 |
 | 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 2007With black kid shoes
Hello: I wonder if "black kid shoes" here really means "shoes designed for children?" Perhaps it was a special fashion at the time ... Or she just had small feet:-) -------- She was more like the woman the house had reminded me of the first time I had seen it -- a respectable, middle-aged woman in a clean, gray, gingham dress, with white stockings and black kid shoes, sitting in the rocker chair on the porch, .... All the King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren, p. 606 ------- Thanks. Marius Hancu On 15 Jan 2007, Marius Hancu wrote > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Perhaps it was a special fashion at the time ... > Or she just had small feet:-) > -------- > She was more like the woman the house had reminded me of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thanks. > Marius Hancu It's "kid" as in "goat" -- kid leather is good-quality, and often used as glove-leather. (cf. handling someone with "kid gloves".)  SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 15 Jan 2007, Marius Hancu wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > (cf. handling someone with "kid gloves".) :-) That's one reason why being told that your neighbour is taking his kids to school conjures up a weird picture. JNugent filted: >> It's "kid" as in "goat" -- kid leather is good-quality, and often >> used as glove-leather. > >That's one reason why being told that your neighbour is >taking his kids to school conjures up a weird picture. It made the children laugh and play?...no, wait, that's lambs....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. The R H Draney entity posted thusly: >JNugent filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It made the children laugh and play?...no, wait, that's lambs....r Actually, kid leather is often lamb leather. Oleg Lego filted: >The R H Draney entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Actually, kid leather is often lamb leather. Next you'll be claiming that camel-hair brushes are made from squirrel....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > Oleg Lego filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Next you'll be claiming that camel-hair brushes are made from squirrel....r And that catgut comes from sheep. SignatureBlinky >>Oleg Lego filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > And that catgut comes from sheep. What about "rotgut"? --Jeff SignatureThe shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. --Stendhal Jeffrey Turner filted: >>>Oleg Lego filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >What about "rotgut"? Still preferable to the evil Doktor from Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > I wonder if > "black kid shoes" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with white stockings and black kid shoes, sitting in > the rocker chair on the porch, .... Kid gloves and shoes are made with leather from the skins of young goats, which are called 'kids'. They are softer than cowskin ones. The idiomatic phrase "handle with kid gloves" means to handle gently. Calf leather is another type of soft leather. The Marius Hancu entity posted thusly: >Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >All the King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren, p. 606 >------- No. A kid is a young goat, and the leather is prized for its pliable qualities. Shoes make of leather from a kid would be 'kid shoes', and of course, the colour is obvious. Dress gloves are often made of kid leather. An English idiom meaning "to handle with special consideration, tact, care, etc." is "to handle with kid gloves". > >-------- > >She was more like the woman the house had reminded me of the first time [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > An English idiom meaning "to handle with special consideration, tact, > care, etc." is "to handle with kid gloves". OK, right! I knew this about "handling," but I forgot the "goat" connotation. Thanks you all. Marius Hancu Very early in school, my teacher had fits if any of us used the word "kid" to refer to ourselves. "Are you baby goats?" she'd ask. Cece Marius Hancu ha escrito: > > >-------- > > >She was more like the woman the house had reminded me of the first time [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Thanks you all. > Marius Hancu > Very early in school, my teacher had fits if any of us used the word > "kid" to refer to ourselves. "Are you baby goats?" she'd ask. That just goes to show you how some teachers are. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> Very early in school, my teacher had fits if any of us used the word >> "kid" to refer to ourselves. "Are you baby goats?" she'd ask. > That just goes to show you how some teachers are. British teachers did the same thing (and I hope they still do. The realistic aim is not to stop the slang usage, but to at least ensure that the pupils know that the word does have a proper meaning. > >> Very early in school, my teacher had fits if any of us used the word > >> "kid" to refer to ourselves. "Are you baby goats?" she'd ask. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to at least ensure that the pupils know that the word > does have a proper meaning. "Kids" for "children" was one of my mother's bete noirs, along with - for some reason - using abbreviated names for children. My friends all called me either "Mike" or "Mick" (I still get both), but she would never tolerate anything but the full "Michael". Ironically, she was quite happy to refer to herself and my Dad as Tom and Marje. Parents, who'd have 'em? Mike M >>> Very early in school, my teacher had fits if any of us used the >>> word "kid" to refer to ourselves. "Are you baby goats?" she'd [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ensure that the pupils know that the word does have a proper > meaning. As attested by the OED, the sense of "kid" meaning "child" dates back perhaps to 1599, certainly to 1690. The sense of "pupil" meaning "student" is cited back to 1563. Previously, the word meant "an orphan who is a minor and hence a ward". Why is it that the kids are properly "pupils", but the pupils aren't properly "kids"? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Other computer companies have spent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |15 years working on fault-tolerant Palo Alto, CA 94304 |computers. Microsoft has spent |its time more fruitfully, working kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |on fault-tolerant *users*. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >As attested by the OED, the sense of "kid" meaning "child" dates back >perhaps to 1599, certainly to 1690. The sense of "pupil" meaning >"student" is cited back to 1563. Previously, the word meant "an >orphan who is a minor and hence a ward". Why is it that the kids are >properly "pupils", but the pupils aren't properly "kids"? "Pupils -- I call you pupils because 'students' implies that you study --" - Mr Brake, 4th period physics, Silver High School, 1974 ....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > As attested by the OED, > The sense of "pupil" meaning > "student" is cited back to 1563. Previously, the word meant "an > orphan who is a minor and hence a ward". At what point did "student" stop meaning someone who was studying at university? SignatureRob Bannister >> As attested by the OED, The sense of "pupil" meaning "student" is >> cited back to 1563. Previously, the word meant "an orphan who is a >> minor and hence a ward". > > At what point did "student" stop meaning someone who was studying at > university? I wouldn't say that it stopped meaning that. More that the sense was extended to people in school anywhere. The OED cites this extension to 1900, calling it "originally U.S.". Their older sense, however, says "at a university or other place of higher education or technical training". The oldest sense, however, is "a person who is engaged in or addicted to study", cited back to 1398. The _New York Times_ has "high school students" back to 1884 and "public school students" ("all lads under 16 years of age") back to 1879. An 1883 article talks about students at "a girls' drawing school in the Rue de Vieux Colombia" in Paris. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |quite another to be willfully Palo Alto, CA 94304 |ignorant | Cecil Adams kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>As attested by the OED, The sense of "pupil" meaning "student" is >>>cited back to 1563. Previously, the word meant "an orphan who is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I wouldn't say that it stopped meaning that. Sorry: I missed out an "only". More that the sense was > extended to people in school anywhere. The OED cites this extension > to 1900, calling it "originally U.S.". Their older sense, however, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 1879. An 1883 article talks about students at "a girls' drawing > school in the Rue de Vieux Colombia" in Paris. Thanks for checking. I had no idea this extended meaning was so old, although I was sure it was American. I would have guessed the 1950s, so this was quite a surprise. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> As attested by the OED, The sense of "pupil" meaning "student" >>>> is cited back to 1563. Previously, the word meant "an orphan [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > although I was sure it was American. I would have guessed the 1950s, > so this was quite a surprise. You did better than I did. I first noticed it in the 1990s, with some uncertainty caused by the fact that I had no child in school in the 1980s. I did have a child in school in the 1970s, and he was a pupil rather than a student. The American meaning took a while to reach Australia, but once it did get here it spread like wildfire. 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. >>>>> As attested by the OED, The sense of "pupil" meaning "student" >>>>> is cited back to 1563. Previously, the word meant "an orphan [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > rather than a student. The American meaning took a while to reach > Australia, but once it did get here it spread like wildfire. By the time I started teaching in W Australia in 1972, the word "student" had completely replaced pupil in official edu-jargon. I had been teaching for 7 years in the London area before that, so it came as a surprise to me. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister wrote: At what point did "student" stop meaning someone who was studying at university? I wouldn't say that it stopped meaning that. More that the sense was extended to people in school anywhere. The OED cites this extension to 1900, calling it "originally U.S.". Their older sense, however, says "at a university or other place of higher education or technical training". The oldest sense, however, is "a person who is engaged in or addicted to study", cited back to 1398. The _New York Times_ has "high school students" back to 1884 and "public school students" ("all lads under 16 years of age") back to 1879. An 1883 article talks about students at "a girls' drawing school in the Rue de Vieux Colombia" in Paris. I found an 1828 article which restricts the student label to universities, but which calls the high schoolers "scholars", which to me today implies a higher level of application and intelligence. Indeed, another article in the same journal applies the "scholar" label to younger children in schools. In the High School for boys, the present amount of scholars is five hundred and forty-three, American Journal of Education By William Russell 1828 (visible on front page, Google Books full view) There seem to be some early 1800s application of "student" in books written for high-school age people, especially for religious studies; the books may refer to "students of the classics". But here also judgment is necessary to direct the student in the mode of his study. The Juvenile Mentor: Or American School Class-book No. 3, Being the Third Part of the Juvenile... - Page 140 by Albert Picket - 1818 There also might be some application of "student" to the HIgh School in Edinburgh about the time of Robert Burns, but it is difficult to understand the nuances of a foreign educational institution. The question becomes when did the schools themselves refer to their inmates as "students". The usage seems to start from outside, from missionary schools, and from people outside the schools. Here is an 1843 review of a book included in an ad for _Morse's School Geography_ : This work is compiled with great care from the most approved authorities and surveys, and will be found of great value to the common school student. -- Westchester Herald The District School Journal of the State of New York 1843 (1843 on title page, Google Books full view) -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Subthread of With black kid shoes] >I found an 1828 article which restricts the student label >to universities, but which calls the high schoolers >"scholars", which to me today implies a higher level >of application and intelligence. Indeed, another article >in the same journal applies the "scholar" label to younger >children in schools. The instructions for enumerators in all the 19th century UK censuses specified that children attending school should be listed as "scholar". SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" >Robert Bannister wrote: > At what point did "student" stop meaning someone > who was studying at university? Dunno, but a pupil is someone under control of a tutor, and a tutor is a kind of guardian -- not necessarily a teacher. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> As attested by the OED, >> The sense of "pupil" meaning [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At what point did "student" stop meaning someone who was studying at > university? A long time ago, in American English. Not within living memory. 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. >> As attested by the OED, >> The sense of "pupil" meaning >> "student" is cited back to 1563. Previously, the word meant "an >> orphan who is a minor and hence a ward". > At what point did "student" stop meaning someone who was studying at > university? Good question. It seems nowadays (in the UK at least) to be applied to anyone in education who is over about 11 years of age. >>>>Very early in school, my teacher had fits if any of us used the >>>>word "kid" to refer to ourselves. "Are you baby goats?" she'd >>>>ask. >>>That just goes to show you how some teachers are. >>British teachers did the same thing (and I hope they still do. >>The realistic aim is not to stop the slang usage, but to at least >>ensure that the pupils know that the word does have a proper >>meaning. > As attested by the OED, the sense of "kid" meaning "child" dates back > perhaps to 1599, certainly to 1690. The sense of "pupil" meaning > "student" is cited back to 1563. Previously, the word meant "an > orphan who is a minor and hence a ward". Why is it that the kids are > properly "pupils", but the pupils aren't properly "kids"? Because that is the way that our language evolved. "Kid" (for "child") is slang, whereas "pupil" for "schoolchild" (and various other clases of person engaged in formal study) is not. Additionally, the further we move from a rural, agricultural society and the less contact there is with nature, the fewer children know that the young of a goat is a kid. FWIW, I agree that this is a lost battle. "Kid" as "child" is well on its way to becoming the primary meaning of the word. > FWIW, I agree that this is a lost battle. "Kid" as "child" is well on > its way to becoming the primary meaning of the word. I'd say it's further than that. It was the primary meaning of the word by the time I learned it in the mid-'60s, with the "young goat" meaning learned considerably later. I would guess that there wasn't much slang left in it by the time _Bye Bye Birdie_ came out in 1960. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some |mythology is taught under that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually (650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous. | John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [ ... ] > FWIW, I agree that this is a lost battle. "Kid" as > "child" is well on its way to becoming the primary > meaning of the word. It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how often does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? athel > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how often > does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? Probably no more frequently then they need to refer to a young cow or bull or a young pig. But I don't expect that "calf" and/or "piglet" will die out any more quickly. >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bull or a young pig. But I don't expect that "calf" and/or "piglet" > will die out any more quickly. My mother was prone to calling us "whelps", when sufficiently irritated. That was usually accompanied by a swat with whatever implement she found handy. And, of course, "pups" was used. Never "kitten". But since those animals are rarely skinned for leather, I suppose they don't count. JNugent filted: >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >a young cow or bull or a young pig. But I don't expect >that "calf" and/or "piglet" will die out any more quickly. Yeah, but when's the last time you had occasion to use the word "shoat"?...r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > JNugent filted: >>>[ ... ] >>>>FWIW, I agree that this is a lost battle. "Kid" as >>>>"child" is well on its way to becoming the primary >>>>meaning of the word. >>>It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how often >>>does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? >>Probably no more frequently then they need to refer to >>a young cow or bull or a young pig. But I don't expect >>that "calf" and/or "piglet" will die out any more quickly. > Yeah, but when's the last time you had occasion to use the word "shoat"?...r I had to Google for that, but there are several different (English) words for pigs at various ages and depending upon geography. The point, I suppose, is that what was once natural (if not essential) terminology for the majority has become, and is still becoming, work-related jargon for farmers and other rural-dwellers and workers. >> [ ... ] >> >>>FWIW, I agree that this is a lost battle. "Kid" as >>>"child" is well on its way to becoming the primary >>>meaning of the word. >> It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how >> often does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? > > Probably no more frequently then they need to refer to a young cow > or bull or a young pig. But I don't expect that "calf" and/or > "piglet" will die out any more quickly. Cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens are all staples on American farms and the source of the bulk of the meat we eat. So even those who don't deal with them directly know a lot more about the stages of their life (if only through picture books as children) than they do about those of other animals primarily raised for meat in other cultures. Of course, there's also the process whereby the word for the young supplants the word for the adult. "Piglet" only goes back to the mid- nineteenth-century. Prior to that, "pigs" were largely, I believe, the young. Similarly, the OED only cites "chicken" for the adult of the species to 1827; previously, it was only the young. I think that there are a couple of other cases of this, as well. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth. |Enormous effort and elaborate kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this (650)857-7572 |much money | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>[ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > (if only through picture books as children) than they do about those > of other animals primarily raised for meat in other cultures. That's probably the crucial distinction. In the UK, goat-meat is certainly not a staple, and I don't expect that it is any more common in the USA. TBH, I'm not even sure why a USA or UK farmer would keep a goat, except perhaps as a source of an alternative milk. Perhaps they don't keep them, very much. > Of course, there's also the process whereby the word for the young > supplants the word for the adult. "Piglet" only goes back to the mid- > nineteenth-century. Prior to that, "pigs" were largely, I believe, > the young. Similarly, the OED only cites "chicken" for the adult of > the species to 1827; previously, it was only the young. I think that > there are a couple of other cases of this, as well. I always cast my mind over Shakespeare at these moments - It seems to me that he would have used the generalised "fowl", though he certainly uses "chicks" to suggest "young". not.telling@isp.com had it: > > Cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens are all staples on American farms and > > the source of the bulk of the meat we eat. So even those who don't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > keep a goat, except perhaps as a source of an > alternative milk. Perhaps they don't keep them, very much. Other than goat farmers, you mean? Actually, there's a significant market in the UK for goat's cheese and to a lesser extent goat's milk. SignatureDavid ===== > not.telling@isp.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Actually, there's a significant market in the UK for goat's cheese > and to a lesser extent goat's milk. And goat's butter. I understand goat's milk/cheese/butter suits some people who can't digest cow's milk and derived products, and goat's cheese is fashionable as a "starter" at dinner: our small local Sainsbury stocks four or five different kinds. A friend of mine keeps a goat as a sort of outdoor pet. (Sadly the small local flock of llamas departed when their owner moved to another village. I think they were just pets, too.) Alan Jones >> Cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens are all staples on American farms and >> the source of the bulk of the meat we eat. So even those who don't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > certainly not a staple, and I don't expect that it is any more > common in the USA. Nope. You can find it, but you typically have to go to an "ethnic" grocery store or butcher. The only place I know that has it on the menu is a Jamaican/Trinidadan restaurant, and when we made curried goat we had to go to a local Mexican grocerty store to find it. > TBH, I'm not even sure why a USA or UK farmer would keep a goat, > except perhaps as a source of an alternative milk. Perhaps they > don't keep them, very much. They don't, much. Those that do, I suspect largely use them for milk for making cheese. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands |to yourself. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> TBH, I'm not even sure why a USA or UK farmer would keep a goat, >> except perhaps as a source of an alternative milk. Perhaps they >> don't keep them, very much. > >They don't, much. Those that do, I suspect largely use them for milk >for making cheese. Cousins of mine kept one as a pet...damned thing slept across the foot of their bed, like a dog....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. >> TBH, I'm not even sure why a USA or UK farmer would keep a goat, >> except perhaps as a source of an alternative milk. Perhaps they >> don't keep them, very much. > > They don't, much. Those that do, I suspect largely use them for milk > for making cheese. Australian farmers often keep a goat or two around. Their main purpose is to eat thistles, blackberries and other weeds. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > TBH, I'm not even sure why a USA or UK farmer would keep a goat, > except perhaps as a source of an alternative milk. Perhaps they don't > keep them, very much. One of my childhood memories is of the regular bicycle ride to get a bucket of milk from the only goat-owner in town. My sister was allergic to cows' milk. I gather that that's a fairly common allergy. 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. >> TBH, I'm not even sure why a USA or UK farmer would keep a goat, >> except perhaps as a source of an alternative milk. Perhaps they don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bucket of milk from the only goat-owner in town. My sister was allergic > to cows' milk. I gather that that's a fairly common allergy. Well, that's fairly close to what I wrote... > Cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens are all staples on American farms and > the source of the bulk of the meat we eat. So even those who don't > deal with them directly know a lot more about the stages of their life > (if only through picture books as children) than they do about those > of other animals primarily raised for meat in other cultures. But do they know the actual words for these various stages? For all practical purposes, I tend to lump them all together with the animal without really knowing what they mean, ie whether the word is sex-related, age-related or means it has been castrated. So, if I hear/read ox, steer, bullock, heifer, etc., it's just some kind of cow/bull as far as I and many others are concerned. I suppose most of us, including most children, do know the major sex-related words like cow/bull, ewe/ram and most of the baby animal words, but farmers use a lot more than that; moreover, some words vary, if not from region to region, certainly from country to country. SignatureRob Bannister >> Cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens are all staples on American farms and >> the source of the bulk of the meat we eat. So even those who don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But do they know the actual words for these various stages? Nah. It's an anthropomorphic "parent/child" or, later, "mommy/daddy/ baby" notion. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how > often does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? According to the foodie bit of Saturday's paper, it's started to appear in London restaurants, so the need may become more frequent. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >According to the foodie bit of Saturday's paper, it's started to appear >in London restaurants, so the need may become more frequent. Good grief. Why? It tastes like putrid mutton unless heavily disguised with spicy sauces. SignatureArchie Valparaiso >>>[ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Good grief. Why? It tastes like putrid mutton unless heavily disguised > with spicy sauces. You must have had very unfortunate experiences. The main difference between goat meat and mutton is that goat does not have that strong lanolin taste. In fact, it tastes rather like lamb ought to taste. Perhaps someone fed you male goat, which indeed can be quite nasty unless very young. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>[ ... ] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Perhaps someone fed you male goat, which indeed can be quite nasty >unless very young. No, it was kid goat, for sure. They're big on goats round these parts, because there's not enough pasture for much else. Perhaps that's the problem -- if you are what you eat, then goats are pure crap. SignatureArchie Valparaiso >>> [ ... ] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Good grief. Why? It tastes like putrid mutton unless heavily disguised > with spicy sauces. Well, not that bad if you catch it young enough; but certainly not worth spending money on. I've taken billy kids off somebody's hands a couple of times and fed them for a few weeks. Once, the slaughterman didn't have time that day, and by the time he got round to it, it had become such a fixture in his front garden that his kids wouldn't let him kill it. He had to kill the next beef free of charge instead, and I reckon I got the best of the bargain. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how >> often does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? > > According to the foodie bit of Saturday's paper, it's started to > appear in London restaurants, so the need may become more frequent. Kangaroo has started to appear in some Australian restaurants, but that doesn't mean I'm going to eat it. As far as I'm concerned it's still cat food. I might just be persuaded to try goat, in the same way as I once agreed to eat a snail and a slice of horse meat. (Not in the same meal.) I doubt that I'd go back for a second serve. 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. > Kangaroo has started to appear in some Australian restaurants, but that > doesn't mean I'm going to eat it. As far as I'm concerned it's still cat > food. I had some -- well, a bite of a friend's order -- in an Australian restaurant in New York City. It tasted... beefy. But stringy. And really just not very good. The night I were there, we weren't allowed to sit on the back deck because a crew was filming an episode of America's Next Top Model. I wonder if any of the aspiring mannequins ordered the kangaroo? SignatureSML >> Kangaroo has started to appear in some Australian restaurants, but that >> doesn't mean I'm going to eat it. As far as I'm concerned it's still cat [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >restaurant in New York City. It tasted... beefy. But stringy. And really >just not very good. [...] I don't like kangaroo as a quick fry (too lean) but slow cooked, roo tail is excellent. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. [ ... ] > Kangaroo has started to appear in some Australian restaurants, It's spread a lot further than that. We even get offered it occasionally in the canteen at work. I find it quite edible. athel >>> It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how >>> often does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > doesn't mean I'm going to eat it. As far as I'm concerned it's still cat > food. Funny thing that. I've eaten roo lots of times, but only when I or one of my friends have shot it. I look at it in the supermarket display, but can never quite bring myself to buy any. > I might just be persuaded to try goat, in the same way as I once agreed > to eat a snail and a slice of horse meat. (Not in the same meal.) I > doubt that I'd go back for a second serve. I would eat roast goat any day in preference to lamb. Can't say I'm mad on snails - they're a bit too chewy. SignatureRob Bannister > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how often > does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? Reasonably often in my city because of the high numbers of people from Mediterranean countries. However, I checked out my nearest Italian butcher's: he is advertising "young goat". The supermarkets have made up their own word for goat meat, "chevron" or something like that. Some restaurants use Italian, Greek or southern Slav words, but then there are still a few restaurants where few people speak English. SignatureRob Bannister > [ ... ] >> FWIW, I agree that this is a lost battle. "Kid" as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how often > does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? Where's my cow? 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 will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how often > > does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? > > Where's my cow? It goes sizzle! SignatureSML > > > It will probably be lost altogether if it doesn't. After all, how > > > often does a modern urban person need to refer to a young goat? > > > > Where's my cow? > > It goes sizzle! That's not my cow! Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >>>>> Very early in school, my teacher had fits if any of us used the >>>>> word "kid" to refer to ourselves. "Are you baby goats?" she'd [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > FWIW, I agree that this is a lost battle. "Kid" as "child" is well on > its way to becoming the primary meaning of the word. I'd argue that, within the past 30 years, "kid" as "child" has already become the primary meaning of the word. I learned the word "kid" long before I even knew that it could be applied to young goats. Additionally, though it is listed as informal, "child" is the first definition of "kid" in the dictionary on my computer (The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition): kid |kid| noun 1 _informal_ a child or young person. • used as an informal form of address : _we'll be seeing ya, kid!_ 2 a young goat. • leather made from a young goat's skin : [as adj. ] _white kid gloves._ SignatureClark S. Cox III clarkcox3@gmail.com >> Very early in school, my teacher had fits if any of us used the word >> "kid" to refer to ourselves. "Are you baby goats?" she'd ask. > > That just goes to show you how some teachers are. _Were_, I suspect. They handle pupils with kid gloves these days. --Jeff SignatureThe shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. --Stendhal >> Very early in school, my teacher had fits if any of us used the word >> "kid" to refer to ourselves. "Are you baby goats?" she'd ask. > > That just goes to show you how some teachers are. Some of them thought they were nannies. SignatureRob Bannister |
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.