 |
 | 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 2004Re: Ot: Re: Re:Re: Re: What does BWA-HAHAHAHAHA! mean?
> Never thought I'd be replying to a nom de net, but what the hey ... > > *Spangle* by Gary Jennings is available from most large sellers of > used books on the Net. Half.com offers several hardback copies in > the US$3.00 range (plus S&H, of course). The complete text is in > that single hardback volume. The book was not released in paperback > until several years after initial publication, and then in a series > of three mass-market volumes. So you need to buy three different > paperbacks to get the complete text. > > Or were you asking about something else? Hi Bob, Yes, I was asking about something else. In the 60's you could buy a fruity sweet, something like a tube of "Trebor mints", but they were square and had fruit flavours instead of mint.In the late 60's / early 70's they introduced whole packets (tubes) with a single flavour, such as Cola. I have never heard of them since then. My days of growing and learning have changed for the worse: - Cadbury's "Bar Six" has dissapeared. - I can't find Bassetts sherbet tube, the one with the licorice straw sticking out of the end for you to suck up the fizzy, throat searing powder. - I used to buy a sort of loose fruity-flavoured powder called "kayli" (not sure how it is spelled) from the local tuckshop, but I have not seen that since about 1962. - Sweet cigarettes also died a death. This is probably the government were frightened the kids would set light to them! I have managed find chocolate cigars, here in Stockholm. Unfortunately thay are very small and cost about $5 each! Not only is the English language dying, but so is the entire stock of our old English tuck shop. Instead we are seeing little cardboard boxes with flip-top lids containing a few coloured bits sugar. These insults they call "Nerds", presumably named after the marketing target group. (Is there such a word as "nerd"?). Now you can even buy tiny bits of flavoured paper to place on the tongue! The object today seems to be to milk our children of their pocket money, and give as little in return as possible. BWA-HAHAHAHAHA >>Never thought I'd be replying to a nom de net, but what the hey ... >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > BWA-HAHAHAHAHA I remember Spangles with affection, too. We've indulged before in confectionery nostalgia here in aue. Sometimes you can be lucky: when I regretted the passing of Flying Saucers I was directed to Woolworths where they still lurk among the loose sweets. Sherbet fountains are still about I think but the liquorice tubes are very unsatisfactory: last time I had one I found it impossible to suck through it and the powder had no fizz. Gobstoppers and aniseed balls seem to have vanished.  SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > ... Sherbet fountains are > still about I think but the liquorice tubes are very unsatisfactory: > last time I had one I found it impossible to suck through it and the > powder had no fizz. "Sherbet fountains", that's the fella! i was racking my brains to remember the name. Thank you Laura. > Gobstoppers and aniseed balls seem to have vanished. Ah! now I can say that they have not totally dissapeared. I managed to get some from a large supermarket chain in Stockholm (Coop / Konsum) but they were very dissapointing pre-packaged things. But you have made my day; Someone remembers "proper sweets". It's funny, one remembers them the most when one is not allowed or unable to have them. Have a nice day, H > > ... Sherbet fountains are > > still about I think but the liquorice tubes are very unsatisfactory: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But you have made my day; Someone remembers "proper sweets". It's funny, one > remembers them the most when one is not allowed or unable to have them. True confession: I liked the taste of Diet-Rite Pink Grapefruit soda. It is, of course, no longer made. I have also pined for Cadbury's Orange Bar; I brought a quantity home from my most recent London trip, but they're long gone. Mercifully, a friend has called Terry's Chocolate Oranges to my attention, and I have found a vendor thereof right here in Greater Laurel. So there is still hope. *Spangle* is an interesting historical novel about a circus that tours much of the US and Europe in the 1860's. Too long, and occasionally too gory, but with much of interest. SignatureBob Lieblich Off to nibble some Terry's Laura F Spira filted: >I remember Spangles with affection, too. We've indulged before in >confectionery nostalgia here in aue. Sometimes you can be lucky: when I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >last time I had one I found it impossible to suck through it and the >powder had no fizz. Gobstoppers and aniseed balls seem to have vanished. Incidentally, after a thread here a few months back wherein you wondered if they still exist, I've put in an order at British Gourmet in Scottsdale for a box of your eponymous candy bars...I'll file a report when they come in....r > Laura F Spira filted: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > still exist, I've put in an order at British Gourmet in Scottsdale for a box of > your eponymous candy bars...I'll file a report when they come in....r Oh do! I haven't seen them in the UK since a vists to Cadbury World several years ago. British Gourmet, eh? Sounds very classy. When my cousin's English wife first moved to California in the 1960s, she became homesick for certain traditional British foods and asked the manager of the local supermarket if they sold Bird's Custard: "Ma'am", he replied politely, "I didn't know that birds ate custard." SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk spake thus: > I remember Spangles with affection, too. We've indulged before in > confectionery nostalgia here in aue. Sometimes you can be lucky: when I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > last time I had one I found it impossible to suck through it and the > powder had no fizz. Gobstoppers and aniseed balls seem to have vanished. Flying saucers are sold by the bucket in motorway service stations for large amounts of money (£2.99?). I am pleased that the Pic N Mix still contains Iced Caramels. SignatureDavid ===== [...] > Not only is the English language dying, but so is the entire stock of our I was tempted to paraphase Mark Twain, but no, I'll leave it be. > old English tuck shop. Instead we are seeing little cardboard boxes with > flip-top lids containing a few coloured bits sugar. These insults they call > "Nerds", presumably named after the marketing target group. (Is there such a > word as "nerd"?). Now you can even buy tiny bits of flavoured paper to place There is indeed such a word as "nerd." See what Onelook.com found at http://www.onelook.com/?w=nerd&ls=a Besides that, *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,* 11th ed., dates it to 1951, and gives the etymology as "perhaps from _nerd,_ a creature in the children's book _If I Ran the Zoo_ (1950) by Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel)." In retrospect--I'm not sure I knew the term at the time--it's quite evident to me that when I was in high school, I was a nerd. > on the tongue! The object today seems to be to milk our children of their > pocket money, and give as little in return as possible. > > BWA-HAHAHAHAHA SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > old English tuck shop. Instead we are seeing little cardboard boxes with > > flip-top lids containing a few coloured bits sugar. These insults they [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > In retrospect--I'm not sure I knew the term at the time--it's quite evident > to me that when I was in high school, I was a nerd. "Nerds" candy was around when I was in high school/middle school (1980s); I don't know about before then. The term "nerd" = "socially inept person" was popularized by the 1970s sitcom _Happy Days_ and the 1970s sketch comedy show _Saturday Night Live_. _Happy Days_ is also well known for repopularizing slang "cool" (this is known as the Fonzie Theory, and is no longer disputed). > _Happy Days_ is also well known for > repopularizing slang "cool" (this is known as the Fonzie Theory, and is no > longer disputed). Disputed? Jesse Sheidlower of the OED dismissed this idea so coldly on 20 Dec that he clearly didn't feel the need to "dispute" it. I thought maybe that that was the end of that. But, no. SignatureDonna Richoux > > _Happy Days_ is also well known for > > repopularizing slang "cool" (this is known as the Fonzie Theory, and is no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 20 Dec that he clearly didn't feel the need to "dispute" it. I thought > maybe that that was the end of that. But, no. Donna, I read Richard's parenthetical remark differently; i.e., the Fonzie Theory is no longer disputed because it is no longer recognized and worthy of dispute. "Murray Arnow" <arnow@iname.com> wrote... > > > _Happy Days_ is also well known for > > > repopularizing slang "cool" (this is known as the Fonzie Theory, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Fonzie Theory is no longer disputed because it is no longer recognized > and worthy of dispute. And I read it in the same way as Donna -- in Britain, to say that a thing isn't disputed can only mean that its truth is accepted. Now if he'd said that it wasn't arguable... Matti > "Murray Arnow" <arnow@iname.com> wrote... > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Now if he'd said that it wasn't arguable... That's also true on the other side of the pond. I made my crack because this reader has had his fill with certain half-assed theories, whether or not made in jest, being continually repeated here. >> "Murray Arnow" <arnow@iname.com> wrote... >>> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > this reader has had his fill with certain half-assed theories, whether > or not made in jest, being continually repeated here. Amen to that. However, I read RF's remark to mean that it is no longer disputed that the theory that _Happy Days_ reintroduced the term "cool" is called "the Fonzie Theory". Says nothing about the truth of the claim. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > > _Happy Days_ is also well known for > > repopularizing slang "cool" (this is known as the Fonzie Theory, and is no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 20 Dec that he clearly didn't feel the need to "dispute" it. I thought > maybe that that was the end of that. But, no. No. I don't think Sheidlower has researched it. Have you, Jesse? How do you research such a thing, anyway? If you go back to the era during which _Happy Days_ was the most-watched show on television, and when it was particularly popular among children, you can see how it pervaded popular culture, commercial culture. There is ample evidence that the Fonz was a cultlike figure among elementary-school-age children during the 1970s. There is ample evidence that the Fonz was associated with the word "cool" -- and is still so associated, years later. Ask anyone who was a kid during the relevant period. _Happy Days_ had a controlling influence on popular culture. "Cool" was associated with _Happy Days_. Check the episodes of _Happy Days_ and you'll see that "cool" was presented as an archaic Fifties slang word. That was the whole point in associating the Fonz with "cool". It was a Fifties thing. Now is Sheidlower denying that usage of "cool" was relatively dormant during the 1960s and 1970s but increased significantly during the 1980s and 1990s? Because this is part of the Fonzie Theory too, and this is also, in principle, something you can establish as fact. Usage of "cool" was not constant during the period 1950-1999. How do you research this? What happened with "cool" was primarily a word-of-mouth thing, a folk-cultural-evolution thing. The OED is concerned with what's in text, with what's on paper. They don't bother to look for recordings of speech, particularly children's speech, though such materials are out there, discoverable by the careful and diligent researcher. The OED takes the easy way out. They search texts. But that's not how language changes, not primarily. Language change is an oral thing, and a folk thing, a thing not written down. It's easy to search all the various corpora that the OED has at its disposal. That doesn't tell the whole story. Sheidlower is wrong. If, in rejecting the Fonzie Theory, he speaks for the Oxford English Dictionary, then the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong. If that's heresy, then burn me at the stake. This is not a question of lexicography. It is a question of history -- something that lexicographers may not be equipped to investigate. > No. I don't think Sheidlower has researched it. Have you, Jesse? How do > you research such a thing, anyway? Intervention analysis in a time-series study. SignatureMartin Ambuhl > > > _Happy Days_ is also well known for > > > repopularizing slang "cool" (this is known as the Fonzie Theory, and is no [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "cool" was presented as an archaic Fifties slang word. That was the whole > point in associating the Fonz with "cool". It was a Fifties thing. Richard, this is not even close to validating the "Fonzie Theory." You have not presented any reproducible method that establishes FT as a legitimate theory. Worst of all, as with many of your pronouncements, this is generalizing from a small data sample. And I'm quite concerned about a TV episodes as being representative of any data pool. > Now is Sheidlower denying that usage of "cool" was relatively dormant > during the 1960s and 1970s but increased significantly during the 1980s [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's easy to search all the various corpora that the OED has at its > disposal. That doesn't tell the whole story. I, too, have problems with how lexicographers choose their samples and how they weigh their data, but their research is done with a scientific method as a basis. What is clear to me is that the lexicographers work hard at eliminating noise from their data. This is where you and the lexicographers diverge. You are very much attracted to variations and not too concerned with whether or not neologisms are statistical noise or meaningful changes in usage. > Sheidlower is wrong. If, in rejecting the Fonzie Theory, he speaks for > the Oxford English Dictionary, then the Oxford English Dictionary is > wrong. If that's heresy, then burn me at the stake. > > This is not a question of lexicography. It is a question of history -- > something that lexicographers may not be equipped to investigate. Better than criticizing lexicographers on their investigative methods, it would be more helpful if you present non-anecdotal data, the criteria used in sampling, and its statistical analysis to validate your claim of a Fonzie Theory. >> Ask anyone who was a kid during the relevant period. _Happy Days_ had a >> controlling influence on popular culture. "Cool" was associated with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >this is generalizing from a small data sample. And I'm quite concerned >about a TV episodes as being representative of any data pool. Therwe was also Marshall McLuhan with his ""hot" and "cool" media who was very popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I've never seen "Happy \days", and never encountered anyone outside AUE who talks about having seen it or being influenced by it. RF's descriptions of iot remind me of one called "Sa-na-na" which was a kind of retro 1950s TV show broadcast in the 1970s, which I DID see. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >No. I don't think Sheidlower has researched it. Have you, Jesse? How do >you research such a thing, anyway? The best way is to do so at the time, using well-crafted sociolinguistic studies, and then re-doing the studies over time. In some cases, you can do this later, by targeting people of different ages, with the assumption that answers will reflect a person's usage at a more formative time in their linguistic development. This would not, I think, work with "cool" the way it might with things like "davenport" v. "couch" v. "sofa". >Now is Sheidlower denying that usage of "cool" was relatively dormant >during the 1960s and 1970s but increased significantly during the 1980s >and 1990s? Because this is part of the Fonzie Theory too, and this is >also, in principle, something you can establish as fact. Yes, this is precisely what I am denying. I don't deny that the show was popular and may have had some influence. I don't know how you could establish this as fact, now. However, you can do a lot to show that _cool_ was indeed in extremely common use in the 1960s and 1970s, that it was not treated as a dated or silly term, and that it was used by people of different ages. You can contrast it with something like _groovy_, which did indeed see its usage decline precipitously after the early 1970s, as reflected for example by an abundance of citations referring to it as a "hippie term" or things of that nature. >The OED takes the easy way out. They search texts. But that's not how >language changes, not primarily. Language change is an oral thing, and a >folk thing, a thing not written down. I don't think anyone is remotely unaware of this fact. But we do what we can, given the tools we have available. >Sheidlower is wrong. If, in rejecting the Fonzie Theory, he speaks for >the Oxford English Dictionary, then the Oxford English Dictionary is >wrong. I speak for myself, and the OED speaks for itself, though its entry for _cool_ is now rather out of date. You could also look at the _Historical Dictionary of American Slang,_ of which I am the Project Editor; this has a rather more extensive entry on _cool_, one that I happen to think is pretty good. In any case, speaking only for myself, I think you're wrong. >This is not a question of lexicography. It is a question of history -- >something that lexicographers may not be equipped to investigate. Really? I think it's exactly the sort of thing that historical lexicography, as practiced by the OED and HDAS and DARE and others, is intended to investigate. Whether we succeed is another matter, but it is what we do. Jesse Sheidlower, at the Linguistic Society of America conference > >The OED takes the easy way out. They search texts. But that's not how > >language changes, not primarily. Language change is an oral thing, and a > >folk thing, a thing not written down. > > I don't think anyone is remotely unaware of this fact. But we > do what we can, given the tools we have available. Out of curiousity, just what is the OED policy on acceptable sources to cite? I submitted an antedating for "hacker" (which the revision hasn't gotten to, yet) citing an MIT tech report, which I hope is sufficiently "published", but what about things like on-line documentation, for which it's hard to prove that the file is as it was when it claims to have been written? As a concrete example, when I left Stanford in 1987, I took with me a snapshot of a collection of hacker-related filksongs written between 1979 and about 1984, each dated. If I were to find an antedating in that collection, would it be usable? Also, what is the rule about things like movies and TV and radio shows, for which recordings might exist but for which transcripts were never actually published? Especially with interviews, I'd think that these might frequently capture words that were common in speech but not yet committed to print. 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/ Evan wrote: >What is the rule about things like movies and TV and >radio shows, for which recordings might exist but for >which transcripts were never actually published? >Especially with interviews, I'd think that these might >frequently capture words that were common in speech >but not yet committed to print. Except for the costs, is there any good reason that a valid quotation couldn't begin something like *1998* Madonna _TV interview_ 9 Jan § where "§" means "as preserved on a recording (videotape, etc.) archived in the OED's office and/or as transcribed by, or in a transcription accepted as authentic by, the staff of the OED, with spelling & any punctuation following the style of the Oxford University Press"? > Evan wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > authentic by, the staff of the OED, with spelling & any punctuation following > the style of the Oxford University Press"? I see no good reason, and one bad reason for not doing so (namely, an institutional prejudice against non-textual documents). In other areas of life we rely on such documents, with such certifications, all the time. >Except for the costs, is there any good reason that a valid quotation couldn't >begin something like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >authentic by, the staff of the OED, with spelling & any punctuation following >the style of the Oxford University Press"? Yes, that there's no way anyone could verify it; all they could do is take our word for it. Which we'd like to think is trustworthy, but we like being extremely sure of these things. This is distinct from things which we already do mark as "OED Archive", which do exist physically in our archives and can be shown to those who need to see them. It is not a question of "institutional prejudice against non-textual documents", as Mr. Fontana puts it elsewhere in this thread; it's a case of institutional reasoning in favor of verifiable citations. We tend towards extreme conservatism in these situations. Jesse Sheidlower OED >>> The OED takes the easy way out. They search texts. But that's not >>> how language changes, not primarily. Language change is an oral [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > these might frequently capture words that were common in speech but > not yet committed to print. OED FAQ: How to contribute words to the Reading Programme http://oed.com/readers/research.html OED on TV scripts: http://www.oed.com/newsletters/2003-09/bonkers.html << A further development was the decision to allow the citing of broadcast scripts that had not been conventionally published. The first of these quotations, from a script for a CBS Radio programme broadcast in 1955, appeared in the third volume of the Supplement (1982) illustrating quality of life: He [sc. Adlai Stevenson] seems disturbed about the quality of American life, when most politicians measure it only in quantity. This opened up yet further the resources available to OED editors when tracking down the first use of any given word. For example, take the recent new entry in OED Online for big girl's blouse (published in June 2002). This phrase was popularized in the 1980s by its use in an episode of the BBC comedy series Blackadder the Third, although there was unsubstantiated evidence on the Internet implying that it was a catchphrase in the stage act of Hylda Baker, a comedienne of the 1940s and 50s. Unfortunately there were no written records of her stage act to verify this. However Ms Baker subsequently went on to appear in the television comedy series Nearest and Dearest, and many of the catchphrases that she had used in her stage act were carried over into this television series. As a result of a speculative research enquiry by an OED editor to an archivist at Granada television, it was confirmed that the phrase was indeed used there, and the resulting citation from a 1969 camera script provided the OED with a much earlier antedating for the phrase than had initially been expected. >> In fact, I recommend subscribing to the OED newsletter which has interesting items about what they are doing and how they are doing it. It seems that the spoken word, unsupported by any from of publishing, is not accepted. Yet. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply } jester@panix.com (Jesse Sheidlower) writes: } }> R F <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote: }> >The OED takes the easy way out. They search texts. But that's not how }> >language changes, not primarily. Language change is an oral thing, and a }> >folk thing, a thing not written down. }> }> I don't think anyone is remotely unaware of this fact. But we }> do what we can, given the tools we have available. } } Out of curiousity, just what is the OED policy on acceptable sources } to cite? I submitted an antedating for "hacker" (which the revision } hasn't gotten to, yet) citing an MIT tech report, which I hope is } sufficiently "published", but what about things like on-line } documentation, for which it's hard to prove that the file is as it was } when it claims to have been written? As a concrete example, when I } left Stanford in 1987, I took with me a snapshot of a collection of } hacker-related filksongs written between 1979 and about 1984, each } dated. If I were to find an antedating in that collection, would it } be usable? I'm coming on this thread late, so I may have missed the point, but wasn't there a discussion of the word "hacker" in the first issue of _Byte_ magazine, and wasn't that in the seventies sometime. I'm sure it was mentioned one of the times "hacker" was discussed in (BrE: "on") alt.usage.english. } Also, what is the rule about things like movies and TV and radio } shows, for which recordings might exist but for which transcripts were } never actually published? Especially with interviews, I'd think that } these might frequently capture words that were common in speech but } not yet committed to print. Yeah, but "um" (BrE: "erm") might have to have a volume all its own. SignatureR. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net> > } Out of curiousity, just what is the OED policy on acceptable > } sources to cite? I submitted an antedating for "hacker" (which [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > sure it was mentioned one of the times "hacker" was discussed in > (BrE: "on") alt.usage.english. _Byte_ started publication in September, 1975. The word was used in MIT AI Memo 239, aka "HAKMEM", February, 1972. It almost certainly predates that, as well, but I was pretty sure it was there and I had a copy, so I looked it up. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |dominating the world is that Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support |opportunities. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > _Byte_ started publication in September, 1975. The word was used in > MIT AI Memo 239, aka "HAKMEM", February, 1972. It almost certainly > predates that, as well, but I was pretty sure it was there and I had a > copy, so I looked it up. http://hacks.mit.edu: "The word hack at MIT usually refers to a clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical joke, which is both challenging for the perpetrators and amusing to the MIT community (and sometimes even the rest of the world!). Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking")." The term came into use after 1958, at about the time that more people were getting to use computers. Despite the disclaimer, could there be a connection between the terms? SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. > > _Byte_ started publication in September, 1975. The word was used > > in MIT AI Memo 239, aka "HAKMEM", February, 1972. It almost [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > people were getting to use computers. Despite the disclaimer, could > there be a connection between the terms? You have to read that in the correct light. They're not saying that there's no connection between these "hacks" and the early, positive sense of "hacking" computers, as there clearly is. What they're talking about is the later sense of "hackers" meaning "one who breaks into computers". In this sense, they're wrong as well. The shift in meaning almost certainly comes from a misunderstanding. Early work on computer security was largely concerned with protecting systems against "hackers", not because hackers were (definitionally) people who broke into computers, but because hackers craved cycles, and if they could come up with a clever way to use yours, they would. If somebody was going to break in, it would likely be a hacker. The word was used in this sense as early as 1973, in RFC 521: We feel that this change will be sufficient to discourage "hackers", although it is obviously insufficient to protect a node against a determined and malicious attack. (Note that "hackers" are distinguished from "malicious attack".) It was when the media, who knew little of computer jargon, became concerned about computer break-ins that they leapt from "we're worried about hackers breaking in" to "'hackers' are people who break into computers". 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/ > Yeah, but "um" (BrE: "erm") might have to have a volume all its own. What's this? Scum and sperm have *quite* different vowel sounds. (Has N. van Hoogstraten's saga stained my capacity for examplification here? Let us use "ultimatum's terms" instead.) I seek only, of course, to clear up a foreigner's excusable misconception. In any case, is not "BrE" usually employed (by those wishing to avoid "English") to differentiate between vocabularies and suchlike, not pronunciation? Descriptions of pronunciation tend to have their own organisational distinctions. Although initialisation appears to have overtaken clarity in this regard, "BrE" would appear to be singularly vapid. > In any case, is not "BrE" usually employed (by those wishing to avoid > "English") to differentiate between vocabularies and suchlike, not > pronunciation? Sounds like you've been reading too much Minneapolis Ray Wise. "BrE" is used on account of its embracing the Sc*tch and the W*lch in addition to the S*ss*n*ch (hi C**p!). > Descriptions of pronunciation tend to have their own organisational > distinctions. Although initialisation appears to have overtaken > clarity in this regard, "BrE" would appear to be singularly vapid. I CINC that was cruel and uncalled-for, sir! >> Yeah, but "um" (BrE: "erm") might have to have a volume all its own. > > What's this? Scum and sperm have *quite* different vowel sounds. "Um" and "erm" are both attempts to represent more or less the same non-word, [@m]. The closest you can get to representing [@m] to a typical American accent is <um>, which suggests [Vm]; there's no distinct orthographical way to express a schwa specifically. In a non-rhotic accent of England, <erm> suggests [@:m], which comes closer to the target than [Vm] is. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >> >The OED takes the easy way out. They search texts. But that's not how >> >language changes, not primarily. Language change is an oral thing, and a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >dated. If I were to find an antedating in that collection, would it >be usable? "It depends". We'd be very likely to accept some type of formal or semi-formal internal publication, if accurately dated, including an MIT tech report. Online docs are a harder call. We do accept cites from the RFC series (which, by the way, has a 1973 quote for "hacker"), which is rigorous about their corrections policy and so forth, and we do accept Usenet quotes as archived on (formerly) DejaNews or (now) Google Groups, in certain circumstances. I don't know if we'd be able to take a cite from your filksong collection; I'd have to see it. I don't think it would be likely, though. If they had appeared in fanzine, they'd be fair game. >Also, what is the rule about things like movies and TV and radio >shows, for which recordings might exist but for which transcripts were >never actually published? Especially with interviews, I'd think that >these might frequently capture words that were common in speech but >not yet committed to print. If scripts or transcripts exist, even if they weren't formally published, we can use them. It's very often possible to get these. If no printed equivalent is available, our likely recourse would be to mention it in a note (for example, like that for _to be toast_ 'to be doomed, in trouble, etc.', which seems to have been coined in _Ghostbusters,_ in an ad-lib on the set from Bill Murray, not corresponding to the language of the shooting script (which we also quote)). By the way, we now have a 1963 quote for _hacker_ in our files, from an MIT source. Jesse Sheidlower OED > You could also look at the _Historical Dictionary of American > Slang,_ of which I am the Project Editor; This is the (heretofore) Random House series, right? Is Oxford going to publish the final volume or volumes? Or someone else? I'm always so disappointed when I have a question from P to Z. SignatureHopefully -- Donna Richoux >> You could also look at the _Historical Dictionary of American >> Slang,_ of which I am the Project Editor; > >This is the (heretofore) Random House series, right? Is Oxford going to >publish the final volume or volumes? Or someone else? I'm always so >disappointed when I have a question from P to Z. That's correct. Thanks to a generous grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, Oxford UP has taken over the Historical Dictionary of American Slang from Random House. We hope to publish Vol. III, covering probably P to mid-S, by 2006, and the final volume at some point after that. Editorial effort is already underway. Jesse Sheidlower OED > "Nerds" candy was around when I was in high school/middle school (1980s); > I don't know about before then. The term "nerd" = "socially inept person" > was popularized by the 1970s sitcom _Happy Days_ and the 1970s sketch > comedy show _Saturday Night Live_. _Happy Days_ is also well known for > repopularizing slang "cool" (this is known as the Fonzie Theory, and is no > longer disputed). "Repopularized". The word was well-known in the 50s because of the Goon Show. 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.