 |
 | 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 2004raisin secs
I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates between "raisins" ans "raisims secs." Is there any reason for this? <cbroderi@yahoo.com> wrote... > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates > between "raisins" > ans "raisims secs." Is there any reason for this? We needed special words because of our national motto: "No secs please -- we're British". Matti > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates > between "raisins" > ans "raisims secs." Is there any reason for this? There's no system or tendency to it, and it goes in both directions, regardless of the pair of languages. In the particular case of French and English, French has "pingouin" and "manchot" where English has "penguin" and "emperor penguin", except that most people wouldn't make a point of distinguishing emperor penguins from the others in non-technical speech. French breaks owls down into two categories, "hibou" and "chouette," where ordinary English makes no distinction at all. >> I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, >> such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >French breaks owls down into two categories, "hibou" and "chouette," where >ordinary English makes no distinction at all. It's a similar owl story in Spanish, where they distingiush between *lechuzas* (barn owls) and *buhos* (all other owls). They also distinguish between the first and second fig crops (*brevas* and *higos*). However, as with the OP's raisins, they don't have any equivalent special word for prunes -- they're just "passed-it plums", while any wardrobe or cupboard (i.e. a storage space with a door) is just an *armario*. Conclusion: different languages are just that -- different. -- Ross Howard > > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates > > > between "raisins" ans "raisims secs." <snip> > > There's no system or tendency to it, and it goes in both directions, > > regardless of the pair of languages. In the particular case of French [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > while any wardrobe or cupboard (i.e. a storage space with a door) is > just an *armario*. Early and late fig crops remind me of early and late rains, which have different words in Biblical Hebrew (yore and malkosh, resp. Or irresp. I forget which). And, of course, there are 3,434,254,367,834 words for 'snow' in Eskimo. (J/k.) Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. msh210@math.wustl.edu Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated, http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted. Michael Hamm wrote: > > > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > And, of course, there are 3,434,254,367,834 words for 'snow' in Eskimo. > (J/k.) I'd like to see the lexicon that lists them all! Richard Steiner has a new monograph on three words in the book of Amos, having to do with figiculture. An advance over his two previous monographs, which dealt with one consonant each.  SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "emperor penguin", except that most people wouldn't make a point of > distinguishing emperor penguins from the others in non-technical speech. I doubt that any two French speakers will agree with this. My 1950s Petit Larousse says that "pingouin" refers to auks and their kin (northern birds), and "manchot" is general for penguins. Another dictionary described the use of "pingouin" to refer to penguins as "abusif", so I guess some people do use it that way. But I find it hard to believe that colloquial French would have a special word for one species of penguin. Where did you get this from? Ross Clark > > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to believe that colloquial French would have a special word for one > species of penguin. Where did you get this from? Is "abusif" a faux ami? I don't see how a bird name could be caconymic. Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:53:36 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <news:40034191.6A1A@worldnet.att.net> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang: [...] >> Another >> dictionary described the use of "pingouin" to refer to penguins as >> "abusif", so I guess some people do use it that way. [...] > Is "abusif" a faux ami? Apparently. The (oldish) bilingual that I use glosses it 'irregular, improper, contrary to rule or usage; excessive'. [...] Brian > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:53:36 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Apparently. The (oldish) bilingual that I use glosses it > 'irregular, improper, contrary to rule or usage; excessive'. None of which would seem to apply to naming antarctic birds! SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote Restoring half the quote: >>> I doubt that any two French speakers will agree with this. My 1950s >>> Petit Larousse says that "pingouin" refers to auks and their kin >>> (northern birds), and "manchot" is general for penguins. Another >>> dictionary described the use of "pingouin" to refer to penguins as >>> "abusif", so I guess some people do use it that way. > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > None of which would seem to apply to naming antarctic birds! My French-English dictionaries agree that "abusif" can mean "Grammatically improper" or "contrary to usage, wrong." Somebody, the 1950s Petit Larousse, was trying to say that the Antarctic bird shouldn't be called a "pingouin" because it wasn't one, in their view of things. Like benlizross said, they felt that the name "pingouin" should be reserved for auks. Does that mean that we English speakers borrowed the word "penguin" from the French, applying it to (what we know as) penguins instead? Or perhaps some other language is involved... Apparently we got the name "penguin" from Welsh, and we used to use it to mean the auk, too. American Heritage marks that meaning as obsolete, and says: ETYMOLOGY: Possibly from Welsh pen gwyn, White Head (name of an island in Newfoundland), great auk : pen, chief, head + gwynn, white SignatureBest wishes -- Donna Richoux > Restoring half the quote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > (name of an island in Newfoundland), great auk : > pen, chief, head + gwynn, white OED confirms that the term was originally used in English for the Auks: << It appears that the name was first given to the Great Auk or Gare-fowl of the seas of Newfoundland, still called in F. pingouin or pinguin (1600 in Hatz.-Darm.). But it was soon applied also to the birds now called penguins, in F. manchots (found by Drake at Magellan's Straits in 1578), which have a general external resemblance to the northern bird, though, in the opinion of zoologists, widely removed in structure. In this sense, also, Du. and Ger. pinguin, Da. and Sw. pingvin, all from English.] >> OED also has a long item on etymology which I won't reproduce except for the conclusion: << The attribution of the name penguin to ‘the Welsh men’, and its explanation as Welsh pen gwyn ‘white head’, appears also in Ingram, and later in Sir Thomas Herbert's Travels—in ed. 1634 as a surmise, in ed. 1638 as an accepted fact. But, besides that the Great Auk had not a white head (though it had white spots in front of the eyes), there are obvious historical difficulties, which some would remove in part by supposing the name to have been originally given by Breton fishermen. Other suggestions that the name is derived from L. pinguis ‘fat’, or is an alteration of ‘pin-wing’, referring to the rudimentary wings, are merely unsupported conjectures. >> There seems to be something of a tradition in English of giving names to creatures and then applying the name to a different creature. See Turkey / Guinea Fowl passim. It seems that 'penguin' was recorded in English earlier than 'pingouin' in French. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > OED also has a long item on etymology which I won't reproduce except for the > conclusion: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pin-wing, referring to the rudimentary wings, are merely unsupported > conjectures. >> Could one really write "besides that ..." and "had not ..." in 1910 or so (what's the date of the Penguin fascicle?) for "besides the fact that" and "did not have"? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> > Is "abusif" a faux ami? I don't see how a bird name could be caconymic. > > Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. orteil and patate. > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > orteil and patate. What's that, Canadian or something? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Peter T. Daniels escribió : >> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What's that, Canadian or something? I don't think so. They both are in my small, and not very good, Cuyas French-Spanish dictionary. What dictionary are you using? I ask in order to know which dictionary not to buy. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > Peter T. Daniels escribió : > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > French-Spanish dictionary. What dictionary are you using? I ask in order to > know which dictionary not to buy. I didn't look in a dictionary; I learned 40+ years ago "doigt de pied" and "pomme de terre." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > Peter T. Daniels escribió : > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Petit Larousse (1959) : ORTEIL n.m. (lat. _articulus_, jointure). Doigt du pied, et _spécialem._ le gros doigt, quón appelle aussi _gros orteil_. PATATE n.f. (esp. _batate_). Plante cultivée en Amérique tropical et en Chine pour sa racine comestible à tubercules (Familie des convolvulacées.)// Cette racine. // _Fam._ Pomme de terre. In other words, for PL patate means in the first instance what we would call a sweet potato, but is informally used for potato. Interestingly, a more recent small Eng/Fr dictionary, while giving only "pomme de terre" as a translation for "potato", translates "patate" as "spud". They also give "(pommes de terre) frites" for "french fries", where I seemed to recall hearing only "(patates) frites". Ross Clark > > > Peter T. Daniels escribió : > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Chine pour sa racine comestible à tubercules (Familie des > convolvulacées.)// Cette racine. // _Fam._ Pomme de terre. Gack, they give you consumption! Now _that's_ abusive. > In other words, for PL patate means in the first instance what we would > call a sweet potato, but is informally used for potato. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "spud". They also give "(pommes de terre) frites" for "french fries", > where I seemed to recall hearing only "(patates) frites". The Belgian fries places that sprouted all over the Village & East Village over the last few years call them "pommes frites." (And one of the dipping sauces offered is "mayonnaise," which has nothing to do with Hellman's.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net ... > > Interestingly, a more recent small Eng/Fr dictionary, while giving only > > "pomme de terre" as a translation for "potato", translates "patate" as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the dipping sauces offered is "mayonnaise," which has nothing to do with > Hellman's.) Well, as the Belgians are the inventors of the French fries, they may have something to say about it. But in Belgium they are called "frieten" of "frites" (depending on where you are). "Pommes frites" are something different: fried sliced or complete potatoes (sliced meaning sliced in only one direction, so you get round slices). Frieten are deep-fried. In France you can in most restaurants not get french fries, unless you go to a MacDonald's or something similar. But you will see "pommes frites". I think that you might occasionally see it as "patates frites" in France. Here in Amsterdam there are a few shops selling "Vlaamse frieten", but we call it "patat". Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > > benlizross wrote: > ... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > in France. Here in Amsterdam there are a few shops selling "Vlaamse > frieten", but we call it "patat". The 'Vlaamse Frieten' seems to be a rapidly expanding chain. In a few years every little town will have one. They may even push out McDonalds, Jan ... > > Here in Amsterdam there are a few shops selling "Vlaamse > > frieten", but we call it "patat". > > The 'Vlaamse Frieten' seems to be a rapidly expanding chain. Except that they are not a chain as far as I know. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > In article <1g7jlsh.epy3en17emalaN@de-ster.xs4all.nl> jjlxa21@xs4all.nl writes: > > Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote: > ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Except that they are not a chain as far as I know. Don't know, it may also be a franchised formula. They all look more or less the same, Jan > > > The 'Vlaamse Frieten' seems to be a rapidly expanding chain. > > > > Except that they are not a chain as far as I know. > > Don't know, it may also be a franchised formula. > They all look more or less the same, Also not franchised. As far as I know there are two shops selling "Vlaamse frieten" next to each other in the Handboogsteeg in Amsterdam. They are certainly not the same. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > > benlizross wrote: > ... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well, as the Belgians are the inventors of the French fries, they may Did _Belgium_ send troops to Iraq? Then they're still Freedom Fries. (NPR did a little story on them last week -- the cafeteria manager in one of the House office buildings said that because it involved an Act of Congress, they can't take the stupid label off the french fries until the Act is repealed.) > have something to say about it. But in Belgium they are called "frieten" > of "frites" (depending on where you are). "Pommes frites" are something [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in France. Here in Amsterdam there are a few shops selling "Vlaamse > frieten", but we call it "patat". The pommes frites sold in trendy Manhattan neighborhoods are shaped like McDonalds fries (square columns of potato), but more slender. Perhaps this was a variation that already existed in Belgium, and the entrepreneurs figured the familiar shape would be more readily accepted in the New York market? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net ... > > I think that you might occasionally see it as "patates frites" > > in France. Here in Amsterdam there are a few shops selling "Vlaamse > > frieten", but we call it "patat". > > The pommes frites sold in trendy Manhattan neighborhoods are shaped like > McDonalds fries (square columns of potato), but more slender. In that case they are *not* Belgian. McDonalds fries are slender compared to those of the inventors, the "Vlaamse frieten". > Perhaps > this was a variation that already existed in Belgium, and the > entrepreneurs figured the familiar shape would be more readily accepted > in the New York market? There is indeed an entrepreneur with marketing ideas. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > > Dik T. Winter wrote: > ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In that case they are *not* Belgian. McDonalds fries are slender compared > to those of the inventors, the "Vlaamse frieten". Well, the storefronts claim they are. > > Perhaps > > this was a variation that already existed in Belgium, and the > > entrepreneurs figured the familiar shape would be more readily accepted > > in the New York market? > > There is indeed an entrepreneur with marketing ideas. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Peter T. Daniels filted: >Did _Belgium_ send troops to Iraq? Then they're still Freedom Fries. >(NPR did a little story on them last week -- the cafeteria manager in >one of the House office buildings said that because it involved an Act >of Congress, they can't take the stupid label off the french fries until >the Act is repealed.) Irony, thy name is Government....r > Peter T. Daniels filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Irony, thy name is Government....r Doesn't matter, we'll continue to refer to the French Tower that's going to be built to replace the twins, Jan > > Well, as the Belgians are the inventors of the French fries, they may > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of Congress, they can't take the stupid label off the french fries until > the Act is repealed.) > The pommes frites sold in trendy Manhattan neighborhoods are shaped like > McDonalds fries (square columns of potato), but more slender. Perhaps > this was a variation that already existed in Belgium, and the > entrepreneurs figured the familiar shape would be more readily accepted > in the New York market? You may be talking about "shoestring potatoes". I don't know when they originated, nor where. I first encountered them atop those green bean casseroles (made with canned green beans and mushroom soup), later replaced with the crispy ff onion rings (almond slivers optional). If imagination is used, then the green beans can be halved in volume and the balance made up with the ff "tater tots". Both the onion rings and the shoestring potatoes are available in tins, but I think the tater tots must be purchased frozen ) but pre-ff'd. > > > In article <40046D63.587D@worldnet.att.net> "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> writes: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > are available in tins, but I think the tater tots must be purchased frozen ) > but pre-ff'd. Those were a dry snack item, like potato chips (UK: crisps) -- they came in cardboard cans. I haven't seen them in ages. I can do without green beans, on the whole. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > benlizross wrote: > ... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > in France. Here in Amsterdam there are a few shops selling "Vlaamse > frieten", but we call it "patat". I believe the French national dish is called, quite simply "steak-frites". SignatureRob Bannister >>Peter T. Daniels escribió : >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I didn't look in a dictionary; I learned 40+ years ago "doigt de pied" > and "pomme de terre." So what you learned is not always true. SignatureRob Bannister > I didn't look in a dictionary; I learned 40+ years ago "doigt de pied" > and "pomme de terre." Just to hurl something into the maelstrom of speculation so to speak, what about 'patat douce' (= yam, sweet potato). But then isn't the 'original' potato really a yam? -- Skræðer > > I didn't look in a dictionary; I learned 40+ years ago "doigt de > pied" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Skræðer No. The use of the word "yam" to refer to the sweet potato is an Americanism which leads to confusion in a wider world context. Yam (Dioscorea), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) and potato (Solanum tuberosum) are distinct species and none of them is the "original" of the other. Ross Clark > > > I didn't look in a dictionary; I learned 40+ years ago "doigt de > > pied" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > tuberosum) are distinct species and none of them is the "original" of > the other. Moreover, "sweet potato pie" is usually indistinguishable from "pumpkin pie," which is made from a gourd, not even a tuber. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > Moreover, "sweet potato pie" is usually indistinguishable from > "pumpkin pie," which is made from a gourd, not even a tuber. You need to find better cooks. Although similar, both the texture and taste are typically different. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple |That we couldn't. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:07:11 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <news:40070F0E.5BDD@worldnet.att.net> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang: [...] > Moreover, "sweet potato pie" is usually indistinguishable > from "pumpkin pie," which is made from a gourd, not even > a tuber. I have no trouble distinguishing them: pumpkin pie is very tasty, and sweet potatoe pie is inedible (and mushier). Brian > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:07:11 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have no trouble distinguishing them: pumpkin pie is very > tasty, and sweet potatoe pie is inedible (and mushier). So you've never been to a good soul food kitchen (as in Chicago) ... or even tried Entenmann's. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:02:24 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <news:4007E0DF.11D9@worldnet.att.net> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang: >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:07:11 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in >> <news:40070F0E.5BDD@worldnet.att.net> in >> alt.usage.english,sci.lang: >> [...] >>> Moreover, "sweet potato pie" is usually indistinguishable >>> from "pumpkin pie," which is made from a gourd, not even >>> a tuber. >> I have no trouble distinguishing them: pumpkin pie is very >> tasty, and sweet potatoe pie is inedible (and mushier). > So you've never been to a good soul food kitchen (as in Chicago) ... or > even tried Entenmann's. I've had (supposedly) good sweet potatoe pie; I just can't stand sweet potatoes, period. Brian "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in message ... > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:02:24 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I've had (supposedly) good sweet potatoe pie; I just can't > stand sweet potatoes, period. So Dan Quayle's orthography _is_ acceptable in the halls of academia, even though the 1903 Funk & Wagnalls marks it as obsolete! On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:51:35 -0000 "Douglas G. Kilday" <fufluns@chorus.net> wrote in <news:400a56fe_2@newspeer2.tds.net> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang: > "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:02:24 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in >> alt.usage.english,sci.lang: >> [...] >>>> I have no trouble distinguishing them: pumpkin pie is very >>>> tasty, and sweet potatoe pie is inedible (and mushier). >>> So you've never been to a good soul food kitchen (as in Chicago) ... or >>> even tried Entenmann's. >> I've had (supposedly) good sweet potatoe pie; I just can't >> stand sweet potatoes, period. > So Dan Quayle's orthography _is_ acceptable in the halls of academia, even > though the 1903 Funk & Wagnalls marks it as obsolete! No, my fingers sometimes have minds of their own. Only when typing, though; handwriting seems to be almost immune. There's an interesting study in there somewhere, I suspect. I can guess why my fingers often type <probably> when I wanted <probable>, say, or <difference> when I wanted <different>, but why do they substitute homonyms when I type and not when I write longhand? F'ups to sci.lang. Brian > > > I didn't look in a dictionary; I learned 40+ years ago "doigt de > > pied" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ross Clark However, the word "potato" originally did mean "sweet potato" in English. From *The Century Dictionary*: From www.century-dictionary.com "1[obsolete]. The sweet potato. [...] [This was the original application of the name, and it is in this sense that the word is generally to be understood when used by English writers down to the middle of the seventeenth century.]" SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > > > I didn't look in a dictionary; I learned 40+ years ago "doigt de > > > pied" [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com Good point. Is that what Skræder was getting at? So what was the original contrasting term for the other potato? Clearly a shift of markedness takes place as it becomes the "Irish potato" and a common food of Europe. Ross Clark > > > > Just to hurl something into the maelstrom of speculation so to speak, > > > > what about 'patat douce' (= yam, sweet potato). But then isn't the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > However, the word "potato" originally did mean "sweet potato" in English. [snip] > Good point. Is that what Skræder was getting at? So what was the > original contrasting term for the other potato? Clearly a shift of > markedness takes place as it becomes the "Irish potato" and a common > food of Europe. Confusingly enough, the original English term was "Virginia potato": http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-VEGETABLES/potatoes-msg.html [from Sophie Coe's _America's First Cuisines_] (p.21) "There was a flurry of descriptions of the potato in the herbals of the late sixteenth century. It was at this time that the British botanist Gerard planted the seeds, or perhaps one should say the potato eyes, of trouble when he confused 'Solanum tuberosum' from South America with 'Apios tuberosa', the ground nut, which was eaten by Indians and early colonists in Virginia. For years the English-speaking world called 'Solanum tuberosum' the Virginia potato and thought it came from Virginia and had been domesticated there, even though there were no wild potatoes to be found there, nor any domesticated ones either." > > "1[obsolete]. The > > sweet potato. [...] [This was the original [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good point. Is that what Skræder was getting at? Exactly my point. -- Skræðer > > > > > I didn't look in a dictionary; I learned 40+ years ago "doigt de > > > > pied" [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Ross Clark The following is how the word "potato" is dealt with in *Chambers Dictionary of Etymology,* Robert K. Barnhart, editor, (C) 1988: [quote] *potato* _n._ 1565, in Sir John Hawkins' _Voyages;_ borrowed from Spanish _patata,_ from Carib (of Haiti, perhaps Taino) _batata_ sweet potato, probably influenced by or blended directly with Spanish _papa_ potato; earlier, from Quechua. If there was any real and clear distinction of form in English between _batata_ and _patata,_ it was quickly lost in _potato_ which has been the common form for sweet potatoes and white potatoes, though the latter was known as _Virginia potato_ by false association with Sir Walter Raleigh. [end quote] SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > Peter T. Daniels escribió : > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > French-Spanish dictionary. What dictionary are you using? I ask in > order to know which dictionary not to buy. My Oxford Hachette Concise has 'orteil' but 'potato' is still earth apple - 'patate' is translated as 'spud' -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply >>"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> >>>Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. >> >>orteil and patate. > > What's that, Canadian or something? 'Orteil' may not be used much, but 'patate' is used by many French people. SignatureRob Bannister > > > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. "Toe" is "orteil". You may be thinking of Spanish, which I think has "dedo de pie". > > > > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > > > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > "Toe" is "orteil". You may be thinking of Spanish, which I think has "dedo > de pie". Nope, I don't know any Spanish. Doigt de pied. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > > > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > > > > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Nope, I don't know any Spanish. Doigt de pied. Never hoid of it. I see that it exists, but I never heard of it. FWIW it gets 394 AltaVista hits versus almost 11,000 for "orteil". Harlan Messinger escribió : >>>>> I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for >>>>> objects, such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > "Toe" is "orteil". You may be thinking of Spanish, which I think has > "dedo de pie". That's right. In Spanish we do not have different words for "finger" and "toe": they both are "dedos"; if precission is required, we add "de la mano" or "del pie". SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) >Harlan Messinger escribió : > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >"toe": they both are "dedos"; if precission is required, we add "de la mano" >or "del pie". You make up for it with *oído* and *oreja*, though ( the Q-tippable and sticky-out bits, respectively, of ears), and you also neatly distinguish between *pelo* and *vello* (head and body hair). -- Ross Howard > >Harlan Messinger escribió : > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > and sticky-out bits, respectively, of ears), and you also neatly > distinguish between *pelo* and *vello* (head and body hair). French does too, BUT "poil" goes with body hair (and individual hairs in general), while "cheveux" is for head hair (though for the singular I think they usually fall back on "poil", even though "cheveu" exists). On 13-Jan-2004, "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote in message <bu1mgi$cms9i$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>: [...] > French does too, BUT "poil" goes with body hair (and individual hairs in > general), while "cheveux" is for head hair (though for the singular I > think they usually fall back on "poil", even though "cheveu" exists). Are you sure? I thought <cheveu> was commonly used where appropriate. I know I've seen the expression <un cheveu dans la soupe>, including in the ongoing "a fly in the ointment" thread over in fr.lettres.langue.anglaise. SignatureJim Heckman >On 13-Jan-2004, "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote >in message <bu1mgi$cms9i$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Are you sure? Not so sure, I guess, but I've only encountered it in the expression "un cheveu sur la langue" ("lisp"? IIRC). > I thought <cheveu> was commonly used where >appropriate. I know I've seen the expression <un cheveu dans la >soupe>, including in the ongoing "a fly in the ointment" thread >over in fr.lettres.langue.anglaise. SignatureHarlan Messinger Remove the first dot from my e-mail address. Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. > French does too, BUT "poil" goes with body hair (and individual hairs in > general) Yes, the hairs of a brush too, for instance. > while "cheveux" is for head hair (though for the singular I think > they usually fall back on "poil" No, you might be confused by the common expression: "il n'a plus un poil sur le caillou" (he is completely bald), but "cheveu" is normal, even colloquially, viz the ditty: Y'a qu'un ch'veu sur la tête à Mathieu, Y'a qu'un' dent dans la mâchoire à Jean > >That's right. In Spanish we do not have different words for "finger" and > >"toe": they both are "dedos"; if precission is required, we add "de la mano" > >or "del pie". And we have "meñique" for "little finger". I must confess I've never understood what's the logic of having different words for fingers and toes while not having a name for the little finger. I find distinguishing between fingers is of more practical importance than bothering to give a special name to toes; after all, toes are just smaller versions of fingers and most of the time they are 'useless'. In fact, I've never felt any need for a special word for toes, adding "del pie" does just fine for me because seldom I've needed to refer to them specifically as opposed to fingers. While I'd very much welcome having not just "pulgar" and "meñique", but also specific words for the other three fingers instead of saying "dedo índice", "dedo corazón" and "dedo anular". > You make up for it with *oído* and *oreja*, though ( the Q-tippable > and sticky-out bits, respectively, of ears) But we lack a word for nostril, which is just "el orificio de la nariz", :-\. Although I recall having found it weird to have a special word for it when I first learnt about English "nostril". > and you also neatly > distinguish between *pelo* and *vello* (head and body hair). To refer specifically to head hair, we say "cabello". "Vello" refers primarily to the shorter and softer kind of hair characteristic of body hair as opposed to the longer and harder ones characteristic of head hair ("cabello"), and the word may be used also for bloom on fruit. "Pelo" is unspecific like English "hair" and we say both "pelo corporal" and "pelo de la cabeza", although most usually when people talk about their "pelo" they refer to their "cabello", just like in English. In this respect, "vello" and "cabello" have a somewhat more formal/literary feel than "pelo". Cheers, Javier >> >That's right. In Spanish we do not have different words for "finger" and >> >"toe": they both are "dedos"; if precission is required, we add "de la mano" [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >to have a special word for it when I first learnt about >English "nostril". I trust you exclaimed "¡Qué narices...!". >> and you also neatly >> distinguish between *pelo* and *vello* (head and body hair). [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >and "cabello" have a somewhat more formal/literary feel >than "pelo". I live in hope of some day seeing a Spanish hairdressing salon called "El Séptimo de Cabellería". And wouldn't it be more accurate to say of someone who speaks plainly "no tiene vello en la lengua"? -- Ross Howard [...] > > Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. > > "Toe" is "orteil". You may be thinking of Spanish, which I think has "dedo > de pie". As I learned it, French uses "doigt de pied" and "pomme de terre". Like Andre, I've also heard "patate" for "sweet potato" from French-Canadians. SignatureTom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom > [...] > > > Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Like Andre, I've also heard "patate" for "sweet potato" from > French-Canadians. Teaching us those phrases would thus seem to have been a French plot so that they'll always be able to identify Americans, even if our accents are perfect. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@comcast.net> > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> > > Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. > > "Toe" is "orteil". You may be thinking of Spanish, which I think has "dedo > de pie". "Doigt de pied" is commonly used as well. > Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. Orteil; patate. SignatureRob Bannister > Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. Really ? But Brits have no word for "jouïr". >> Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. >Really ? >But Brits have no word for "jouïr". Rejoice? Cum? SignatureHarlan Messinger Remove the first dot from my e-mail address. Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. > >> Anyway, French doesn't even have words for toe or potato. > >Really ? > >But Brits have no word for "jouïr". > > Rejoice? Cum? Several pages of the introduction to the translation of one of Barthes's books are devoted to this problem. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >... >>>But Brits have no word for "jouïr". >> >> Rejoice? Cum? No: rejoice = be pleased/delighted... cum = "balancer la purée", which sounds quite rude actually... > Several pages of the introduction to the translation of one of Barthes's > books are devoted to this problem. Really ?, which one ? I'd really like to have a glimpse on these pages... >>... >>>>But Brits have no word for "jouïr". >>> >>> Rejoice? Cum? >No: rejoice = be pleased/delighted... > cum = "balancer la purée", which sounds quite rude actually... The TLFi dictionary agrees with me: "Éprouver le plaisir sexuel jusqu'à son aboutissement. « Jouir avec feu, éperdument. Le phallus, ce rien dans la vie du sage, cette simple machine à pisser et à jouir » (GONCOURT, Journal, 1860, p. 831). « Les hommes trouveront toujours que la chose la plus sérieuse de leur existence, c'est jouir. La femme, pour nous tous, est l'ogive de l'infini » (FLAUB, Corresp., 1867, p. 274). « J'ai mal fait l'amour à Paméla, je l'ai souvent ratée, quelquefois elle paraissait jouir, c'était sans doute pour me faire plaisir » (VAILLAND, Drôle de jeu, 1945, p. 19)." SignatureHarlan Messinger Remove the first dot from my e-mail address. Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote... >>No: rejoice = be pleased/delighted... >> cum = "balancer la purée", which sounds quite rude actually... > > The TLFi dictionary agrees with me: Can you please tell me what this "TLFi dictionary" is ? Thks. Yves > Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote... > >>No: rejoice = be pleased/delighted... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thks. > Yves _Le Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé,_ available at http://atilf.inalf.fr/tlfv3.htm It appears to be an electronic version of a paper dictionary. See the article in the Wikipédia at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%E9sor_de_la_Langue_Fran%E7aise_informatis%E9 SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > >... > >>>But Brits have no word for "jouïr". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Really ?, which one ? I'd really like to have a glimpse > on these pages... I assumed it was *The Pleasure of the Text*, but that wasn't on the spine of any of my Barthess, so it had to be a subtitle, and I didn't bother taking them all off the shelf to check. I just took them all off the shelf to check and I find that my copy of *The Pleasure of the Text* isn't there -- it may have fallen behind a bookcase -- but I'm not about to scan the front matter of 12 other books just in case! (I couldn't help buying them as they came out, because the typographic covers were so beautiful: these are the American editions from Hill & Wang; I hope they're also used elsewhere. I do have *Écriture: Degré Zéro*, and there's nothing distinguished about its design.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > >... > > >>>But Brits have no word for "jouïr". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > bookcase -- but I'm not about to scan the front matter of 12 other books > just in case! Yes, it was _The Pleasure of the Text_, translated by Richard Miller. You can see the "Note on the Text" by using Amazon's "Search Inside the Book" feature: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0374521603/?v=search-inside&keywords=jouir [W]e lack _jouissance_ and _jouir_, as Barthes uses them here... Roland Barthes's translator Richard Miller, has been resourceful, of course, and he has come up with the readiest plausibility by translating _jouissance_ ... as "bliss"; but of course he cannot come up with "coming," which precisely translates what the original text can afford. [etc.] "Ben Zimmer" <bgzimmer@midway.uchicago.edu> > [W]e lack _jouissance_ and _jouir_, as Barthes uses > them here... Roland Barthes's translator Richard [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > come up with "coming," which precisely translates > what the original text can afford. [etc.] But jouissance in French can also be used in a non-sexual sense, which seems to be the case here. > "Ben Zimmer" <bgzimmer@midway.uchicago.edu> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But jouissance in French can also be used in a non-sexual sense, which > seems to be the case here. The point is that Barthes is making "untranslatable" puns throughout. If the translation had been done after the spate of "Joy of Sex" books, it might have simply been titled "The Joy of Text." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > "Ben Zimmer" <bgzimmer@midway.uchicago.edu> > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If the translation had been done after the spate of "Joy of Sex" books, > it might have simply been titled "The Joy of Text." What's more, I believe Barthes expected his readers to be familiar with the term _jouissance_ from psychoanalytic theory (particularly Lacan), where its use is more explicitly sexual. [ . . . ] > [...] I believe Barthes expected his readers to be familiar with > the term _jouissance_ from psychoanalytic theory (particularly Lacan), > where its use is more explicitly sexual. Looking in a few dictionaries gives the impression that that's not a specialized meaning. Older Merriam-Webster's dictionaries -- up to and including the tenth _Collegiate_ -- define _jouissance_ as "jollity" or "merriment", but _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Eleventh Edition_ gives it as one meaning "orgasm" without tagging it in a specialized field. _The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary_ says _jouissance_ in French means 1 Jur (usage) use; "~ des installations" use of the facilities; "avoir la ~ de qch" to enjoy the use of sth; 2 (plaisir) pleasure; "~ artistique" artistic pleasure 3 (orgasme) orgasm. So, as an alternative name for our group, we can use "alt.jouissance.anglais", which can be translated as "alt.usage.english" with, I would hope, only slight risk that it will be taken to mean "alt.orgasm.english". AUE? AJA? AOE? [PPNNCSAFL] In alt.usage.english Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote: ... } AUE? AJA? AOE? More like AUJ, anymore. SignatureR. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:08:41 -0500, Ben Zimmer > > [...] I believe Barthes expected his readers to be familiar with > > the term _jouissance_ from psychoanalytic theory (particularly Lacan), > > where its use is more explicitly sexual. I left the above quote only for entertainment: a fraud expecting his readers to be familiar with another fraud's use of the term. Zack Sitchin leading Madame Blavatsky's readers! > _The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary_ says _jouissance_ in > French means > 1 Jur (usage) use; "~ des installations" use of the > facilities; "avoir la ~ de qch" to enjoy the use of > sth; Yes. Same as "usufruit". Very common in that sense. > 2 (plaisir) pleasure; "~ artistique" artistic pleasure Et la jouissance gastronomique alors??? > 3 (orgasme) orgasm. I suppose it exists in that sense, but I have never heard it, except in one dirty joke. A chap goes to a whore, but can't "jouir". The whore tells him "give me a minute, we'll try again". And so they do, and bingo! "Ah, ça y est, ça y est!" cries the fellow "Je nage dans la jouissance!" (I'm swimming in pleasure) "C'est dans le pus que tu nages. J'ai enlevé les croûtes". (You're swimming in pus. I picked the scabs off). I wonder what Barthes makes of that, with or without Lacan's help. > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:08:41 -0500, Ben Zimmer > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > _The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary_ says _jouissance_ in > > French means ....[ . . .] Some forty years ago, when I was a university student (of Physics, not French), I decided that I would like to use my summer vacation to live in France and learn the language. I found a family who were willing to take me as a paying guest, on a traditional and completely out-of-date farm, which still employed a horse rather than a tractor. I had a wonderful time with them - a friendly and welcoming family, full of fun and joie-de-vivre, with plenty to keep me interested on the farm. I thoroughly enjoyed myself for the whole time I was with them. On the last day of my visit, I meticulously used my English-French dictionary to prepare a little speech to thank them for their hospitality, and told Mme Clouet in all innocence "Je me suis beaucoup jouis pendant ma visite chez vous". She seemed quite amazed by the frankness of my admission of frequent indulgence in a solitary form of sexual taboo. Eh bien, j'attends que ça puisse être la maladie anglaise dont il parle. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. richard.chambers7@NOSPAMntlworld.com spake thus: > > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:08:41 -0500, Ben Zimmer > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > sexual taboo. Eh bien, j'attends que ça puisse être la maladie anglaise dont > il parle. It's just as well you didn't ask her to kiss you. SignatureDavid ===== > richard.chambers7@NOSPAMntlworld.com spake thus: > On the last day of my visit, I meticulously > > used my English-French dictionary to prepare a little speech to thank them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > sexual taboo. Eh bien, j'attends que ça puisse être la maladie anglaise dont > > il parle. > It's just as well you didn't ask her to kiss you. Z'êtes tous des cochons. Vous faites pleurer le Petit Jésus et la Sainte Vierge. Z'avez pas honte? jguy@alphalink.com.au spake thus: > > > richard.chambers7@NOSPAMntlworld.com spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Z'êtes tous des cochons. Vous faites pleurer le Petit Jésus > et la Sainte Vierge. Z'avez pas honte? Jamais. SignatureDavid ===== >> richard.chambers7@NOSPAMntlworld.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Z'êtes tous des cochons. Vous faites pleurer le Petit Jésus > et la Sainte Vierge. Z'avez pas honte? Et vous, vous avex fait mourir bien des chatons. Pas honte?' http://makeashorterlink.com/?U25821B17 -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > Et vous, vous avez fait mourir bien des chatons. Pas honte?' > http://makeashorterlink.com/?U25821B17 *sound of one jaw dropping* >>Et vous, vous avez fait mourir bien des chatons. Pas honte?' >>http://makeashorterlink.com/?U25821B17 > > *sound of one jaw dropping* A l'horre, a l'horre, etait personne a faire le sale boulot nousse rions up to hors knees in pousse. On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:03:08 -0800 Jacques Guy <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in <news:400A057C.453F@alphalink.com.au> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang: [...] >> _The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary_ says _jouissance_ in >> French means >> 1 Jur (usage) use; "~ des installations" use of the >> facilities; "avoir la ~ de qch" to enjoy the use of >> sth; > Yes. Same as "usufruit". Very common in that sense. Usufruct. [...] Brian > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:03:08 -0800 Jacques Guy > <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in > <news:400A057C.453F@alphalink.com.au> in [ . . . ] > > Yes. Same as "usufruit". Very common in that sense. > Usufruct. French "usufruit" equals English "usufruct". Didn't Wrigley used to make a gum called something like "usufruit"? > > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:03:08 -0800 Jacques Guy > > <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Didn't Wrigley used to make a gum called something like > "usufruit"? "Juicyfruit"? Izzy > > > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:03:08 -0800 Jacques Guy > > > <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in > > > <news:400A057C.453F@alphalink.com.au> in > > [ . . . ] > > > > Yes. Same as "usufruit". Very common in that sense. > > > Usufruct. > > French "usufruit" equals English "usufruct". > > Didn't Wrigley used to make a gum called something like > > "usufruit"? > "Juicyfruit"? Oh, yeah, now I remember. > > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:03:08 -0800 Jacques Guy > > <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Didn't Wrigley used to make a gum called something like > "usufruit"? You mean "Juicy Fruit"? From Wrigley's site at http://www.wrigley.com/wrigley/products/products_juicy_fruit.asp "Juicy Fruit is the #1 fruit gum brand in the U.S., and is the number one chewing gum with kids. Juicy Fruit is also a popular chewing gum brand in Canada, Germany, Thailand, Malaysia, China and Hong Kong." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:03:08 -0800 Jacques Guy > > > <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in > > > <news:400A057C.453F@alphalink.com.au> in > > [ . . . ] > > > > Yes. Same as "usufruit". Very common in that sense. > > > Usufruct. > > French "usufruit" equals English "usufruct". > > Didn't Wrigley used to make a gum called something like > > "usufruit"? > You mean "Juicy Fruit"? Joke. > > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:08:41 -0500, Ben Zimmer [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I suppose it exists in that sense, but I have never heard > it, except in one dirty joke. You can see the verb conjugated in public in France on the backsides of many trafic signs: ON JOUÏ primted in poster-size letters over some female image, followed by a phone number. It is must be meant as a pointer to a site where you can use the facilities, Jan "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote... >... >The point is that Barthes is making "untranslatable" puns throughout. Nope: the point is that Barthes is a w.nker as well. Yves >> > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, >> > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >to believe that colloquial French would have a special word for one >species of penguin. Where did you get this from? I couldn't possibly tell you, but I seem to have been wrong. Hmm. And there's a character on fr.lettres.langue.francaise whose moniker is "Nestor le pingouin". Now I have to change my mental image of him. SignatureHarlan Messinger Remove the first dot from my e-mail address. Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. > >> > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > >> > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > there's a character on fr.lettres.langue.francaise whose moniker is > "Nestor le pingouin". Now I have to change my mental image of him. Is he abusive? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > I couldn't possibly tell you, but I seem to have been wrong. Hmm. And > > there's a character on fr.lettres.langue.francaise whose moniker is > > "Nestor le pingouin". Now I have to change my mental image of him. > > Is he abusive? He can be if he feels one has been "abusif" of France or the French language. His *full* identifier (I previously gave a shortened version) is "Nestor le pingouin pour la France", so you can imagine his sentiments on the subject. I'm sure there's a story behind this, and it's probably been discussed at length in f.l.l.f. (the word "palmipède" comes up from time to time as an apparent allusion to a bit of f.l.l.f. lore), but I never followed it. In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote: > There's no system or tendency to it, and it goes in both directions, > regardless of the pair of languages. In the particular case of French and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > French breaks owls down into two categories, "hibou" and "chouette," where > ordinary English makes no distinction at all. In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go figure. > In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go figure. In English, another brasswind instrument and a snack cracker are both "bugles." Go figure. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >In English, another brasswind instrument and a snack cracker are both >"bugles." Go figure. Can someone tell me what "go figure" means? I have been trying to work it out from these two examples, but I can't. SignatureLouisa Essex, England, Europe > >> In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go figure. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can someone tell me what "go figure" means? I have been trying to work it out > from these two examples, but I can't. Louisa, I remember asking about this once -- 1997, it was. You can find the complete thread by going to Google Advanced Group Search and pasting in the Message ID <19971202145852783734@p012.hlm.euronet.nl>. I'm told that some newsreaders treat Message IDs like email addresses, and render them unreadable. It should be equivalent to: 19971202145852783734 at-sign p012.hlm.euronet.nl SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > Can someone tell me what "go figure" means? "It's an oddity." (I.e., "Go see if you can figure out why.") Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. msh210@math.wustl.edu Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated, http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted. >>> In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Can someone tell me what "go figure" means? I have been trying to work it out >from these two examples, but I can't. Sorry, I know it's bad form to answer one's own posting, but this is a genuine question. I have often wondered exactly what "go figure" means, and would be grateful if someone could let me know. SignatureLouisa Essex, England, Europe > I have often wondered exactly what "go figure" means, and would be >grateful if someone could let me know. It exactly means "dot-matrix design composed of Chinese board-game pieces". (A clue: your closest Essex cognate is probably "Funny old world, innit".) -- Ross Howard >> I have often wondered exactly what "go figure" means, and would be >>grateful if someone could let me know. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(A clue: your closest Essex cognate is probably "Funny old world, >innit".) Thanks Ross (and thanks also to Donna). I was reading it as being much more aggressive. SignatureLouisa Essex, England, Europe >>>I have often wondered exactly what "go figure" means, and would be >>>grateful if someone could let me know. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thanks Ross (and thanks also to Donna). I was reading it as being much more > aggressive. I had obviously been misunderstanding it too. I thought it meant something "Go and work it out for yourself (and you'll see how stupid it is)." SignatureRob Bannister >>>> I have often wondered exactly what "go figure" means, and would be >>>> grateful if someone could let me know. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > something "Go and work it out for yourself (and you'll see how stupid > it is)." It translates to English 'Cuh!' -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > >>>I have often wondered exactly what "go figure" means, and would be > >>>grateful if someone could let me know. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > something "Go and work it out for yourself (and you'll see how stupid it > is)." I believe "Go figure?" is a version of "Go know?" which is a calque from the Yiddish "gey vays." The sense of the term is "How could I know?" or "How could anyone know?" > >>> In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go figure. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > question. I have often wondered exactly what "go figure" means, and would be > grateful if someone could let me know. We have a couple of other expressions that may be familiar to you, used in the same situations. "Wouldn't ya know!" "Ain't that a kick in the head!" I suppose many others will occur to participants here. I think of it as a simple comment on the ironies of life. There are no explanations for certain coincidences, though you may suggest that one go ahead and try to "figure or puzzle or work them out". Do you in UK have any meaning of figure (also pronounced "figger") that amounts to trying to solve a puzzle? >> >>> In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go figure. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Do you in UK have any meaning of figure (also pronounced "figger") that >amounts to trying to solve a puzzle? Yes, but as "figure out". Outlessly, though, we tend to use it to mean either "be included" (e.g. "it didn't figure in my plans) or "make sense" (e.g. "Well, that figures"). For "I suppose", rather than "I figure" we prefer "I reckon", although I've noted in recent years that "I guess" used in this sense is gaining ground among the Yoof. -- Ross Howard "Jim Ward" <tomcatpolka@NyOaShPoAoM.com> > In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go figure. Because trombones are shaped like paper clips. On 13 Jan 2004, Jim Ward wrote -snip- > In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go > figure. I guess Steve Martin was wrong: the French *don't* have a different word for everything. SignatureCheers, Harvey Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years; Southern England for the past 21 years. (for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs) > On 13 Jan 2004, Jim Ward wrote > > In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go > > figure. > > I guess Steve Martin was wrong: the French *don't* have a different > word for everything. But the English do have different words for every animal that is eatable. "Pig"/"pork", "calf"/"veal". Apparently, as soon as you eat it it has to be called something different. ;-) for the unweary. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > > On 13 Jan 2004, Jim Ward wrote > > > In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"Pig"/"pork", "calf"/"veal". Apparently, as soon as you eat it it has >to be called something different. ;-) for the unweary. Not every animal, or even most: chicken/chicken, duck/duck, fish/fish, shrimp/shrimp, etc. SignatureHarlan Messinger Remove the first dot from my e-mail address. Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote: > Not every animal, or even most: chicken/chicken, duck/duck, fish/fish, > shrimp/shrimp, etc. Unless my belly has been lying to me, there are several different kinds of fish (canned, pecan encrusted) and duck (Peking, shot by neighbor). But only one kind of chicken and shrimp (different sizes). >In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Unless my belly has been lying to me, there are several different kinds >of fish (canned, pecan encrusted) and duck (Peking, shot by neighbor). What does that have to do with whether we use different words for the animal and for its flesh? >But only one kind of chicken and shrimp (different sizes). SignatureHarlan Messinger Remove the first dot from my e-mail address. Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. > >In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > >But only one kind of chicken and shrimp (different sizes). Fowl has fallen out of popular usage, but it is still around. Did people eat shrimp/prawns around the time of the Norman invasion? Izzy > Did people eat shrimp/prawns around the time of the Norman invasion? The English didn't invent the word "shrimp" until the 14th century, which says something. And it wasn't an existing term they borrowed from a neighbor. Etymology: Middle English shrimpe; akin to Middle Low German schrempen to contract, wrinkle, Old Norse skorpna to shrivel up Date: 14th century Looking for the history of shrimp as a food, I don't find any mention that the ancient Mediterranean people ate them. What I find is: In the 7th century, shrimp and other seafood composed the majority of the Chinese diet, and still does today. In 1280, Marco Polo commented on the abundance of seafood in Chinese marketplaces, including shrimp. So maybe it's one of those ideas we got from the Far East, like noodles. Timewise, those dates above fit. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > Did people eat shrimp/prawns around the time of the Norman invasion? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So maybe it's one of those ideas we got from the Far East, like noodles. > Timewise, those dates above fit. Thanks, Donna. Informative as always. When one stops to consider all of the foods which came to Europe from the East and from the New World, it pretty much cuts the Medieval diet back to meat and bread. With the odd turnip, perhaps? Yep, just looked it up: they had turnips. Regards, Izzy Iskandar Baharuddin filted: >> Looking for the history of shrimp as a food, I don't find any mention >> that the ancient Mediterranean people ate them. What I find is: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Yep, just looked it up: they had turnips. And the shrimp is not "meat" because of something like the "food that has a face" rule I keep hearing?...r ... > > So maybe it's one of those ideas we got from the Far East, like noodles. > > Timewise, those dates above fit. ... > When one stops to consider all of the foods which came to Europe from the > East and from the New World, it pretty much cuts the Medieval diet back to > meat and bread. > > With the odd turnip, perhaps? And a glass of beer. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote in message > > news:1g7k7me.17sln9m1qmx3k9N%trio@euronet.nl... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And a glass of beer. Or mead. Izzy > Looking for the history of shrimp as a food, I don't find > any mention that the ancient Mediterranean people ate them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > composed the majority of the Chinese diet, and still > does today. Not then, not now. > In 1280, Marco Polo commented on the > abundance of seafood in Chinese marketplaces, > including shrimp. > > So maybe it's one of those ideas we got from the Far East, like > noodles. Timewise, those dates above fit. Interesting. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > So maybe it's one of those ideas we got from the Far East, like noodles. Oy! Donna, you're the last person I'd expect to believe in that urban legend! > > So maybe it's one of those ideas we got from the Far East, like noodles. > > Oy! Donna, you're the last person I'd expect to believe in that urban > legend! Noodles in particular, or Marco Polo in general? Last I heard, at least one scholar is convinced that Marco Polo never went to the Far East at all, but sat on his duff in Istanbul or somewhere and collected travellers' tales. SignatureThere's always something -- Donna Richoux >>> So maybe it's one of those ideas we got from the Far East, like >>> noodles. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > East at all, but sat on his duff in Istanbul or somewhere and > collected travellers' tales. That's right. And, contemplating his duff, he stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > > > So maybe it's one of those ideas we got from the Far East, like noodles. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all, but sat on his duff in Istanbul or somewhere and collected > travellers' tales. We've discussed the discovery of noodles before. I have read that Marco Polo used words for types of pasta that indicated his readers would already be familiar with the terms, that is, that pasta already existed in Europe. Then there is the following "fun fact" which appears to be widely repeated on the Internet: From http://www.ilovepasta.org/factsaboutpasta.html [quote] And further proof that Marco Polo didn't "discover" pasta is found in the will of Ponzio Baestone, a Genoan soldier who requested "bariscella peina de macarone" - a small basket of macaroni. His will is dated 1279, 16 years before Marco Polo returned from China. [end quote] SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > We've discussed the discovery of noodles before. I have read that Marco Polo > used words for types of pasta that indicated his readers would already be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > [end quote] I was quite underwhelmed by the evidence in that URL, but I found the earlier discussion in the Google archives, where you gave some much more serious articles: http://www.professionalpasta.it/dir_9/1_whoinv.htm http://www.professionalpasta.it/dir_9/c_cron_2_2.htm According to that last one, in 1154 the Arab geographer Al-Idrisi certifies that in Sicily "there is an enchanting town called Trabia with perennial waters and windmills, where a food is made from semolina shaped into strands, and manufactured in quantities that could feed not only people in Calabria, but also in the Muslin and Christian lands..." What more resounding citation could you want? Almost too good to be true. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> > > So maybe it's one of those ideas we got from the Far East, like >noodles. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >macarone" - a small basket of macaroni. His will is dated 1279, 16 years >before Marco Polo returned from China. He requested a small basket of macaroni in his will? That's hard to digest. -- john In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote: > What does that have to do with whether we use different words for the > animal and for its flesh? I was thinking that chicken/shimp name one animal, but duck/fish name several different animals. Jim Ward filted: >In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I was thinking that chicken/shimp name one animal, but duck/fish name >several different animals. "Maw, come quick! The chickenshrimp is eating all of our duckfish!"...r > In alt.usage.english Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I was thinking that chicken/shimp name one animal, but duck/fish name > several different animals. It's not different animals if it's a Bombay duck/fish. -- Regards John > But the English do have different words for every animal that is eatable. > "Pig"/"pork", "calf"/"veal". Apparently, as soon as you eat it it has > to be called something different. ;-) for the unweary. Aye, 'appen. Let's see: "rund"/"rundvlees"/"biefstuk"/"kogelbiefstuk"/"carpaccio"/"filet"/"gehakt"/"tartaar"/"hamburger" Ahah! FEBO! <*cough*> Giles. > In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go figure. Ha! In French a crossbow bolt, a diamond at cards, a shower tile, and a window pane are all "un carreau"! Beat that! And in Shanghai if you ask for a cup of tea you might get a bowl of snake. Beat that! Mind you, I read in an autobiography of an English speaker who had attended a Catholic school that the good friars taught that, when passing a church, it was appropriate to emit a short ejaculation.... > > In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go figure. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the good friars taught that, when passing a church, > it was appropriate to emit a short ejaculation.... Yes, the nuns at our school frequently used that term in that way. (snicker, snort) > > In French, paper clips and trombones are both "trombones". Go figure. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the good friars taught that, when passing a church, > it was appropriate to emit a short ejaculation.... A French friend of mine pointed out that to translate the English word "handle" French uses various words: "une anse" (of a bucket) "un bras" (of a pump) "un manche" (of a piece of silverware) "une manivelle" (of a winch) "une poignée" (of a door) "une queue" (of a saucepan) SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com Raymond S. Wise filted: >A French friend of mine pointed out that to translate the English word >"handle" French uses various words: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >"une poignée" (of a door) >"une queue" (of a saucepan) I'll defer to someone fresher in the language than I for the particulars, but I recall that for English "to wear", Japanese uses a bewildering assortment of verbs, depending on the article worn..."to wear a hat", "to wear spectacles", "to wear a coat", "to wear shoes"--each uses a different verb....r > A French friend of mine pointed out that to translate the English word > "handle" French uses various words: > "une anse" (of a bucket) Correct. Or of a basket. > "un bras" (of a pump) Correct. > "un manche" (of a piece of silverware) or of a broom, or ... it doesn't have to be _silver_ware, a knife, a fork, be they silver, steel, even plastic, have un manche. A spoon too. > "une manivelle" (of a winch) obvious, don't you call it "crank" in English (even when reasonable and in a good mood?) > "une poignée" (of a door) Yes. Ben oui, la poignée de la porte what else would you call it? Mind you, une poignée de main is something different (a handshake), and une poignée de châtaignes ("a fistful of chestnuts") is something very, very different again (it's an electrical shock). > "une queue" (of a saucepan) We even say: les hommes sont comme les poêles (saucepans): il faut savoir par où les prendre (you've got to know how to grab them... par la queue!) Wait a minute... I can't think of it, got it on the tip of my tongue... the _handle_ of a cup, no? Yes, a cup handle! We call it "une oreille". Jacques Guy forgot: > > "une poignée" (of a door) > Yes. Ben oui, la poignée de la porte > what else would you call it? It also applies to windows. However, for window handles we have two more words: espagnolette and crémone. I would have to post a picture to explain the difference. Perhaps we have _three_ more words, but I don't know (or remember) the third. Or fourth. >> I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, >> such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > French breaks owls down into two categories, "hibou" and "chouette," where > ordinary English makes no distinction at all. Intuitively I do think that English uses separate terms more often where German prefers compounds, although there are for sure some example to the contrary between those two languages, too. I suspect the English preference for short (optimally one-syllable) words as a culprit. That's just a hypothesis, as I haven't got around to a quantitative analysis. Oliver C. > Intuitively I do think that English uses separate terms more often where > German prefers compounds, although there are for sure some example to > the contrary between those two languages, too. I suspect the English > preference for short (optimally one-syllable) words as a culprit. That's > just a hypothesis, as I haven't got around to a quantitative analysis. I know only a sprinkling of German, but I've been learning Dutch for some time. From what I've gathered, *every* time you need to put a noun in front of a noun to modify it, in Dutch, you make it into a compound. So what in English would be "horse race" and "raincoat factory" and "hospital insurance" wind up being the equivalent of "horserace," "raincoatfactory," and "hospitalinsurance." (Unless there happened to be some other, simpler word that meant that phrase, of course.) Grammatically, you simply can't do otherwise. You just don't find loose attributive nouns floating around in front other nouns. I don't think the *feel* of how these noun phrases work is really any different than English, but the way they are written is. You write them without a space. And if a word is a bunch of letters between two spaces, then... I'll tell you what's odd, though, is that there are other places where I would expect compounding and the Dutch don't do it. In sentences like "In the never to be forgotten movie..." Somehow they don't see any need to tie together phrases like "never-to-be-forgotten." SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > Intuitively I do think that English uses separate terms more often where > > German prefers compounds, although there are for sure some example to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > without a space. And if a word is a bunch of letters between two spaces, > then... Quite so. English has compoundnounsyndrome just the same as the other flavours of Germanic, but the orthography is terribly misleading about it. Not noticing this is a very important ingredient in pretending that English got all creoled-up by the Normans, or that "compound" in "compound noun" is an adjective, though, so don't expect to convince everyone anytime soon. [...] Des 's spellingreformproposals would probably be less popular than most Signature"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson "Des Small" <des.small@bristol.ac.uk> wrote in message ... > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "compound noun" is an adjective, though, so don't expect to convince > everyone anytime soon. My guess is that the anomalous orthography of Modern English regarding compounds originated with lazy or stingy printers, who were able to save a hyphen whenever a compound had to be broken at the end of a line of text. The cost of this marginal (in both senses) saving of time and lead is the widespread set of misconceptions, found even among educated English-speakers, to the effect that English "uses nouns as adjectives", "uses nouns attributively", and so forth. > "Des Small" <des.small@bristol.ac.uk> wrote in message ... > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > English-speakers, to the effect that English "uses nouns as adjectives", > "uses nouns attributively", and so forth. It costs a printer just as much to put a space after a word (including the extra spacers used in justifying lines) as it does to put a hyphen after a word. They're both pieces of lead. What they did stop doing was putting the first word of the next page at the foot of each page. (When?) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >It costs a printer just as much to put a space after a word (including >the extra spacers used in justifying lines) as it does to put a hyphen >after a word. They're both pieces of lead. Not necessarily, since a printer would have to have sufficient "spaces" ('em' or 'en') for a page, but would probably not have all that many hyphens in his tray. After all, the reason why Welsh is now spelt with "c"s, whereas in the Middle Ages it was generally written with "k"s, is as Salesbury justified himslef in the 1586 Prayer Book: "C for K, because the printers haue not so many as the Welsh requireth." >What they did stop doing was putting the first word of the next page at >the foot of each page. (When?) When people ceased to read aloud, so could pause while turning the page? -- hwyl/cheers Philip Anderson Cymru/Wales > >It costs a printer just as much to put a space after a word (including > >the extra spacers used in justifying lines) as it does to put a hyphen [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ('em' or 'en') for a page, but would probably not have all that many > hyphens in his tray. Word spaces are much, much smaller than em or en spaces. > After all, the reason why Welsh is now spelt with "c"s, whereas in the > Middle Ages it was generally written with "k"s, is as Salesbury [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > When people ceased to read aloud, so could pause while turning the page? That doesn't seem likely at all. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> writes: >> Not necessarily, since a printer would have to have sufficient >> "spaces" ('em' or 'en') for a page, but would probably not have >> all that many hyphens in his tray. Peter> Word spaces are much, much smaller than em or en spaces. Really? I think they're "en" spaces before the expansion of a line to fit both margins. SignatureLee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Really? I think they're "en" spaces before the expansion of a line to > fit both margins. You think wrong. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > "Des Small" <des.small@bristol.ac.uk> wrote in message ... > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > English-speakers, to the effect that English "uses nouns as adjectives", > "uses nouns attributively", and so forth. I learn lots of great stuff in a.u.e. when people crosspost to sci.lang. However, do I understand you to mean that "bird brains" is a compound noun in "Bird brains have highly developed vision centers"? If so, how should I talk about the distinction between that and "Birdbrains let people sign up for my classes without the prerequisites"? I pronounce the first a lot like an adjective+noun phrase and the second a lot like a single word. Have I just been misled by anomalous orthography? There was a recent discussion in a.u.e. of "tinfoil" (made of aluminum) and "tin foil". I suspect the difference in pronunciation is similar (though I say "aluminum foil"), and I have the same questions. SignatureJerry Friedman Jerry Friedman filted: >However, do I understand you to mean that "bird brains" is a compound >noun in "Bird brains have highly developed vision centers"? If so, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >is similar (though I say "aluminum foil"), and I have the same >questions. Better example: "green house" - a house that's painted green "Green house" - the house that Mr Green and his family live in "greenhouse" - a glass-walled enclosure for growing plants It's usually possible to tell from pronunciation alone which is meant...something called "juncture" in addition to stress....r > I learn lots of great stuff in a.u.e. when people crosspost to > sci.lang. You could even come hang out here! > However, do I understand you to mean that "bird brains" is a compound > noun in "Bird brains have highly developed vision centers"? If so, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is similar (though I say "aluminum foil"), and I have the same > questions. The standard example is "black bird" vs. "blackbird," and it is, of course, exactly as you say. They are utterly unambiguous because they have different stress patterns. (What one does with labels like "adjective" and "noun" doesn't affect the facts of the language.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > I learn lots of great stuff in a.u.e. when people crosspost to > > sci.lang. > > You could even come hang out here! Kindly don't suggest more things for me to spend time on. > > However, do I understand you to mean that "bird brains" is a compound > > noun in "Bird brains have highly developed vision centers"? If so, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > course, exactly as you say. They are utterly unambiguous because they > have different stress patterns. I think this example is a little different. If my minuscule understanding of German is correct, "black bird" is "schwarzer Vogel"--two words, even if I have them wrong--so there's nothing anomalous about English orthography here. However, the ways I say and hear "bird brain" and "birdbrain" sound exactly parallel to "black bird" and "blackbird", to my untrained ear. Maybe that's what you meant. > (What one does with labels like "adjective" and "noun" doesn't affect > the facts of the language.) Seems to me the label in question here is "word"--is "bird brains" one word or two?--though no doubt your point is correct. SignatureJerry Friedman > > > I learn lots of great stuff in a.u.e. when people crosspost to > > > sci.lang. > > > > You could even come hang out here! > > Kindly don't suggest more things for me to spend time on. You could hang out here _instead_ of at a.u.e., and less time would be spent. > > > However, do I understand you to mean that "bird brains" is a compound > > > noun in "Bird brains have highly developed vision centers"? If so, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > bird" and "blackbird", to my untrained ear. Maybe that's what you > meant. Just as we no longer analyze English in terms of Latin, nor should we analyze English in terms of German. > > (What one does with labels like "adjective" and "noun" doesn't affect > > the facts of the language.) > > Seems to me the label in question here is "word"--is "bird brains" one > word or two?--though no doubt your point is correct. I thought the phenomenon in question here is the phonemic nature of stress in English. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > Just as we no longer analyze English in terms of Latin, nor should we > analyze English in terms of German. It is worth remarking that some alleged justifications for certain prescriptions and proscriptions of some usages, as split infinitives, suppossedly based on Latin grammar, show little knowledge of Latin: in Latin, split infinitives are frequent. -- Saludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > > Just as we no longer analyze English in terms of Latin, nor should we > > analyze English in terms of German. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > suppossedly based on Latin grammar, show little knowledge of Latin: in > Latin, split infinitives are frequent. Someone already set you straight on that one. "Esse" is not split in the constructions conventionally labeled "future infinitives." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>> Just as we no longer analyze English in terms of Latin, nor should >>> we analyze English in terms of German. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Someone already set you straight on that one. No, not really. And I am still waiting for the name of the grammarian who wrote that odd justification for not splitting infinitives in English. > "Esse" is not split in > the constructions conventionally labeled "future infinitives." Then, "split" has for you a meaning that does not appear in dictionaries. By the way, there is also passive perfect infinitives in Latin formed with the perfect participle in accusative + ESSE, which can also be split. . -- Saludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > >>> Just as we no longer analyze English in terms of Latin, nor should > >>> we analyze English in terms of German. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No, not really. And I am still waiting for the name of the grammarian who > wrote that odd justification for not splitting infinitives in English. Maybe if you investigated the history of English grammarians, you would find it. What does it matter? > > "Esse" is not split in > > the constructions conventionally labeled "future infinitives." > > Then, "split" has for you a meaning that does not appear in dictionaries. By > the way, there is also passive perfect infinitives in Latin formed with the > perfect participle in accusative + ESSE, which can also be split. Show us ONE example from Latin with "es- ... -se". In Latin, phrases conventionally labeled "infinitive" are NOT infinitives in any useful sense; they are phrases with an infinitive for a head. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > In Latin, phrases conventionally labeled "infinitive" are NOT > infinitives in any useful sense; they are phrases with an infinitive > for a head. In HPSG, we treated "infinitives" in English the same way. Discussing values for the VFORM attribute, *INF*: we analyze the infinitive marker _to_ as a defective auxiliary verb with the specification [VFORM INF]; thus an infinitival phrase such as _to leave tomorrow_ is analyzed as _to_ (the lexical head) followed by _leave tomorrow_ (a base-form VP complement). Pollard and Sag, _[An] Information-Based Syntax and Semantics_, p. 61. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > In Latin, phrases conventionally labeled "infinitive" are NOT > > infinitives in any useful sense; they are phrases with an infinitive [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Pollard and Sag, _[An] Information-Based Syntax and > Semantics_, p. 61. That looks like maybe their scheme insisted that they had to have a "lexical head" for every construction? Calling an empty form like "to" here "lexical" is coming dangerously close to incoherence. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > In Latin, phrases conventionally labeled "infinitive" are NOT > > > infinitives in any useful sense; they are phrases with an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That looks like maybe their scheme insisted that they had to have a > "lexical head" for every construction? They were big on heads (it was, after all, "Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar"), but they didn't require that the heads be lexical, and, indeed, much of the time they weren't. The VP, for example was the head of the sentence. Lexical and phrasal heads, however, worked differently in their phrase structure rules. Lexical heads could have any number of subcategorized complements greater than zero and combined with all but the last, yielding a phrase that subcategorized for that last. Phrasal heads had to subcategorize for a single complement and combined with it, yielding a complete phrase. > Calling an empty form like "to" here "lexical" is coming dangerously > close to incoherence. It looks more phrasal to you? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The plural of "anecdote" 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is not "data" Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > > > In Latin, phrases conventionally labeled "infinitive" are NOT > > > > infinitives in any useful sense; they are phrases with an [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > It looks more phrasal to you? No, it's an empty morph. It's not lexical, it's "grammatical." At least, you couch everything in the past. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > Calling an empty form like "to" here "lexical" is coming > > > dangerously close to incoherence. > > > > It looks more phrasal to you? > > No, it's an empty morph. It's not lexical, it's "grammatical." "Lexical" was a binary feature. The notion was that either it was in the lexicon (or constructed by morphological rules from a lexical entry) or it was phrasal. From the point of view of the theory, there was really nothing special about "grammatical" lexical entries. They merely didn't provide any semantic relations of their own, but rather provided semantics based on that of one or more of their complements. It's not like you needed any special grammatical rules to deal with them. Syntactically, they acted just like any other lexical entries in the half dozen or so phrase structure rules that were necessary to handle (the (significant) fragment of) English (addressed by the theory). > At least, you couch everything in the past. Only because I don't know the details of the current theory. I haven't been an actual linguist since about a year after I graduated. (I was hoping to continue to be one, but HP was shutting down its Natural Language Project pretty much as I was interviewing back in 1988, and I wound up elsewhere.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > > > Calling an empty form like "to" here "lexical" is coming > > > > dangerously close to incoherence. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > handle (the (significant) fragment of) English (addressed by the > theory). So this would be another of the approaches that Jackendoff castigates for ignoring meaning. > > At least, you couch everything in the past. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Natural Language Project pretty much as I was interviewing back in > 1988, and I wound up elsewhere.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > "Lexical" was a binary feature. The notion was that either it was > > in the lexicon (or constructed by morphological rules from a lexical [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So this would be another of the approaches that Jackendoff castigates > for ignoring meaning. If you say so. (Not in anything I've read of his, but I've only read a little.) Did he really say that "grammatical" elements have to behave differently *syntactically* from semantic elements in order to not "ignore meaning"? HPSG certainly had a large component dedicated to the semantics of words and how they combined in phrases, but much of this (especially in the "grammatical" words) was asserted to be in the lexical entry rather than in special rules. It seemed to work. But this should really be answered by Ivan Sag or one of the other current HPSG researchers at Stanford http://hpsg.stanford.edu/ or elsewhere. As I said, I'm out of date. Since the 11th International Conferernce on HPSG is taking place in Leuven in August, I presume that it has increased in popularity since I stopped following it, and there have doubtless been changes made to the formalism. Some of what they consider the key ideas in the work can be found at http://hpsg.stanford.edu/ideas.html SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > > "Lexical" was a binary feature. The notion was that either it was > > > in the lexicon (or constructed by morphological rules from a lexical [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > If you say so. (Not in anything I've read of his, but I've only read Foundations of Language (2002). > a little.) Did he really say that "grammatical" elements have to > behave differently *syntactically* from semantic elements in order to > not "ignore meaning"? HPSG certainly had a large component dedicated Of course not. What you describe above is a syntax that appears to ignore semantics entirely. Like Chomsky's. > to the semantics of words and how they combined in phrases, but much > of this (especially in the "grammatical" words) was asserted to be in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://hpsg.stanford.edu/ideas.html SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > And I am still waiting for the name of the grammarian who > wrote that odd justification for not splitting infinitives in English. Apparently nobody knows; it started showing up in the lists of grammatical rules that circulated in the 19th century. In December, Richard Hershberger posted here: >> Actually, the split-infinitive fetish came later. Neither Bishop >> Lowth nor Robert Baker mention it. It seems to have arisen in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> "A correspondent states as his own usage, and defends, the insertion >> of an adverb between the sign of the infinitive mood and the verb. He >> gives as an instance, 'to scientifically illustrate.' But surely this >> is a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers. It >> seems to me, that we ever regard the 'to' of the infinitive as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> In infer from this that the matter was discussed earlier, but I >> haven't found any such discussions. [End quoted post] SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > And I am still waiting for the name of the grammarian who > > wrote that odd justification for not splitting infinitives in English. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> mid-19th century. The earliest clear statement of the rule I know of > >> is in Dean Alford's _A Plea for the Queen's English_ (1864): [snip] From a Harper's Magazine letter to the editor: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1111/1816_303/77702881/p4/article.jhtml The most influential grammarian of the nineteenth century, Lindley Murray (1745-1826), never mentioned the split infinitive in any of his books. Nor did his contemporaries. The earliest named critic of the split infinitive was Joseph P. Chandler (1847), and several grammarians joined him in condemning it--Alford (1866), Bache (1869), Hodgson (1889), Nesfield (1906), and Folsom (1928). I believe the author of the 1847 grammar is actually Joseph *R.* Chandler. WorldCat has: A grammar of the English language : adapted to the schools of America / Author: Chandler, Joseph R. 1792-1880. Publication: Philadelphia : Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1847 WorldCat lists an 1821 edition of the grammar, also mentioned in bios of Chandler: http://www.famousamericans.net/josephripleychandler/ http://www.chandlerlodge227.org/history.html > > And I am still waiting for the name of the grammarian who > > wrote that odd justification for not splitting infinitives in English. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >> illustrate scientifically,' there seems no good reason for flying in > >> the face of common usage." The "surely" is a dead giveaway: he didn't bother to examine the corpus to discover whether "good writers" did or didn't split infinitives. And surely it's not credible that there was never a possibility of ambiguity with some placings of "scientifically" before the "to" or after the "illustrate"? > >> In infer from this that the matter was discussed earlier, but I > >> haven't found any such discussions. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > And I am still waiting for the name of the grammarian who > > > wrote that odd justification for not splitting infinitives in English. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The "surely" is a dead giveaway: he didn't bother to examine the corpus > to discover whether "good writers" did or didn't split infinitives. A contemporary critic thought that split infinitives were "very common," at least among American writers: Lectures on the English Language. [Book review.] The North American Review. Boston: Oct 1860. Vol. XCI, No. CLXXXIX; p. 507 It is very common with all but the most scrupulous writers in this country to put an adverb between the "to" and the infinitive; as, "to clearly prove," instead of "to prove clearly," or "clearly to prove." One may meet with this construction now and then in careless English writers but in American publications, both newspapers and solid books, it occurs constantly and without rebuke. Simon Kerl's 1868 grammar in the Making of America database gives various examples of split infinitives in its rule against them ("It is generally improper to place an adverb between _to_ and the rest of the infinitive"). Elsewhere Kerl includes the split infinitive in a list of "violations of the minor rules or principles of grammar" allowable for poetic license, quoting Lord Byron's "To slowly trace the forest's shady scene." Kerl, Simon. A common school grammar of the English language. New York: Ivison, Phinney, Blakerman & co., 1868. http://tinyurl.com/27sb8 http://tinyurl.com/2xzkg Interestingly, though the split infinitive was already a grammatical hobgoblin in the 1860s, it didn't actually get its name ("split infinitive" or "cleft infinitive") until the 1890s. > A contemporary critic thought that split infinitives were "very common," > at least among American writers: [snip snip snip] Please, please do stop bombarding us with facts. Especially with facts which, like yours, seem true and not only true but verifiable. Facts are disturbing. Gimme theory, theory, theory, the.... arrrghh.... >> A contemporary critic thought that split infinitives were "very common," >> at least among American writers: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Facts are disturbing. Gimme theory, theory, theory, the.... arrrghh.... I couldn't agree more. Giving us fact after fact is one of Evan's ploys, although I've seen others here trying to use facts to their advantage too. The unfairness of it all never fails to annoy me. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > No, not really. And I am still waiting for the name of the grammarian who > wrote that odd justification for not splitting infinitives in English. Dammit, I'll just have to repeat it: > I keep on reading that explanation for the proscription of split > infinitives in English and I wonder how little Latin anyone who > claimed that knew: in Surely they knews allot. The explanation is misleading; what they saws was that by 'splitting infinitives', offen prepositions ended the phrases, and that struck them as not proper, since it don't happen in french. They believed a pre-position should pre-cede something. > Surely they knews allot. The explanation is misleading; what they saws > was that by 'splitting infinitives', offen prepositions ended the > phrases, and that struck them as not proper, since it don't happen in > french. They believed a pre-position should pre-cede something. Which makes sense. In its own perverse way, because those "prepositions" are actually postpositions, functioning just like "zu" in "Mach die Tür zu". (Comme quoi, ces grammairiens, c'est des enfonceurs de portes ouvertes, since they could never close a German door) In sci.lang Jacques Guy <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote: > Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: > > > Surely they knews allot. The explanation is misleading; what they saws > > was that by 'splitting infinitives', offen prepositions ended the > > phrases, and that struck them as not proper, since it don't happen in > > french. They believed a pre-position should pre-cede something. > Which makes sense. It makes no sense. A grammarian calls them prepositions, therefore they should behave in accordance with the term that has been given them? > In its own perverse way, because those > "prepositions" are actually postpositions, functioning just No, they're not, any more than the "out" in "put the cat out" is a postposition. > like "zu" in "Mach die T?r zu". (Comme quoi, ces grammairiens, > c'est des enfonceurs de portes ouvertes, since they could > never close a German door) SignatureGreg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> > It makes no sense. A grammarian calls them prepositions, therefore > they should behave in accordance with the term that has been given > them? By definition. Just like Romanization tables. There can be no error there. By definition. > > > > I learn lots of great stuff in a.u.e. when people crosspost to > > > > sci.lang. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You could hang out here _instead_ of at a.u.e., and less time would be > spent. Good idea. After all, I'm not addicted to a.u.e. I could quit any time. > > > > However, do I understand you to mean that "bird brains" is a compound > > > > noun in "Bird brains have highly developed vision centers"? If so, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Just as we no longer analyze English in terms of Latin, nor should we > analyze English in terms of German. I believe you, but Des Small and Douglas Kilday were specifically comparing English to the other Germanic languages. I mentioned German to argue that you weren't addressing the comparison they made. > > > (What one does with labels like "adjective" and "noun" doesn't affect > > > the facts of the language.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I thought the phenomenon in question here is the phonemic nature of > stress in English. I thought it was compoundnounsyndrome, and I was bringing in stress to suggest that I could use it to tell phrases from compound words. SignatureJerry Friedman > > > > > I learn lots of great stuff in a.u.e. when people crosspost to > > > > > sci.lang. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Good idea. After all, I'm not addicted to a.u.e. I could quit any > time. But you're still crossposting from there, and not one a.u.e.er has participated in this thread. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > But you're still crossposting from there, and not one a.u.e.er has > participated in this thread. Not only has at least one participated in the thread, but according to the timestamps on the articles, you replied to one (me) just prior to posting this article. Other AUEers who have been participating include Javi and R.H. Draney. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > But you're still crossposting from there, and not one a.u.e.er has > > participated in this thread. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > posting this article. Other AUEers who have been participating > include Javi and R.H. Draney. Javi is a sci.langer; I don't recognize the other name, sorry. You've commented on the Jerry subthread? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>> But you're still crossposting from there, and not one a.u.e.er has >>> participated in this thread. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Javi is a sci.langer; I don't recognize the other name, sorry. I have posted to sci.lang, I read it frequently (and sometimes I learn something), but I am more an AUEr than a sci.langer. -- Saludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > > > But you're still crossposting from there, and not one a.u.e.er > > > has participated in this thread. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Javi is a sci.langer; And an AUEer. > I don't recognize the other name, sorry. Sorry. I didn't realize that he cut out the crosspost to sci.lang. > You've commented on the Jerry subthread? The whole back-and-forth on HPSG is part of the "Jerry subthread": Jerry You Jerry You Javi Jou Javi You Me You ... SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring |bankers. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > > > But you're still crossposting from there, and not one a.u.e.er > > > > has participated in this thread. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jerry You Jerry You Javi Jou Javi You Me You ... So you've only now joined in, so my impression that AUEers weren't participating was correct! (Since I knew that Javi is a sci.langer, whether or not he's also an AUEer.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> But you're still crossposting from there, and not one a.u.e.er has >> participated in this thread. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >posting this article. Other AUEers who have been participating >include Javi and R.H. Draney. Peter doesn't see me...I have a switch set in my Newsguy preferences that keeps me from crossposting....r > Evan Kirshenbaum filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Peter doesn't see me...I have a switch set in my Newsguy preferences that keeps > me from crossposting....r Hey, that's pretty clever! I would like to take this opportunity not to say anything about which newsgroups I read and post in. SignatureJerry Friedman > > Evan Kirshenbaum filted: > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Peter doesn't see me...I have a switch set in my Newsguy preferences that keeps > > me from crossposting....r So you don't care whether someone to whom you reply ever sees your reply or not! > Hey, that's pretty clever! > > I would like to take this opportunity not to say anything about which > newsgroups I read and post in. Too late. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Peter T. Daniels filted: >>> Peter doesn't see me...I have a switch set in my Newsguy preferences that >>keeps >> > me from crossposting....r > >So you don't care whether someone to whom you reply ever sees your reply >or not! I post where I read, and contrapositively...the world would be a better place if others did likewise.... (Not that you're seeing this)....r > So you don't care whether someone to whom you reply ever sees your reply > or not! I was wondering what would be the worse with 'So you don't care whether someone ever sees your reply or not whom you reply to!'. That the predicate is preceded by a pronoun that, not being qualified until later, defaults to a very general meaning? > > So you don't care whether someone to whom you reply ever sees your reply > > or not! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > predicate is preceded by a pronoun that, not being qualified until > later, defaults to a very general meaning? Maybe you can't extrapose out of a phrase headed by an indefinite pronoun? It's painful not to have the identification of "someone" until after you hear what happens to the someone? (Also, when the "to" isn't directly before the "who," it would stay "who.") Maybe a bit better would be "whether someone you reply to ever sees your reply or not." But hey, it was going to a.u.e. so it had to be "correct" ... SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > But you're still crossposting from there, and not one a.u.e.er has > participated in this thread. We're still waiting for input from e.i.e.i.o where Old McDonald had a farm. "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote in message ... > "Douglas G. Kilday" <fufluns@chorus.net> wrote in message ... > > "Des Small" <des.small@bristol.ac.uk> wrote in message ... > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > a lot like a single word. Have I just been misled by anomalous > orthography? There is no distinction in my speech. I would avoid confusion by using a true adjective in the first example, "avian brains". Of course, birdbrains (allowed into class by other birdbrains) might not recognize "avian", but they would be unlikely to pass the course anyway. This raises the matter of adjectives being extracted from compound nouns reinterpreted as Adj+N phrases, which is well established with "key" (e.g. "a very key player") and "fun" (e.g. "the funnest thing we do"). Would you say "a very bird pattern of behavior" (cf. "a very human pattern of behavior") or "the most bird feature" (cf. "the most human feature")? > There was a recent discussion in a.u.e. of "tinfoil" (made of > aluminum) and "tin foil". I suspect the difference in pronunciation > is similar (though I say "aluminum foil"), and I have the same > questions. Yes, "tinfoil" is a compound noun, while "tin foil" is an Adj+N phrase. One of the peculiarities of late ModE is the obsolescence of many material adjectives such as "silvern" and "leathern" and their replacement by adjectives phonemically identical to the corresponding nouns, which can even be used predicatively: "the coins are silver"; "the apron is leather". This generalization provides the rule for new material-names like "aluminum". I have never heard of "aluminous foil". However, "tinnen" is the obsolete adjective corresponding to the noun "tin", so it wouldn't surprise me if "tinnen foil" is attested in early ModE. [...] > This raises the matter of adjectives being extracted from compound nouns > reinterpreted as Adj+N phrases, which is well established with "key" (e.g. > "a very key player") and "fun" (e.g. "the funnest thing we do"). For another example, Geek House Calls advertises on the radio with the slogan: "For anything computer, call Geek House Calls." (as in "computer problems", "computer installation", etc) Unfortunately their web site does not seem to have this memorable slogan, but Googling revealed a few more instances of "computer" as Adj. [...] SignatureTom Breton, calm-eyed visionary > "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote in message ... > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > There is no distinction in my speech. Then I suppose you don't have to account for the difference in mine. But in my English language (do people other than John Lawler say that?), there's a difference that seems to me to match very well with the difference between a compound word and a two-word phrase. > I would avoid confusion by using a > true adjective in the first example, "avian brains". Or "birds' brains", now that you mention it. Nonetheless, "bird brains" is grammatical in this sense, at least for me. ... > This raises the matter of adjectives being extracted from compound nouns > reinterpreted as Adj+N phrases, which is well established with "key" (e.g. > "a very key player") and "fun" (e.g. "the funnest thing we do"). Would you > say "a very bird pattern of behavior" (cf. "a very human pattern of > behavior") or "the most bird feature" (cf. "the most human feature")? I would not, though if people see a use for the constructions, it's only a matter of time, as you point out. A similar question is when to use compound adjectives and compound nouns. The one I remember from my youth is "group-theoretical methods" versus "group-theory methods". (I like the second.) There must be parallel examples in linguistics. > > There was a recent discussion in a.u.e. of "tinfoil" (made of > > aluminum) and "tin foil". I suspect the difference in pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > adjective corresponding to the noun "tin", so it wouldn't surprise me if > "tinnen foil" is attested in early ModE. If "tin foil" is an Adj+N phrase, what do you conclude from the absence of "tinnest foil" and "very tin foil"? Is it the same thing you conclude from the absence of "very bird behavior" and "the most bird feature"? SignatureJerry Friedman >> Intuitively I do think that English uses separate terms more >> often where German prefers compounds, although there are for sure [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > equivalent of "horserace," "raincoatfactory," and > "hospitalinsurance." Oh, I sure count the English ones as compounds, too, I don"t care for a few space marks in the middle. I still feel there are more cases where English says something unanalyzable like "sandwich" [1] and in German it is just "belegtes Brot" (roughly "bread with something laid on it"), to quote the first example that comes to mind. > I'll tell you what's odd, though, is that there are other places > where I would expect compounding and the Dutch don't do it. In > sentences like "In the never to be forgotten movie..." Somehow > they don't see any need to tie together phrases like > "never-to-be-forgotten." German: "unvergesslich". Nevertheless, non-nouns don't lend themselves to compounding nearly as easily as nouns. Oliver C. [1] In my Japanese university, they had a small shop called "the sandwitch house". I ventured into it, firmly grasping my silver crucifix. > >> Intuitively I do think that English uses separate terms more > >> often where German prefers compounds, although there are for sure [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > German it is just "belegtes Brot" (roughly "bread with something laid > on it"), to quote the first example that comes to mind. The absence of spaces does make the hyphenation problem in languages like German and Dutch far more difficult than it is in English though. Another consequence is that there is no such thing as a longest word in Dutch. Words can in principle have infinite [1] length. 'Opperlands" by Battus gives some examples, Jan [1] Infinite in the mathematical sense: given a number of letters you can invent a word that is longer. 20- or 30 letter words are not uncommon. They even occur in spell-checking dictionaries. > there is no such thing as a longest word in Dutch. > Words can in principle have infinite [1] length. <snip> > [1] Infinite in the mathematical sense: > given a number of letters you can invent a word that is longer. That's not "'infinite' in the mathematical sense". A mathematician would say "there's no upper bound on the length of Dutch words" or "Dutch words can be of arbitrarily long length" (different from "of arbitrary length" which implies also that they can be of one letter). Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. msh210@math.wustl.edu Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated, http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted. > > there is no such thing as a longest word in Dutch. > > Words can in principle have infinite [1] length. <snip> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can be of arbitrarily long length" (different from "of arbitrary length" > which implies also that they can be of one letter). Not for mathematicians among themselves, but it is about what you can expect when a mathematician tries to explain the (Aristotelian) difference between an actual and a potential infinite to a layman. And indeed, unlike French or English, Dutch sadly lacks one-letter words, which make a pi-rhyme in Dutch very difficult. Jan Signature"Que j'aime a faire ......" > > > there is no such thing as a longest word in Dutch. > > > Words can in principle have infinite [1] length. <snip> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Dutch sadly lacks one-letter words, > which make a pi-rhyme in Dutch very difficult. What's a pi-rhyme? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Peter T. Daniels filted: >> And indeed, unlike French or English, >> Dutch sadly lacks one-letter words, >> which make a pi-rhyme in Dutch very difficult. > >What's a pi-rhyme? One of those mnemonics for remembering the digits of pi, wherein the number of letters in each word gives the next digit...example: "How I need a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy chapters involving quantum mechanics".... The concept breaks down when you get to the first zero in the expansion, at the 32nd place after the denary point....r > Peter T. Daniels filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The concept breaks down when you get to the first zero in the expansion, > at the 32nd place after the denary point....r You can get around that by agreeing to count the letters mod 10, with 10 representing zero, (and if you must) 11 for 1 etc. Jan > > > > there is no such thing as a longest word in Dutch. > > > > Words can in principle have infinite [1] length. <snip> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > What's a pi-rhyme? A mnemonic for pi. The original (and perhaps the oldest one?) reads: ==== Que j'aime à faire apprendre un nombre utile aux sages. 3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3 5 Immortel Archimède, artiste ingénieur, 8 9 7 9 Qui de ton jugement peut priser la valeur 3 2 3 8 4 6 2 6 Pour moi ton problème eut de féconds avantages. 4 3 3 8 3 2 7 9 ==== Many variations and expansions on the idea exist. Jan Signature"To pi, or not to pi." >> And indeed, unlike French or English, >> Dutch sadly lacks one-letter words, >> which make a pi-rhyme in Dutch very difficult. > >What's a pi-rhyme? A rhyme in which the numbers of letters in successive words are the decimal digits of pi = 3.14159... There's one that goes something like "How I wish I could remember ...", but I've forgotten it (and anyway I don't think it rhymes). Zero-letter words are even more difficult, but the first zero digit in pi is surprisingly far down: 3.1415926535897 9323846264338327950... David > A rhyme in which the numbers of letters in successive words > are the decimal digits of pi = 3.14159... There's one that > goes something like "How I wish I could remember ...", but > I've forgotten it (and anyway I don't think it rhymes). And "remember" has only 8 letters. Still, you find it here: "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skeptic/message/31316?source=1" How I wish I could remember Of circle round The exact relation Archimedes found And I - even I - would celebrate In rhymes inapt the great Immortal Syracusan rivaled nevernmore Who by his wondrous lore Untold us before Showed the way straight How to circles mensurate. And "Archimedes" has ten letters, and "found" only five, and... ... better remain _skeptic_ about it. > Zero-letter words are even more difficult, but the first > zero digit in pi is surprisingly far down: 3.1415926535897 > 9323846264338327950... This one works: Que j'aime à faire apprendre un nombre utile 3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 aux sages. Immortel Archimède, artiste, ingénieur, 3 5 8 9 7 9 qui de ton jugement peut friser la valeur? 3 2 3 8 4 6 2 6 Unexpectedly, looking for it on google takes you to "http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/11_2.html" where you will find this (note "disturbing", 10 letters, to represent zero) Poe, E. Near A Raven Midnights so dreary, tired and weary. Silently pondering volumes extolling all by-now obsolete lore. During my rather long nap - the weirdest tap! An ominous vibrating sound disturbing my chamber's antedoor. "This", I whispered quietly, "I ignore". Perfectly, the intellect remembers: the ghostly fires, a glittering ember. Inflamed by lightning's outbursts, windows cast penumbras upon this floor. Sorrowful, as one mistreated, unhappy thoughts I heeded: That inimitable lesson in elegance - Lenore - Is delighting, exciting...nevermore. Ominously, curtains parted (my serenity outsmarted), And fear overcame my being - the fear of "forevermore". Fearful foreboding abided, selfish sentiment confided, As I said, "Methinks mysterious traveler knocks afore. A man is visiting, of age threescore." Taking little time, briskly addressing something: "Sir," (robustly) "Tell what source originates clamorous noise afore? Disturbing sleep unkindly, is it you a-tapping, so slyly? Why, devil incarnate!--" Here completely unveiled I my antedoor-- Just darkness, I ascertained - nothing more. While surrounded by darkness then, I persevered to clearly comprehend. I perceived the weirdest dream...of everlasting "nevermores". Quite, quite, quick nocturnal doubts fled - such relief! - as my intellect said, (Desiring, imagining still) that perchance the apparition was uttering a whispered "Lenore". This only, as evermore. Silently, I reinforced, remaining anxious, quite scared, afraid, While intrusive tap did then come thrice - O, so stronger than sounded afore. "Surely" (said silently) "it was the banging, clanging window lattice." Glancing out, I quaked, upset by horrors hereinbefore, Perceiving: a "nevermore". Completely disturbed, I said, "Utter, please, what prevails ahead. Repose, relief, cessation, or but more dreary 'nevermores'?" The bird intruded thence - O, irritation ever since! - Then sat on Pallas' pallid bust, watching me (I sat not, therefore), And stated "nevermores". Bemused by raven's dissonance, my soul exclaimed, "I seek intelligence; Explain thy purpose, or soon cease intoning forlorn 'nevermores'!" "Nevermores", winged corvus proclaimed - thusly was a raven named? Actually maintain a surname, upon Pluvious seashore? I heard an oppressive "nevermore". My sentiments extremely pained, to perceive an utterance so plain, Most interested, mystified, a meaning I hoped for. "Surely," said the raven's watcher, "separate discourse is wiser. Therefore, liberation I'll obtain, retreating heretofore - Eliminating all the 'nevermores' ". Still, the detestable raven just remained, unmoving, on sculptured bust. Always saying "never" (by a red chamber's door). A poor, tender heartache maven - a sorrowful bird - a raven! O, I wished thoroughly, forthwith, that he'd fly heretofore. Still sitting, he recited "nevermores". The raven's dirge induced alarm - "nevermore" quite wearisome. I meditated: "Might its utterances summarize of a calamity before?" O, a sadness was manifest - a sorrowful cry of unrest; "O," I thought sincerely, "it's a melancholy great - furthermore, Removing doubt, this explains 'nevermores' ". Seizing just that moment to sit - closely, carefully, advancing beside it, Sinking down, intrigued, where velvet cushion lay afore. A creature, midnight-black, watched there - it studied my soul, unawares. Wherefore, explanations my insight entreated for. Silently, I pondered the "nevermores". "Disentangle, nefarious bird! Disengage - I am disturbed!" Intently its eye burned, raising the cry within my core. "That delectable Lenore - whose velvet pillow this was, heretofore, Departed thence, unsettling my consciousness therefore. She's returning - that maiden - aye, nevermore." Since, to me, that thought was madness, I renounced continuing sadness. Continuing on, I soundly, adamantly forswore: "Wretch," (addressing blackbird only) "fly swiftly - emancipate me!" "Respite, respite, detestable raven - and discharge me, I implore!" A ghostly answer of: "nevermore". " 'Tis a prophet? Wraith? Strange devil? Or the ultimate evil?" "Answer, tempter-sent creature!", I inquired, like before. "Forlorn, though firmly undaunted, with 'nevermores' quite indoctrinated, Is everything depressing, generating great sorrow evermore? I am subdued!", I then swore. In answer, the raven turned - relentless distress it spurned. "Comfort, surcease, quiet, silence!" - pleaded I for. "Will my (abusive raven!) sorrows persist unabated? Nevermore Lenore respondeth?", adamantly I encored. The appeal was ignored. "O, satanic inferno's denizen -- go!", I said boldly, standing then. "Take henceforth loathsome "nevermores" - O, to an ugly Plutonian shore! Let nary one expression, O bird, remain still here, replacing mirth. Promptly leave and retreat!", I resolutely swore. Blackbird's riposte: "nevermore". So he sitteth, observing always, perching ominously on these doorways. Squatting on the stony bust so untroubled, O therefore. Suffering stark raven's conversings, so I am condemned, subserving, To a nightmare cursed, containing miseries galore. Thus henceforth, I'll rise (from a darkness, a grave) -- nevermore! -- Original: E. Poe -- Redone by measuring circles. ... > [1] Infinite in the mathematical sense: > given a number of letters you can invent a word that is longer. > 20- or 30 letter words are not uncommon. > They even occur in spell-checking dictionaries. The longest I have in one of my online dictionaries is: levensverzekeringsmaatschappijen which is even quite common. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > ... > > [1] Infinite in the mathematical sense: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > levensverzekeringsmaatschappijen > which is even quite common. Grepping an easily accessible source (the Dutch spelling dictionary that came with Excalibur, which comes with many TeX implementations for Mac) finds lots of 25 letter words, a handful of 30 letter ones, and indeed the longest at 32, 'levensverzekeringsmaatschappijen'. (life insurance companies) The dictionary seems to have beeen obtained by sampling real usage. Jan ... > > I'll tell you what's odd, though, is that there are other places > > where I would expect compounding and the Dutch don't do it. In [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > German: "unvergesslich". Nevertheless, non-nouns don't lend > themselves to compounding nearly as easily as nouns. Dutch: "onvergetelijk". But indeed, compounding of nouns is common, other compounding in general indicates a change of meaning, and done much less than in German. But I think there is a change of meaning also in German with other compoundings: not every "kleine Bus" is a "Kleinbus". In Dutch "kleinbus" is not really valid (but I know a company that uses it). And so is "Großstadt" not only a big city, there are different connotations. Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > > Intuitively I do think that English uses separate terms more often where > > German prefers compounds, although there are for sure some example to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "raincoatfactory," and "hospitalinsurance." (Unless there happened to be > some other, simpler word that meant that phrase, of course.) Now that you put it this way it appears a bit surprising that it wouldn't be rain coat factory. > Grammatically, you simply can't do otherwise. You just don't find loose > attributive nouns floating around in front other nouns. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > without a space. And if a word is a bunch of letters between two spaces, > then... Yes, and in some cases the compound word acquires an additional letter 's' between the parts. ('scheepvaart', but 'scheepsbeschuit') > I'll tell you what's odd, though, is that there are other places where I > would expect compounding and the Dutch don't do it. In sentences like > "In the never to be forgotten movie..." Somehow they don't see any need > to tie together phrases like "never-to-be-forgotten." You can use both 'de onvergetelijke film' and 'een film om nooit te vergeten'. The 'nooit te vergeten film' would be correct, but cumbersome and unusual. You could suspect a speaker using the phrase of not being native. Best, Jan > > > Intuitively I do think that English uses separate terms more often where > > > German prefers compounds, although there are for sure some example to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Now that you put it this way it appears a bit surprising that it > wouldn't be rain coat factory. Well, we *do* make *some* compounds, you know. Given enough time. > > I'll tell you what's odd, though, is that there are other places where I > > would expect compounding and the Dutch don't do it. In sentences like [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You could suspect a speaker using the phrase > of not being native. Right. My fault for trying to mimic something close to what I meant when I couldn't think of a real example. I wasn't sure if "never-to-be-forgotten" was one of the actual cases I'd seen, but it conveyed the sense I wanted: a short phrase used as a modifier, usually in the opening of a sentence. I don't suppose you can think of a real Dutch example of that sort of thing? Sorry I can't. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux An American living in the Netherlands > You can use both 'de onvergetelijke film' and > 'een film om nooit te vergeten'. > The 'nooit te vergeten film' would be correct, > but cumbersome and unusual. > You could suspect a speaker using the phrase > of not being native. And, I guess, in German, one could say 'ein nie zu vergessender Film', but it doesn't seem all that natural. SignatureRob Bannister > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > French breaks owls down into two categories, "hibou" and "chouette," where > ordinary English makes no distinction at all. There's a curious situation with the French words "chameau" and "dromadaire." If you use the word "chameau" when referring to a dromedary (an Arabian camel), French people will tend to correct you. "Chameau," they insist, is the two-humped camel (the Bactrian camel). However, the word "chameau" is traditionally used in French translations of the Bible when the camel in question would presumably have been the dromedary, as in Matthew 19:24 (Louis Segond translation): "Je vous le dis encore, il est plus facile à un chameau de passer par le trou d'une aiguille qu'à un riche d'entrer dans le royaume de Dieu." In the King James (Authorized) Version, "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com Raymond S. Wise escribió : >>> I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, >>> such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > dromedary (an Arabian camel), French people will tend to correct you. > "Chameau," they insist, is the two-humped camel (the Bactrian camel). Same as in Spanish: "camello" and "dromedario". > However, the word "chameau" is traditionally used in French > translations of the Bible when the camel in question would presumably [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a > needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." No, it was not a camel nor a dromedary. There was a mistake by St. Hyeronimus in his translation of the Gospels from Greek to Latin. The Greek word used was "kamilos" (thick rope), but it was understood as "kame:los" (camel). So, the translation should be: "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a *rope* to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) Javi filted: >No, it was not a camel nor a dromedary. There was a mistake by St. >Hyeronimus in his translation of the Gospels from Greek to Latin. The Greek [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a *rope* to go through the eye >of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." This is the same sort of thing that led Michelangelo to depict Moses with horns rather than with a halo....r > This is the same sort of thing that led Michelangelo to depict Moses > with horns rather than with a halo....r Where do you get a halo from? Ex 34:29/35 talk about the *skin of his face* "giving off rays/beams (literally 'horns') of light". (Hebrew "karan") 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/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> This is the same sort of thing that led Michelangelo to depict Moses >> with horns rather than with a halo....r > >Where do you get a halo from? Ex 34:29/35 talk about the *skin of his >face* "giving off rays/beams (literally 'horns') of light". (Hebrew >"karan") Since hearing of the "beams of light" reading, I've always understood it as simply someone else's [1] description of a glory....r [1] Apparently his own; tradition has it that Moses himself took down the words of the Pentateuch, which leads to questions about the last few verses of Deuteronomy describing the circumstances of his death.... > tradition has it that Moses himself took down the words of the > Pentateuch, which leads to questions about the last few verses of > Deuteronomy describing the circumstances of his death.... ... which are dealt with nicely in the Talmud. Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. msh210@math.wustl.edu Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated, http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted. > [1] Apparently his own; tradition has it that Moses himself took down > the words of the Pentateuch, which leads to questions about the last > few verses of Deuteronomy describing the circumstances of his > death.... One of Stephen Leacock's stories ends with something like: "I fell ill. I died. I buried myself." SignatureRegards John Evan Kirshenbaum escribió : >> This is the same sort of thing that led Michelangelo to depict Moses >> with horns rather than with a halo....r > > Where do you get a halo from? Ex 34:29/35 talk about the *skin of his > face* "giving off rays/beams (literally 'horns') of light". (Hebrew > "karan") It seems that that has been discussed long ago; for instance, in Sir Thomas Browne's Pseudodoxia Epidemica V:ix (pp. 286-288)(1646; 6th ed., 1672): http://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudodoxia/pseudo59.html "The ground of this absurdity, was surely a mistake of the Hebrew Text, in the History of Moses, when he descended from the mount; upon the affinity of Kæren and Karan, that is, an horn, and to shine, which is one quality of horn" Footnote: "Exod. 34.29, 35. [The Hebrew word Nrq is a Qal verb form (i.e., "Perfect" state) and occurs as such only in this passage. It cannot be (properly) translated by the English "with horns"; Ælfric translates the Latin cornuta as "gehyrned", "behorned". The Septuagint has dedo/castai; Aquila, as Ross says, has keratw&dhj h[n. That Jerome did not mean anything that we would call "horns" is usually demonstrated by a passage from his Commentary on Ezechial: "denique post quadraginta dies, vultum Moysi vulgus ignobile caliganttibus oculis non videbat, quia 'glorificata erat,' sive, ut in hebraico continetur, 'cornuta', facies Moysi". See Mellinkoff, pp. 77-87, for a discussion of the horns from the perspective of translators and commentators. Süring (page 428) points out the improbability of Moses' being ignorant of horns, which, as she also remarks, are said to come not from the forehead, but from the face."] ObAUE: I see that Browne writes "an horn". Is the H in horn mute in some dialects? SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > Evan Kirshenbaum escribió : > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Footnote: > "Exod. 34.29, 35. [The Hebrew word Nrq I guess I can see why someone would write the root right to left, but I can't see why anyone would capitalize the N. > is a Qal verb form (i.e., "Perfect" > state) and occurs as such only in this passage. It cannot be (properly) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ObAUE: I see that Browne writes "an horn". Is the H in horn mute in some > dialects? Yes, mostly in England (and Australia?). "Dropping aitches" is non-standard. However, it was once standard to use "an" before any word beginning with H. You can see a lot of examples in the King James Bible. Some people still use "an" before H if the first syllable is unaccented, maybe only if the first vowel is short: "an hilarious joke". There are various versions of this practice that have been discussed many times in a.u.e. By the way, "mine" was also used instead of "my" before vowels and H's. SignatureJerry Friedman > > ObAUE: I see that Browne writes "an horn". Is the H in horn mute in some > > dialects? > > Yes, mostly in England (and Australia?). "Dropping aitches" is > non-standard. Incidentally, I noticed a Chicago speaker, maybe about 55-60, who pronounced "human" as [jum@n] ("yooman"). A while back I mentioned Tuti Cicero in _Goodfellas_, played by Frank DiLeo. The character is the brother of Paulie Cicero (played by Paul Sorvino), but whereas Paulie has a New York accent, Tuti has a Chicago accent. Those things can happen, I guess, but anyway in that ad libbed line where Paulie gets nabbed by the feds Tuti says "Whoeverr ssolt you doce suits heeead a wunnderful sense of yooomerr". At least I think he said *yooomer* -- I don't have the film handy to check. Now this transformation of /hju/ to /ju/ is a well-known feature of old-fashioned New York accents, but is it also, as I now guess, a feature of Chicago accents? The guy who I heard say "yoooman" had Chicago Accent Type 3, having the following characteristics: (a) not as thick as Andy Sipowicz or Dennis Farina (b) however, considerably advanced Northern Cities Vowel Shift (c) mouthful-of-spit sibilant qualities apparent in what I take to be middle-class North-Side-origin Chicago accents (this might be related to the /s//z/ merger more evident in other Chicago accents) (d) strange tendency for the voice to break into the soprano range for emphasis -- this is something I've noticed in male Chicago speakers of a certain generation. Imagine a combination of Tom Bosley and the character "Bosley" on _Charlie's Angels_ (who was named for Tom Bosley). > Raymond S. Wise escribió : ... > > However, the word "chameau" is traditionally used in French > > translations of the Bible when the camel in question would presumably [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, it was not a camel nor a dromedary. There was a mistake by St. > Hyeronimus A valiant effort, but he's called "St. Jerome" in English. The only Hieronymus I know of is Bosch. > in his translation of the Gospels from Greek to Latin. The Greek > word used was "kamilos" (thick rope), but it was understood as "kame:los" > (camel). So, the translation should be: > > "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a *rope* to go through the eye > of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." SignatureJerry Friedman > > Raymond S. Wise escribió : > ... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > A valiant effort, but he's called "St. Jerome" in English. The only > Hieronymus I know of is Bosch. Actually, it seems like you perfectly well know about Bosch's namesake, Hieronymus, Doctor of the Church, translator of the Vulgate, etc. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> > Raymond S. Wise escribió : >> ... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Actually, it seems like you perfectly well know about Bosch's namesake, >Hieronymus, Doctor of the Church, translator of the Vulgate, etc. He's called St. Jerome in English. SignatureHarlan Messinger Remove the first dot from my e-mail address. Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. > >> > Raymond S. Wise escribió : > >> ... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > He's called St. Jerome in English. And Jerry knew that, despite claiming otherwise. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > >> > Raymond S. Wise escribió : > > >> ... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > And Jerry knew that, despite claiming otherwise. I believe you are correct. But Jerry hasn't explained if he shares the namesake. > > > >> "Javi" <poziyoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<bu0sf1$ceag0$1@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I believe you are correct. But Jerry hasn't explained if he shares the > namesake. A surprisingly large number of the Jerrys I've known have been Jerrolds, rather than Jeromes or Geralds. (I know a Gerald called Gerry.) Elaine on *Seinfeld* sometimes called him Jerome, so he's probably an example. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > A surprisingly large number of the Jerrys I've known have been Jerrolds, > rather than Jeromes or Geralds or Gerards or Jeremys. Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. msh210@math.wustl.edu Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated, http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted. ... > > > > >> A valiant effort, but he's called "St. Jerome" in English. The only > > > > >> Hieronymus I know of is Bosch. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > A surprisingly large number of the Jerrys I've known have been Jerrolds, > rather than Jeromes or Geralds. (I know a Gerald called Gerry.) ... Not changing the initial seems to be pretty standard now, but I'm sticking with the spellings my parents gave me. SignatureGerald Friedman > > > Raymond S. Wise escribió : > > ... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Actually, it seems like you perfectly well know about Bosch's namesake, > Hieronymus, Doctor of the Church, translator of the Vulgate, etc. Okay, the only person I know of called Hieronymus in English is Bosch. Happy? And now that I think of him, there was T. Galen Hieronymus, the psionic researcher. SignatureJerry Friedman > Raymond S. Wise escribió : > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a *rope* to go through the eye > of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." That explanation is doubtful. The following is from "The Bible: A History of Composition and Interpretation" by Dr. Thomas L. Long: From http://www.tncc.vccs.edu/faculty/longt/REL200/intro-comp-interp.htm "In addition, scholars comparing different manuscripts can detect instances where a scribe has omitted or erroneously added letters or words or phrases. For example, some biblical scholars (as early as the ancient patristic Christian interpreters) have suggested that Jesus' proverb that it was easier for a camel (Greek: _kamelos_) to pass through the needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven, might have resulted from a scribal error for the Greek word _kamilos,_ which means 'rope.' (Later form criticism has rejected this assertion, contending that the hyperbole of a camel trying to pass through a needle's eye is quite consistent with Jewish proverbs.)" I once met a couple here in Minneapolis who had been translating the Bible into the language of a people living on an island in the South Pacific. The couple also believed that Jesus did not use the word "camel," but was instead talking of something that was difficult but not impossible. So, they said, they translated the passage in question with "as difficult as a pregnant woman walking downhill"! SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com Raymond S. Wise escribió : >> No, it was not a camel nor a dromedary. There was a mistake by St. >> Hyeronimus in his translation of the Gospels from Greek to Latin. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That explanation is doubtful. Of course, it *has* to be doubtful, at least. If it were not, where was the Holy Ghost when St. Jerome was translating the Vulgate? As every good Christian knows, the Gospels are true by definition and the Holy Ghost assisted the Fathers of the Church. Anyway, we will never now the truth, as there is no extant codex of the original Gospels (maybe there is some in the Vaticane archives, but we will never be allowed to read them). >The following is from "The Bible: A > History of Composition and Interpretation" by Dr. Thomas L. Long: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > contending that the hyperbole of a camel trying to pass through a > needle's eye is quite consistent with Jewish proverbs.)" How is it? Are camels usually used in Jewish proverbs? If "camel" is the correct reading, Jesus said that it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. If "rope" is the correct reading, it means that rich men have to thin in order to enter heaven. The latter is consistent with Jesus' teachings, but the former is not. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > How is it? Are camels usually used in Jewish proverbs? If "camel" is the > correct reading, Jesus said that it is impossible for a rich man to enter > heaven. If "rope" is the correct reading, it means that rich men have to > thin in order to enter heaven. The latter is consistent with Jesus' > teachings, but the former is not. If thou dost "sell all thou hast and follow" Him, then thou art no longer a rich man, so no problem, right? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Peter T. Daniels escribió : >> How is it? Are camels usually used in Jewish proverbs? If "camel" is >> the correct reading, Jesus said that it is impossible for a rich man [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If thou dost "sell all thou hast and follow" Him, then thou art no > longer a rich man, so no problem, right? That's consistent with the "rope" reading: rich men have to thin in order to enter heaven. By the way, is not that what some people in India do when they are old and rich? I mean, they give away their money and live poorly hoping to clean their karma. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) Yes. > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates > between "raisins" > ans "raisims secs." Is there any reason for this? > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates > between "raisins" > ans "raisims secs." Is there any reason for this? I don't know the answer to your question, but I do have one observation to make on the subject: English--or at least, American English--now has a "dried X" version which French does not have: "dried plums," formerly "prunes." The French for "plum" is "prune" and for "prune" is "pruneau." This means that English now has the word pair "plum"/"dried plum" which matches the Esperanto "logical" pair "pruno"/"sekpruno." In this case, "dried plum" was adopted for marketing purposes: "Prune" had too many negative connotations, I guess. So far, I don't know anyone who regularly uses "dried plum" for "prune." A friend of mine with whom I discussed this pointed out that in Asian markets here it has long been possible to get "dried plums" imported from Asia (from China, if I remember correctly). She said that they taste very different from prunes, and wondered if any attempt is going to be made to rename them in light of the renaming of American prunes as "dried plums." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > different from prunes, and wondered if any attempt is going to be made to > rename them in light of the renaming of American prunes as "dried plums." Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? Sunsweet, for example: http://www.sunsweet.com/gifts.cfm?price=0%2C5 The page cited seems to use both "prunes" and "dried plums" for plain prunes, but prunes with another fruit flavor added are called only "dried plums". (Aside: I've had their Orange Essence Dried Plums. Very weird. Smell like oranges and taste like prunes. I liked them a lot, though.) -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (Aside: I've had their Orange Essence Dried Plums. Very weird. Smell like > oranges and taste like prunes. I liked them a lot, though.) Not a bad marketing idea to come up with a _new_ lexical item for a _new_ product. It seems odd that you can taste a taste different from the smell you smell, since most of "taste" is smell anyway. Welch's has a new line of blended fruit juices, with commercials with a very small boy saying he can taste both flavors at once. Can anyone verify the claim? (The stuff is too expensive -- almost twice the price of orange juice -- for me to experiment.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Not a bad marketing idea to come up with a _new_ lexical item for a > _new_ product. [...] The name change was undertaken primarily to reverse the decline which had been occurring in the sale of prunes, and it appears to have successfully done so. It was necessary for growers to petition the Food and Drug Administration to approve the change. According to the article at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/prune_plums020101.html "Prune juice will still be prune juice, however. Dried fruit juice would be a contradiction in terms, the industry was told by the Food and Drug Administration." And, "By agreement with the FDA, the term 'pitted prunes' will continue to appear on packages in small letters for the next two years." That page mentions that the renaming is aimed at the US market only. Exported prunes will continue to be labeled "prunes." See also http://www.cnn.com/2000/FOOD/news/09/13/prunes.reut/ where it says: "'People have told us that dried plums evoke a more positive "fresh fruit goodness" image. They've said they're more likely to eat dried plums than prunes,' said Richard Peterson, executive director of the California Prune Board. But he had no plans to rename his group the California Dried Plum Board." Both Web pages mention the renaming of the "Chinese gooseberry" as the "kiwifruit." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > > > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? > > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > executive director of the California Prune Board. But he had no plans > to rename his group the California Dried Plum Board." But prunes aren't the same thing as the dried plums mentioned previously in this thread. > Both Web pages mention the renaming of the "Chinese gooseberry" as the > "kiwifruit." Had anyone ever tried to import and widely market Chinese gooseberries? I'd occasionally seen a picture of a gooseberry, but it never occurred to me that a kiwi was a kind of gooseberry. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > Had anyone ever tried to import and widely market Chinese gooseberries? There's quite a bit about the histories of various crops on the Web. > I'd occasionally seen a picture of a gooseberry, but it never occurred > to me that a kiwi was a kind of gooseberry. It's not. You can't assume anything from common names. http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/chap7/chinese.html The name "gooseberry" is derived from the similarity in the taste of the fruit, not to a botanical relationship to Ribes spp. (Menninger 1 966). SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/chap7/chinese.html > The name "gooseberry" is derived from the similarity in the > taste of the fruit, not to a botanical relationship > to Ribes spp. (Menninger 1 966). The Chinese name "yangtao" cited in this page is wrong. The correct name should be <mi2hou2 tao2> 彌猴桃 ("Monkey Peach"). (E.g., http://www.hunau.net/ren365/wrc/qx.htm) <Yang2 tao2> would be 楊桃 ("Poplar Peach")，carambola, aka star fruit. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > > http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/chap7/chinese.html > > The name "gooseberry" is derived from the similarity in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > <Yang2 tao2> would be æ¥Sæ¡ ("Poplar Peach")ï*carambola, aka > star fruit. ... which isn't allowed to be imported into the US fresh. Does Snapple still make that line of drinks with New Agey names and exotic ingredients like star fruit and dragon fruit? But they were all mixed with other flavors, so I don't know what s.f. and d.f. might taste like. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/chap7/chinese.html > > > The name "gooseberry" is derived from the similarity in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ... which isn't allowed to be imported into the US fresh. I've seen it for sale, bruised and not-so-fresh but still "fresh." Are people smuggling star fruits? SignatureSML ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu <http://pirate-women.com> > > > > http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/chap7/chinese.html > > > > The name "gooseberry" is derived from the similarity in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I've seen it for sale, bruised and not-so-fresh but still "fresh." Are > people smuggling star fruits? Presumably. Attempts were made to grow tropical fruits in southern Florida but weren't commercially successful. Plus they come in part from Vietnam, and some Americans still aren't willing to recognize that relations with Vietnam have been "normalized." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > > > http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/chap7/chinese.html > > > > > The name "gooseberry" is derived from the similarity in the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > -- > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net What about Hawaii? I think my one experience of a fresh starfruit was at a roadside stand on Maui. I found the shape more interesting than the taste. Ross Clark > > > > > > http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/chap7/chinese.html > > > > > > The name "gooseberry" is derived from the similarity in the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > a roadside stand on Maui. I found the shape more interesting than the > taste. Surely if those tropical fruits could be successfully grown in Hawaii, our markets, and our advertising, would be filled with them! (Where do we get all our kiwis? Surely they're not imported from Down Under.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net benlizross wrote: RC> What about Hawaii? I think my one experience of a fresh starfruit RC> was at a roadside stand on Maui. I found the shape more interesting RC> than the taste. PTD> Surely if those tropical fruits could be successfully grown PTD> in Hawaii, our markets, and our advertising, would be filled PTD> with them! (Where do we get all our kiwis? Surely they're not PTD> imported from Down Under.) Hawaii is under federal fruit fly quarantine (Quarantine 318.13), which has been prohibiting island-grown fresh fruits from being exported to the mainland for over 50 years. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > Hawaii is under federal fruit fly quarantine (Quaarantine 318.13), > which has been prohibiting island-grown fresh fruits from being > exported to the mainland for over 50 years. Before anybody wonders about all the Dole pineapples they've seen at their local supermarket, that's "except for a whole long list of exceptions as long as you comply with regulations." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is error alone which needs the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |support of government. Truth can Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stand by itself. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Tak To <takto@alum.mit.edu.-> writes: TT> Hawaii is under federal fruit fly quarantine (Quaarantine 318.13), TT> which has been prohibiting island-grown fresh fruits from being TT> exported to the mainland for over 50 years. EK> Before anybody wonders about all the Dole pineapples they've seen at EK> their local supermarket, that's "except for a whole long list of EK> exceptions as long as you comply with regulations." Correct. Since the pineapple is not a known host for the fruit fly, it is not affected by the quarantine. In any case, here in NJ most of the fresh pineapples that I have seen are from Costa Rica or Honduras. I would think that Hawaiian ones would be a lot more expensive. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > > > > > > > http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/chap7/chinese.html > > > > > > > The name "gooseberry" is derived from the similarity in the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > -- > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net More likely from Chile, Italy or China these days. In Hawaii I don't think they grow much except tourists now. Ross Clark > [carambola, aka star fruit] isn't allowed to be imported into > the US fresh. If that is the case, the fresh star fruit that I have seen in the supermarkets must have come from Florida or some place like that. Thailand has these giant carambolas that are 6-7 inches long. Taste wonderful. The only drawback is that I can't get them in the slightly under ripen condition that I like best. > Does Snapple still make that line of drinks with > New Agey names and exotic ingredients like star fruit and dragon > fruit? But they were all mixed with other flavors, so I don't > know what s.f. and d.f. might taste like. The sweetened carambola juice found in Asian grocery stores taste nothing like fresh carambola. What is dragon fruit? Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> [carambola, aka star fruit] isn't allowed to be imported into > > the US fresh. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >What is dragon fruit? >Tak http://www.carnatic.com/kishore/ru/images/dragonfruit.jpg http://starbulletin.com/2002/09/11/features/ingredient.html http://www.geogr.uni-goettingen.de/kus/pics/vn6/www-vn2002-dragon-fruit.jpg It's become available fresh in Toronto's Chinatown in the last few years. I brought some back from Asia one time in my luggage. The folks in California's agriculture department let it pass, but made me put it in my checked bag, where it was supposed to stay for the flight (and get bashed all to mush). Taking it out and furtively putting it back in carry-on would probably be more than sufficient grounds for secret deportation to Syria for torture these days. I'm not sure that dragonfruit or starfruit (carambola) are worth the trouble, though they have some new types of starfruit in Taiwan that are better. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > Both Web pages mention the renaming of the "Chinese gooseberry" as the > "kiwifruit." Not to be confused with the Cape Gooseberry which is more like a Chinese Lantern. -- Skræðer > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? A Slav friend of mine, despite being corrected many times, pronounces 'prawns' as 'prunes'. This makes for strange conversations. Recently, he told me he cooked a kilogram of prunes for Christmas Day lunch. SignatureRob Bannister [...] > > In this case, "dried plum" was adopted for marketing purposes: "Prune" had > > too many negative connotations, I guess. So far, I don't know anyone who > > regularly uses "dried plum" for "prune." [...] > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? Supermarkets everywhere. SignatureTom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom > [...] > > > In this case, "dried plum" was adopted for marketing purposes: "Prune" had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Supermarkets everywhere. Everywhere? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net [...] > > > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? > > > > Supermarkets everywhere. > > Everywhere? In every single one of the two I've seen lately. SignatureTom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom > [...] > > > > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In every single one of the two I've seen lately. So long as you've defined your universe! SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > [...] > > > > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In every single one of the two I've seen lately. I recently took a look at a bag of Sunsweet Dried Plums. While it said "Pitted Prunes" under the name, in the ingredient list itself it did not use the word "prunes" but said simply "dried plums." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > [...] > > > > > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Pitted Prunes" under the name, in the ingredient list itself it did not use > the word "prunes" but said simply "dried plums." That suggests that "dried plum" has an official definition from the USDA, or maybe the "Penna. Dept of Agriculture," which ruled packaged food when I was little, and "prune" doesn't. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > [...] > > > > > > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > USDA, or maybe the "Penna. Dept of Agriculture," which ruled packaged > food when I was little, and "prune" doesn't. It turns out that Sunsweet(TM)Orange Essence(TM)Dried Plums and Sunsweet(TM) Lemon Essence(TM)Dried Plums *do* include "prunes" in the ingredient list, in parentheses following "dried plums." Presumably, all this is determined by the agreement between the growers and the FDA. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > [...] > > > > > > > Nu, who's calling prunes "dried plums"? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sunsweet(TM) Lemon Essence(TM)Dried Plums *do* include "prunes" in the > ingredient list, in parentheses following "dried plums." If they've been adulterated with alien fragrances, then they're hardly prunes any more, are they? They did indeed come up with a new designation for a new product. No wonder I didn't see "dried plums" on packages of Sunsweet products here. Nor have I seen ads for such. Maybe you're in a test market for these new things. > Presumably, all this is determined by the agreement between the > growers and the FDA. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > different from prunes, and wondered if any attempt is going to be made to > rename them in light of the renaming of American prunes as "dried plums." If they're the ones I'm thinking of, they are salted and spiced as well -- a totally different experience from prunes, which the American market at least seems to like sweet and un-dry. Ross Clark > > > I've noticed that English tends to have separate nouns for objects, > > > such as, "grapes" and "raisins" whereas French only differentiates [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Ross Clark It seems to me that English offers more choices for words than French does. I believe this is because English has a three-tiered vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon, French and classical synonyms from Greek and Latin that affords us at least three choices when we're searching for le mot juste. Some examples are: Anglo-Saxon French Greek-Latin ask question interrogate big large voluminous end finish conclude kingly royal regal rise mount ascend fear terror trepidation > It seems to me that English offers more choices for words than French > does. I believe this is because English has a three-tiered vocabulary [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rise mount ascend > fear terror trepidation But, alas, no good equivalent for "le mot juste". Other French phrases I find myself using for want of terse English alternatives: ca va (both the question and the response) ce m'est egal (or the roughly equivalent German: machts nichts) la bas (a bilingual friend suggested "yonder") Mark (with apologies for the lack of French diacritical marks) > > It seems to me that English offers more choices for words than French > > does. I believe this is because English has a three-tiered vocabulary [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > ca va (both the question and the response) That's not terser than "OK?" "OK!" > ce m'est egal (or the roughly equivalent German: machts nichts) "I don't care", "Doesn't matter" no wordier. |
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.