of subliminal advertising? > They are common enough, especially in visual imagery, and just as > easy to deny. They are not as common as you think, and have been proven to be ineffective when they are intentionally applied (most of the time it's an in-joke by the photo house's art director or retoucher, when it's not just people recognizing faces on Mars). The fact is, if you can't percieve it consciously, it simply doesn't have any effect on you. Subliminal advertising is, in a word, bunk. I pray you're not relying on people like, say, Wilson Bryan Key, who is a fruitcake amongst fruitcakes. He wrote a book about subliminal advertising that claimed all sorts of nonsense about it. In fact, he even claimed his own book had a subliminal picture on it, when the publisher literally just photographed a glass of ice water and put it on the cover, un-retouched. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_187.html As far as evidence: yes, I would accept memos, letters, that kind of thing. In a pinch, a very credible source reporting first-hand accounts of such a decision might be acceptable. Other evidence that might be helpful would be anything showing that Blacks are more likely to buy a burger named Big N' Tasty, or that they are more likely to visit McDonald's because they have a burger named Big N' Tasty, but that would hardly be dispositive. You'd also need to discover whether or not they actually *do* go to McDonald's disproportionately, and if so, why, and control for that factor, if any, above. In other words, you need to show that your statements are based on reality, and not plausibility. > Let me repeat the "logic" that I find lurking in the thickets of > deniability: "It doesn't cost extra; it might help; it can't hurt, > because nobody will believe it of us. If anybody mentions it, we will > laugh them to scorn. Better yet, the literal-minded will do it for > us." I'm hardly literal-minded. I just find your assertion laughably ridiculous. There are enough Black people at high levels of the corporation that would hear about it, and would not be shy about making their displeasure with such a thing known. You're credulous because you're basing a > >> demonstrated, to mockery; and, indeed, to accusations of racism, > >> from which I thank you for sparing me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Credulous? I'm not the one who puts his trust in Ronald. I do not place my trust in Ronald. I place my mockery in your theories. There's a difference. > I admit that I have had a special dislike for him since finding out > that he once tricked me into eating some freedom-fries that were not > free of beef extract. Well, that's fine. I don't particularly care if they are or not free of beef extract, but you're certainly entitled to your irritation. > >> I proposed two "theories", if you like. The first one, mine, would > >> have deserved the scare quotes, if I had used the word, since it is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > corporation; not in the sense that I subscribe to it myself, except as > a possibility. That's what I mean. You proposed it; you have absolutely no evidence at all that it's based in anything outside your head. It therefore belongs to you in the only way it can be said to belong to anyone. > > because you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone at > > McDonald's entertained it. You made it up, you proposed it, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Tell me, gently please, how you would describe it if you weren't so > long-suffering and kind. Paranoid, nutty, loony, bizarrely whacked-out. > I've finally taken your advice and looked up the term, on Google. How > do you feel about the two accounts of the practice found at the URLs > below? Wikipedia doesn't say anything about scare-quoting needing to be done to terms previously introduced. They just say: As a literary strategy, scare quotes may be used to conceal the logical flaws of one's argument. This mocking usage gives the appearance of a logical attack without actually requiring a substantial basis. As it thus essentially constitutes an expression of disdain, scare quotes are sometimes called "sneer quotes". Since that's more or less how I used them, I'm fine with that (I'd argue I wasn't concealing flaws in my argument so much as I was mocking). Notice that there's no requirement that the term in the scare quotes need be introduced earlier there. The refence from susx.ac.uk says, in part, Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase from which you, the writer, wish to distance yourself because you consider that word or phrase to be odd or inappropriate for some reason. Possibly you regard it as too colloquial for formal writing; possibly you think it's unfamiliar or mysterious; possibly you consider it to be inaccurate or misleading; possibly you believe it's just plain wrong. Quite often scare quotes are used to express irony or sarcasm.... That is pretty much how I used it. Again, notice that there is no requirement that the term in question be used before. Later on, the article says, I have just been "ripped off" by my insurance company. Here the writer is doing something rather odd: she is using the phrase `ripped off', but at the same time she is showing her distaste for this phrase by wrapping it in quotes. Perhaps she regards it as too slangy, or as too American. Using scare quotes like this is the orthographic equivalent of holding the phrase at arm's length with one hand and pinching your nose with the other. Again, no requirement that the term be introduced earlier in the conversation. Did you read them, or just throw them at me, hoping I wouldn't? > I don't expect to convince you, or anyone else maybe, that the second > "theory" is worth entertaining (that's *my* theory). You will not > convince me that it is not possible for a corporation, or for that > corporation in particular, to entertain it. In that case, I shall give up trying. Enjoy your little world. It seems awfully uncomfortable to me, but you seem to like it. Ah well; Chacun à son goût, and all that. -=Eric > I'm hardly literal-minded. I just find your assertion laughably > ridiculous. There are enough Black people at high levels of the > corporation that would hear about it, and would not be shy about > making their displeasure with such a thing known. You're credulous > because you're basing a Sorry, editing mistake there. You're credulous because you're basing a very controversial theory on absolutely no evidence at all besides what you think 'sounds right' and something you think you heard somewhere that might be irrelevant in the final regard anyhow. You have nothing at all to support your assertions besides fantasies you have about how you think McDonald's corporate staff make decisions, something you admit you have no support whatsoever for. -=Eric >> Scottish-Americans do not, as far as I know, eat under the arches >> in disproportionate numbers; American Blacks, I am told, do. Is a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have any evidence anyhow-- at least I don't consider "I am told" a > reliable citation. See my reply to Tony Cooper for the NY Times quoting McDonald's regarding numbers. >> If not, I wonder what kind of "evidence" you think there would be, >> available for proffering, in support of speculation about what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > if you can't percieve it consciously, it simply doesn't have any > effect on you. Subliminal advertising is, in a word, bunk. Once again: arguments as to the effectiveness of the technique are not relevant to anything I have said. > I pray you're not relying on people like, say, Wilson Bryan Key, who > is a fruitcake amongst fruitcakes. He wrote a book about subliminal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_187.html Thank you for the link. I don't recall every hearing of Key; indeed, I couldn't find him mentioned in the article. At one time (a year or two in the mid-1980s), I was prompted by a friend's interest in the matter to examine magazine articles for indications that attempts were being made to include subliminal messages in them. At that time, I saw enough to convince me that chance and the human tendency to see patterns in random arrangements could not account for everything I found. Whether these patterns were inserted as jokes, in a possibly ineffective attempt to make money, or for some other reason, I can't say. Perhaps I should say that I do not offer this experience as proof of anything, but merely to account for my opinion in the matter. > As far as evidence: yes, I would accept memos, letters, that kind of > thing. In a pinch, a very credible source reporting first-hand > accounts of such a decision might be acceptable. As I implied above ("Nope."), only a very unlikely chance, disastrous from the point of view of the advertisers, would bring such things to light. Their absence can't be regarded as disproof. IMO. > Other evidence > that might be helpful would be anything showing that Blacks are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > disproportionately, and if so, why, and control for that factor, if > any, above. Again, you're talking about evidence of the technique's effectiveness, which would be irrelevant. > In other words, you need to show that your statements are based on > reality, and not plausibility. This may be the crux of our disagreement. I deny that that kind of proof is required for an idea presented as speculation, even serious speculation. Such an idea does not purport to be a statement of undeniable fact, and (IMO) must not be held to the standards of proof appropriate to a statement of fact; or speculation, which can be a fruitful mental activity, is ruled out before it starts. Its plausibility is a legitimate object of attack, though, and has been subjected to some gentle scorn by others. >> Let me repeat the "logic" that I find lurking in the thickets of >> deniability: "It doesn't cost extra; it might help; it can't hurt, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm hardly literal-minded. I accept your assertion. I shouldn't poke fun. > I just find your assertion laughably > ridiculous. There are enough Black people at high levels of the > corporation that would hear about it, and would not be shy about > making their displeasure with such a thing known. That is a good point, and somewhat weakens my case. Perhaps it could have been deliberately kept from them, arranged between one or two McD's executives and an advertising firm; or perhaps they would accept it if they saw that it was based, not on racist motives, but on the pure desire for more money. Consider that these executives must know the effect of large amounts of their food on their fellow Blacks, already more prone than the general population to the diseases of metabolic syndrome; and yet they continue to co-operate actively in persuading them to consume it in larger and larger amounts. Consider, if you like, the similsr behaviour of tobacco-company executives. > You're credulous > because you're basing [a very controversial theory on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >corporate staff make decisions, something you admit you have no >support whatsoever for.] I would have to be credulous, or think you were, if I asserted this speculation as fact. I have repeatedly said that I do not do so. >>>> demonstrated, to mockery; and, indeed, to accusations of racism, >>>> from which I thank you for sparing me. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > free of beef extract, but you're certainly entitled to your > irritation. Indeed. The admission was in the nature of the disclosure of a bias. >>>> I proposed two "theories", if you like. The first one, mine, >>>> would have deserved the scare quotes, if I had used the word, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's what I mean. You proposed it; I proposed it as possibly being held, and acted on, by someone else. The proposal I own to; the faith in subliminal advertising I ascribe, as a possibility, to someone else. > you have absolutely no > evidence at all that it's based in anything outside your head. It [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Paranoid, nutty, loony, bizarrely whacked-out. That's not so bad. In fact, it's not so different from the uncharitable version. Thank you for not describing it as loathsome, seditious and evil. Of course, I did ask you to be gentle. >> I've finally taken your advice and looked up the term, on Google. >> How do you feel about the two accounts of the practice found at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > expression of disdain, scare quotes are sometimes called "sneer > quotes". But the logical attack of which they give an appearance is based on the disparagement of a speaker's choice of terms: in this case, your own choice of terms. > Since that's more or less how I used them, I'm fine with that (I'd > argue I wasn't concealing flaws in my argument so much as I was > mocking). Notice that there's no requirement that the term in the > scare quotes need be introduced earlier there. I contend that it is implied. Wiki also says, "The effect of using scare quotes is often similar to inserting ["]so-called["] to modify a word. Scare quotes may thus be used to express disagreement with the *original speaker's* intended meaning without actually establishing grounds for disagreement, or even explicitly acknowledging it. [My emphasis: the "original speaker" of the word in scare quotes was you.] > The reference from susx.ac.uk says, in part, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > possibly you believe it's just plain wrong. Quite often scare > quotes are used to express irony or sarcasm.... My point regarding your use of these quotes was that you were distancing yourself from a term that you yourself had introduced. > That is pretty much how I used it. Again, notice that there is no > requirement that the term in question be used before. Later on, the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > at arm's length with one hand and pinching your nose with the > other. I agree that it is odd. It is just what you did yourself. But if you didn't like the word in that context, why did you use it, and disparage it in the same moment? Maybe the answer to that question would cast some light on the matter. > Again, no requirement that the term be introduced earlier in the > conversation. Did you read them, or just throw them at me, hoping I > wouldn't? I did indeed, hoping you would too. Here are another couple of extracts, from the UK site: "Once again, the writer's quotes mean "this is their term, *not mine*..."; "Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase from which you, the writer, wish to distance yourself because you consider that word or phrase to be odd or inappropriate for some reason..." [my emphasis] The point of my original querying of your use of scare quotes was that you were essentially disowning your own word. As far as I can see, the point remains the same. >> I don't expect to convince you, or anyone else maybe, that the >> second "theory" is worth entertaining (that's *my* theory). You [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > seems awfully uncomfortable to me, but you seem to like it. Ah > well; Chacun à son goût, and all that. OK. Cheers. >Scottish-Americans do not, as far as I know, eat under the arches in >disproportionate numbers; American Blacks, I am told, do. How do you come up with this? In my experience, the clientele at a McDonald's is primarily the people in the general vicinity unless it's a McDonald's near a highway or tourist attraction. If it's a McDonald's in a primarily black neighborhood, the clientele is primarily black. The McDonald's in my neighborhood has about the same mix of blacks and whites that the neighborhood does. At lunchtime, the mix is reflective of the people who work in the area but don't live in the area. That means quite a few Hispanics in line and landscaper's trucks in the parking lot. To the best of my knowledge, there is no Scottish-American neighborhood in this area. I haven't spotted any area where the cars have caber racks on the roof or any backyards with weight-tossing bars erected. I did once drive down a street where I thought I heard bagpipes, but it was just a cat with its tail caught in a door. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> Scottish-Americans do not, as far as I know, eat under the arches >> in disproportionate numbers; American Blacks, I am told, do. > > How do you come up with this? In my experience, the clientele at a > McDonald's is primarily the people in the general vicinity unless > it's a McDonald's near a highway or tourist attraction. Just something I heard that stuck, I'm afraid. It may also be part of the tendency of poor people to eat more fast food than other groups. Still, googling around a bit, I found a _NY Times_ article that says, "McDonald's agrees that Hispanics and blacks are core customers. The company gets 17 to 18 percent of its sales from each group. In the overall United States population, blacks represent 12 percent and Hispanics 14 percent, according to the Census Bureau." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/business/19mcdonalds.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070 &en=a261f6cb26cedcc3&ex=1168664400 or http://tinyurl.com/yj44uq ) MacDonald's also seems to take a keen, and perhaps praisworthy, interest in its relationship with minorities, notably including Blacks. Googling on related terms will get you many hits about publicity efforts of all kinds, up to and including a scholarship program, that Mickey D has undertaken. > If it's a McDonald's in a primarily black neighborhood, the > clientele is primarily black. The McDonald's in my neighborhood > has about the same mix of blacks and whites that the neighborhood > does. At lunchtime, the mix is reflective of the people who work > in the area but don't live in the area. That means quite a few > Hispanics in line and landscaper's trucks in the parking lot. I agree that individual restaurants attract a mostly local clientele, which varies from place to place.. The figures I saw were national, to the best of my recollection, like the ones in the article quoted above. > To the best of my knowledge, there is no Scottish-American > neighborhood in this area. I haven't spotted any area where the > cars have caber racks on the roof or any backyards with > weight-tossing bars erected. I did once drive down a street where > I thought I heard bagpipes, but it was just a cat with its tail > caught in a door. Are you sure that was his tail? He might have been singing the _Lament for the Children_, although I don't believe the MacCrimmons are Clan Chattan. >>> Scottish-Americans do not, as far as I know, eat under the arches >>> in disproportionate numbers; American Blacks, I am told, do. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > group. In the overall United States population, blacks represent 12 > percent and Hispanics 14 percent, according to the Census Bureau." That doesn't necessarily contradict what Tony said. Blacks may well be both 12 percent of the overall population and 17 percent of the population in the general vicinity of the average McDonald's, both of which tend to have higher densities in urban areas. Indeed, it's mathematically possible (though I have no reason to suspect that it's true) that in general, in any given McDonald's catchment area, blacks and Hispanics are *less* likely to patronize than whites and still have it be true that in the aggregate they are more likely to be patrons. (This is known as Simpson's Paradox, although it's not really a paradox at all, just something that looks as though it should be.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking |on the bright side, the catastrophe kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |is still there. (650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> Scottish-Americans do not, as far as I know, eat under the arches >>>> in disproportionate numbers; American Blacks, I am told, do. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > although it's not really a paradox at all, just something that looks > as though it should be.) OK, my feet are definitely no longer in contact with the bottom of the pool; but would it not in any case be the aggregate, the nation-wide figure (however arrived at), that would be likely to determine policy regarding publicity, at least to the extent that publicity is not different, say, in rural and urban areas? >> That doesn't necessarily contradict what Tony said. Blacks may well >> be both 12 percent of the overall population and 17 percent of the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > regarding publicity, at least to the extent that publicity is not > different, say, in rural and urban areas? I'm sure that they try to reach out to as many customers as they can, but if you're going strictly by numbers, I'd think you'd worry more about the 65% of your customers who *aren't* black or Hispanic than the 35% who are. *Especially* if you thought that blacks and Hispanics were already disproportionately more likely to be customers. But if you're going to base decisions based on "disproportionate numbers", I'd hope that you'd look a little more closely to find out whether it was really the case, and national averages are way too crude. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |First Law of Anthropology: 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | If they're doing something you Palo Alto, CA 94304 | don't understand, it's either an | isolated lunatic, a religious kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | ritual, or art. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ The Evan Kirshenbaum entity posted thusly: >>> That doesn't necessarily contradict what Tony said. Blacks may well >>> be both 12 percent of the overall population and 17 percent of the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >whether it was really the case, and national averages are way too >crude. My wife and I stopped at a McDonald's today, and I was looking forward to ordering a "Big Nasty" to see what reaction I'd get. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) they did not have it on the menu, and I settled for a "Quarter Pounder with 'cheese'". I found it interesting that they seem to changing size over the years. This is not unusual in itself, but the meatish part is about the same size, and the bun is now smaller. [statistics and local phenomena] (This is known as >>> Simpson's Paradox, although it's not really a paradox at all, >>> just something that looks as though it should be.) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > more about the 65% of your customers who *aren't* black or Hispanic > than the 35% who are. I don't suggest that they aren't after the others too. This is, or would be, a minor manoeuvre. *Especially* if you thought that blacks and > Hispanics were already disproportionately more likely to be > customers. But if you're going to base decisions based on > "disproportionate numbers", I'd hope that you'd look a little more > closely to find out whether it was really the case, and national > averages are way too crude. I don't get it: I can't see why the relevant figures wouldn't be the ones that correspond with the area over which the decisions (which I admit I assumed would be country-wide) were to take effect. But I often don't get statistical reasoning. Going under for the third time, now. I have to reinflate my shoes. >> But if you're going to base decisions based on "disproportionate >> numbers", I'd hope that you'd look a little more closely to find [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > admit I assumed would be country-wide) were to take effect. But I > often don't get statistical reasoning. This is where Simpson's Paradox kicks in and where non-uniform distributions make aggregates look different from non-aggregates. It's what allows you to say (to take some (purportedly) real examples), that the average white American is significantly more likely to vote than the average black American--but that within every socioeconomic level, the average black American is significantly more likely to vote than the average white American; that treatment A is significantly better than treatment B for patients with kidney stones--but for patients with large kidney stones, treatment B is significantly better and for patients with small kidney stones (the only other size), treatment B is significantly better; that male applicants to Berkeley are significantly more likely to be admitted than female applicants, but in no specific department is this the case (in some similar accounts, it's claimed that all individual departments are biased toward female applicants). It could easily be the case that, because both McDonald's locations and black Americans tend to be disproportionately likely to be in cities, the population that the average McDonald's draws from contains significantly blacks than the 12% of the overall population. Indeed, it could well be more than the 17% that makes up the fraction of the McDonald's customer base. In which case, blacks might well be disproportionately *less* likely to eat there than their white counterparts. Or, of course, it might not. You'd have to see the actual numbers. But I'd expect that a successful company like McDonald's would do relatively sophisticated statistical analysis to decide who they're reaching and who they aren't. As an illustration of Simpson's Paradox in this setting, assume that we have a country that has two regions, with minimal traffic between them. 90% of the population is white. 30% of the white population and 80% of the black population live in region A. So we have A B Total white 27% 63% 90% black 8% 2% 10% Total 35% 65% 100% Blacks make up 22% of region A and 3% of region B. If a restaurant has 80% of its stores in region A, and blacks and whites were equally likely to eat there, it would expect about 18% of its customers to be black, even though only 10% of the country is black. So if their black customers represented 15% of their sales ("50% higher than the national average!") it would actually mean that blacks were a fair bit less likely than whites to eat there. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [the valiant attempt to explain "Simpson's Paradox" meets the immoveable soft, solid object] Tentative thanks for this. I have saved a copy of your message for offline consultation, and intend to continue drawing pictures for myself of country C, population 1000, with two provinces and ten McRestaurants, but I may be some time confirming that I really don't understand this sh.t (to use yet another, this time uncountable, synonym for doomyflop). > [the valiant attempt to explain "Simpson's Paradox" meets the > immoveable soft, solid object] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > understand this sh.t (to use yet another, this time uncountable, > synonym for doomyflop). "Simpson's Paradox" is not a real paradox but only an apparent one. It arises (roughly speaking) because percentages cannot be reliably compared if there are large differences in the sizes of the samples. Here is one of the examples given at <http://exploringdata.cqu.edu.au/sim_par.htm> (which has several others you might enjoy). This one describes a hypothetical comparison between (drug) Treatment A and Treatment B done in 2 trials, 1 and 2. The numbers are (subjects cured)/(total subjects) presented as numbers and then as percentages: Treatment A Treatment B Trial 1. 40/200 (20%) 30/200 (15%) Trial 2. 85/100 (85%) 300/400 (75%) In both trials, Treatment A cures a higher _percentage_ of subjects than does Treatment B. But if we add them together we get: Trial 1+2 125/300 (42%) 330/600 (55%) Treatment B now delivers the better result. Why? Because the number of subjects receiving Treatment B in Trial 2 dominates the combined result: it is double the number taking part in each of Trial 1A & 1B, and four times the number taking part in Trial 2A. The sample producing the 85% success rate for Trial 2A is the smallest of all. It looks impressive as a percentage but it has the least influence on the overall result. EK's example is more elaborate but the same principle is operating. HTH SignatureLes >> [the valiant attempt to explain "Simpson's Paradox" meets the >> immoveable soft, solid object] >> >> [...] I really don't understand this sh.t [...] > "Simpson's Paradox" is not a real paradox but only an apparent one. > It arises (roughly speaking) because percentages cannot be reliably > compared if there are large differences in the sizes of the > samples. Here is one of the examples given at > > <http://exploringdata.cqu.edu.au/sim_par.htm> [example] Thank you very much. That one is simple enough even for me. I shall attack Evan's inner-city road food outlets with renewed hope. [Simpson's "Paradox"] > It could easily be the case that, because both McDonald's locations > and black Americans tend to be disproportionately likely to be in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > relatively sophisticated statistical analysis to decide who they're > reaching and who they aren't. After looking at Leslie's simple example, which I may have been readier for than I was for the simple example you kindly gave me earlier, it seems to me that my difficulties may have been self-inflicted (more below). Since the figures I quoted elsewhere were from the Mchorse's mcmouth, do we not then have to assume that they are accurate? > As an illustration of Simpson's Paradox in this setting, assume that > we have a country that has two regions, with minimal traffic between [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ("50% higher than the national average!") it would actually mean > that blacks were a fair bit less likely than whites to eat there. I have been travelling in circles, trying to see exactly how the distribution of restos would affect the numbers served, and (for example) whether it was just a coincidence, or full of deeper meaning, that the percentage of restos in region A was exactly the same as the percentage of the Black population there; but it occurs to me late that this may be overanalysis, and that you may have meant merely that the overall percentages given were arrived at by averaging (do I mean "aggregating"?) percentages obtained from individual outlets unevenly distributed, since that appears to be how the misleading results of the "paradox" are arrived at. But I agree with you that this corp is like all others in being very careful where the bottom line is in question, and I believe it can be assumed that McD's quoted figures were arrived at in the most approved fashion: by accumulating raw numbers from the outlets and doing the arithmetic at the national level (or by doing a phone survey). Which means that, at a national or even regional level, for determining advertising strategy or for confirming dark suspicions, their percentages ought to be trustworthy. Unless they're lying, of course; it always pays to remember that, if a corporation is a person, that person is a sociopath. Have I, however unhandily, caught your drift? > [Simpson's "Paradox"] >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > were from the Mchorse's mcmouth, do we not then have to assume that > they are accurate? Sure. We can assume that blacks make up 12% of the population and 17% of McDonald's customers. (Actually, they said "sales", but let's ignore that for now.) [snip] > I have been travelling in circles, trying to see exactly how the > distribution of restos would affect the numbers served, and (for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > distributed, since that appears to be how the misleading results of > the "paradox" are arrived at. Basically, if I understand what you're asking. The overall percentage of customers (in US restaurants) who are black is significantly higher than the percentage of the national population that's black. This doesn't rule out the possibility that *in every single state*, the percentage of black customers in restaurants in that state is significantly *less* than the percentage of the state population that's black. And it certainly doesn't rule out what would seem to be more likely, that blacks are statistically little different from their white neighbors in terms of likelihood of visiting their local McDonald's--they just happen to be more likely to live near a McDonald's than the average white American does, since they are more likely to live in urban areas. > But I agree with you that this corp is like all others in being very > careful where the bottom line is in question, and I believe it can [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they're lying, of course; it always pays to remember that, if a > corporation is a person, that person is a sociopath. Looking at your original quote I found a _NY Times_ article that says, "McDonald's agrees that Hispanics and blacks are core customers. The company gets 17 to 18 percent of its sales from each group. In the overall United States population, blacks represent 12 percent and Hispanics 14 percent, according to the Census Bureau." I suspect that at least the last sentence was due to the reporter, not McDonald's, added for context, and either inadvertently or because of statistical unsophistication on the part of the reporter giving the impression that they were "core" because they were disproportionately fond of the restaurant. And, of course, since blacks make up a significant (whether or not disproportionate) fraction of their sales, McDonald's certainly takes pains to make sure that they are represented in their advertising, especially in regions in which they are represent a larger portion of the potential customer base. I'm not saying that it's not the case that McDonald's doesn't make marketing decisions designed to target blacks (indeed, I believe that the "Mickey-D's" ads were such an attempt); I just don't think that the "disproportion" you quoted is the reason. If only 10% of their revenue came from blacks, they would probably still consider them "core customers". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If to "man" a phone implies handing 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it over to a person of the male Palo Alto, CA 94304 |gender, then to "monitor" it |suggests handing it over to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |lizard. (650)857-7572 | Rohan Oberoi http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> [Simpson's "Paradox"] [much snipping, to get out of the outbox] > Basically, if I understand what you're asking. The overall > percentage of customers (in US restaurants) who are black is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to live near a McDonald's than the average white American does, > since they are more likely to live in urban areas. > And, of course, since blacks make up a significant (whether or not > disproportionate) fraction of their sales, McDonald's certainly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > revenue came from blacks, they would probably still consider them > "core customers". My narapoia can live with these conclusions. Thanks again. The CDB entity posted thusly: >> The CDB entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >just an interesting possibility to keep in mind when looking at McD's >advertising and nomenclature in future. Understood. I am fond of catching things in ads that directly or indirectly aim to make the watcher want to buy the product for reasons other than just the price/quality of the product. An ad for a moving company, promoting their container moving system: "Nobody else's stuff mixed in with your valuable possessions." In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote: >I am fond of catching things in ads that directly or >indirectly aim to make the watcher want to buy the product for reasons >other than just the price/quality of the product. That's about 99% of ads, AFAICS. I am fond of looking at ads (just occasionally, out of interest, you understand) and trying to identify the actual content. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England [...] > It would generally have to be quite a stretch, to keep it from going > supraliminal. The question is whether all those black customers' > subconscious minds would sit up and take notice when they saw a burger > that wasn't just Tasty, but "Big N" Tasty. No, I think the emphasis is on "BIG &" Tasty. Pardon me for being naive, but the special treatment of the surviving fragment of "and" doesn't seem ethnically targeted, it just seems folksy. Which is a strong motif in Americana and American Adverse-tising. The capitalization doesn't seem to be a departure from that theme; it may,. however, be part of trademarking the name. > I'm going to stop protesting now. Even though I've argued for the > idea, I don't by any means propose it as an established fact; it's > just an interesting possibility to keep in mind when looking at McD's > advertising and nomenclature in future. Eh. "I"m lovin' it!" /dps PS I'd think the minority to chase now, in terms of corporate advertising, is the Hispanic bloc -- spreading widely throughout the US, and rapidly displacing other minorities in political muscle and street muscle. > McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." > Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. The capital strikes me as > very odd and unjustified; but the omission of the first apostrophe for > the omitted "A" in "and" seems almost universal in American signage. > > What do you think? Interesting marketing campaign: whenever I see it I thing "Big N' Nasty". Anyway, the choice of where to put the apostrophe seems to be a matter of taste, but technically it should have two, in place of the omitted "a" and "d", as follows: 'n'. But to me that looks like an "n" enclosed by single quotes. So I hypothesize that's why one apostrophe is generally used. I also think it should be a small N, according to the general rules of capitalization of titles (conjunctions, articles and prespositions being left uncapitalized in most cases). SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." > Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. I didn't comment on this before, but you don't trademark capitalization. According to the USPTO it's "BIG N' TASTY". As for the apostrophe position, while I doubt it had any bearing on their decision, I do see that there was a (by then abandoned) trademark for "BIG 'N TASTIES" for what look to be ice cream sandwiches. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig. | Robert Heinlein kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' Tasty." >> Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. > >I didn't comment on this before, but you don't trademark >capitalization. According to the USPTO it's "BIG N' TASTY". Wh-wh-wh-wh-what?! This is the best news I've had this year. It means we can say that "iPod" and "eBay" are wrong and be right! SignatureArchie Valparaiso >>> McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' >>> Tasty." Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wh-wh-wh-wh-what?! This is the best news I've had this year. It > means we can say that "iPod" and "eBay" are wrong and be right! No, it means that case is insignificant and Apple owns "iPod" and "IPod" and "IPOD" and "ipod" and "Ipod" and any other variant. And that, as the owner, can require (but not, in most cases, enforce) that the capitalization "iPod" be used. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there |all resemblance ends. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> McDonald's has registered as a trademark the phrase "Big N' >>>> Tasty." Capital N, one apostrophe only after the N. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >that, as the owner, can require (but not, in most cases, enforce) that >the capitalization "iPod" be used. How can it require something that is insignificant, M'Lud? SignatureArchie Valparaiso >>>>I didn't comment on this before, but you don't trademark >>>>capitalization. According to the USPTO it's "BIG N' TASTY". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > How can it require something that is insignificant, M'Lud? That I can see, but how can you require something that you can't enforce? SignatureSalvatore Volatile >>>>>I didn't comment on this before, but you don't trademark >>>>>capitalization. According to the USPTO it's "BIG N' TASTY". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >That I can see How? If "IpoD" or (my preferred version in a sane world) "I-Pod" are as much Apple's property as "iPod", why should they give a legal damn how anybody chooses to capitalise it? >but how can you require something that you can't enforce? Yes, that too. SignatureArchie Valparaiso |
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.