 |
 | 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 / February 2008"Corn" in BrE
In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" still means "grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me when reading: "Beyond Death's garden were fields of corn, their golden sheen the only colour in the landscape. Death may not have been any good at grass (black) and apple trees (gloss black on black), but all the depth and colour he hadn't put elsewhere he'd put in the fields. They rippled as if in the wind, except that there wasn't any wind." .... "The cornfields has gone, bit the garden was pretty much the same". I know maize does move in the wind, but that comes across to me very strongly as being fields of grain of some unspecified sort. It's from "Soul Music" by Terry Pratchett, published 1994. So that's someone born in the late 40s using the term in the tradional way. > In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" still means > "grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me when reading: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So that's someone born in the late 40s using the term in the tradional way. I didn't join in at the time, but "a field of corn" cannot mean maize to me (born mid 1950s). I wouldn't call a field of barley "corn" either. Them's my only words on the matter.  SignatureDavid the wrote on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:41:04 GMT: tO> Nick wrote: ??>> In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" ??>> still means "grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me ??>> when reading: ??>> ??>> "Beyond Death's garden were fields of corn, their golden ??>> sheen the only colour in the landscape. Death may not ??>> have been any good at grass (black) and apple trees (gloss ??>> black on black), but all the depth and colour he hadn't ??>> put elsewhere he'd put in the fields. They rippled as if ??>> in the wind, except that there wasn't any wind." ??>> ??>> .... ??>> ??>> "The cornfields has gone, bit the garden was pretty much ??>> the same". ??>> ??>> I know maize does move in the wind, but that comes across ??>> to me very strongly as being fields of grain of some ??>> unspecified sort. ??>> ??>> It's from "Soul Music" by Terry Pratchett, published 1994. ??>> ??>> So that's someone born in the late 40s using the term in ??>> the tradional way. tO> I didn't join in at the time, but "a field of corn" cannot tO> mean maize to me (born mid 1950s). I wouldn't call a field tO> of barley "corn" either. tO> Them's my only words on the matter. A lot of people have no idea what's growing in a field. For many years, as someone brought up in the countryside, I was asked what was growing in farmer's fields that we passed. I always answered "Turnips" and it was a surprisingly long time before I was found out! James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > the wrote on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:41:04 GMT: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > in farmer's fields that we passed. I always answered "Turnips" and it > was a surprisingly long time before I was found out! I've had the opposite problem. I once had someone talking to me about all the hay in the fields beside the road we were riding on. I could not see any hay at all. I finally realised the other rider was talking about the straw in the field. Imagine not knowing the difference between hay and straw. SignatureJohn Kane, Kingston ON Canada ... > I've had the opposite problem. I once had someone talking to me about > all the hay in the fields beside the road we were riding on. I could > not see any hay at all. > > I finally realised the other rider was talking about the straw in the > field. Imagine not knowing the difference between hay and straw. I'm sure lots of people don't, and I'd have trouble telling in a lot of situations. There's a book called /Hay-foot, Straw-foot/, by Erick Berry. I'm told it's about the American Revolution, and the title refers to teaching recruits to march in step. So many of them didn't know left from right that the instructors had to tie hay to the recruits' left feet and straw to the right, and then... you've figured it out. (I'm not swearing this really happened.) Nowadays there'd be far more people who'd need to be told which farm product was which, and some who didn't know either hay from straw or right from left. -- Jerry Friedman Yah! Warts! > There's a book called /Hay-foot, Straw-foot/, by Erick Berry. I'm > told it's about the American Revolution, and the title refers to > teaching recruits to march in step. So many of them didn't know left > from right that the instructors had to tie hay to the recruits' left > feet and straw to the right, and then... you've figured it out. (I'm > not swearing this really happened.) It first shows up in Google Books in 1851, referred to as though the audience would be familiar with it. At company-training and general training, Brommy was duly 'warned,' and appeared armed and equipped as the law directs. But it was all 'hay-foot, straw-foot' with him. He knew as little of tactics as he did of politics, and with the same imperturbable gravity bore the laugh of the boys and the jeers of 'the unwashed' as a soldier, which he displayed as an elector. _The Knickerbocker_, July, 1851 Most early quotes that attempt an explanation imply some vague military setting[1], but one credits it to dancing: The origin of hay foot, straw foot, was, that when, as is sometimes the case, the right foot or hand was not known from the left, a dancing-master often tied a wisp of hay on one foot and of straw on the other, and thus forcibly impressed the difference. "Irish Step-Dancing", _Littell's Living Age_, 1885 [1] One 1879 hit cites the origin to the War of 1812, specificially to recruits training in New York City. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |network-wide use of encryption, but Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle |key distribution, is a useless kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |farce. (650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" still means >> "grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me when reading: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Them's my only words on the matter. I wus born in the late 30s, and echo them words. Incidentally, it wasn't until the 1970s that I found out that not all maize is suitable for human consumption (well, I'm a townie) by nearly breaking my teeth on some from a field opposite my French house. The reason that field was there is an interesting consequence of the French not practising primogeniture. It was one of four small fields, located around the town in streets that were otherwise full of buildings, owned by an old guy who lived with his mentally-backward daughter and her young son in what can only be described as a shack on another piece of land at the top of the road. They had chickens, geese, a couple of sheep, some pigs and a donkey. The story was that these people were the latest in a long-standing farming family that a handful of generations ago owned most of the local land when the place was a small village. When the original owners died, the farm was split equally between the children, and when they died their portions were split between their children, and so on. Over the years various of the children sold their land as the town grew, until, in 1980, there was just one member of the family left, owning five separate fields. Their shack was swept away in a road-widening scheme about six years ago and all of the other fields have been built on. SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England > The reason that field was there is an interesting consequence of > the French not practising primogeniture. It was one of four small [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > about six years ago and all of the other fields have been built > on. This can cause all sorts of problems, including making it impossible to buy a property because nobody can trace all the distant cousins who would have to agree to the sale. SignatureDavid > This can cause all sorts of problems, including making it impossible to buy a > property because nobody can trace all the distant cousins who would have to > agree to the sale. My grandmother befriended a relative of her in-laws who, when she died, left half of the mineral rights to 160 acres in Blaine County, Montana to a bunch of people, and eventually I inherited 1/3 of one percent of those rights. I once received a royalty check for 25 cents. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. >> The reason that field was there is an interesting consequence of >> the French not practising primogeniture. It was one of four small [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >buy a property because nobody can trace all the distant cousins who >would have to agree to the sale. The consequence of that being that when the owner dies the property can sometimes be left to rot. In the later 1970s when my elder son was about 11 or 12, we went into the woods on the hill behind our house to shoot rabbits. In those days it was a narrow country road than ran for miles through dense woodland. I was surprised (and my son was scared) to see, in the middle of these woods, a large house, probably 18th century and as big as the smaller chateaux in the Loire, abandoned to fall down. Trees and undergrowth grew right up to the walls and a large tree had established itself in the ballroom and grown up through the ceiling. Come across suddenly, in the middle of a quiet wood, it was quite spooky. SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England > <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote: > >I didn't join in at the time, but "a field of corn" cannot mean maize to > >me (born mid 1950s). I wouldn't call a field of barley "corn" either. > I wus born in the late 30s, and echo them words. Even if said field is in Kansas or Norway? ¬R >> <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote: >> >I didn't join in at the time, but "a field of corn" cannot mean maize to >> >me (born mid 1950s). I wouldn't call a field of barley "corn" either. >> I wus born in the late 30s, and echo them words. > >Even if said field is in Kansas or Norway? To most Brits, a 'field of corn' means wheat. It was not until I was in my thirties that I actually saw a field of maize, and it certainly looks nothing like a cornfield. SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England >>> <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >I didn't join in at the time, but "a field of corn" cannot mean maize to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >was in my thirties that I actually saw a field of maize, and it >certainly looks nothing like a cornfield. It all depends on how you look at it. To me a cornfield looks nothing like a wheat field. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>><usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > was in my thirties that I actually saw a field of maize, and it > certainly looks nothing like a cornfield. A golden cornfield or a woman with hair the colour of ripe corn would go oddly with American corn, but I suppose such expressions are dated today. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> To most Brits, a 'field of corn' means wheat. It was not until I >> was in my thirties that I actually saw a field of maize, and it >> certainly looks nothing like a cornfield. > >A golden cornfield or a woman with hair the colour of ripe corn would go >oddly with American corn, but I suppose such expressions are dated today. Check out Ralph Bakshi's movie "American Pop", in which Tony, finding himself in Kansas, flirts with the blonde waitress from the diner where he's found a temporary dishwashing job, by comparing her hair to corn*silk*....r SignatureWhat good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? > Robert Bannister filted: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Kansas, flirts with the blonde waitress from the diner where he's found a > temporary dishwashing job, by comparing her hair to corn*silk*....r I'm not sure I would have understood that. SignatureRob Bannister >> Robert Bannister filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >I'm not sure I would have understood that. I'm not *that* Tony, but I understand it. Us Hoosiers know cornsilk. http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/1052/20150617.JPG Cornsilk is whitish on young ears, but darkens as the corn ripens. Interesting facts about cornsilk: "Cornsilk has detoxifying, relaxing and diuretic activity. Cornsilk is used to treat infections of the urinary and genital system, such as cystitis, prostatitis and urethritis. Cornsilk helps to reduce frequent urination caused by irritation of the bladder and is used to treat bed wetting problems. In China, cornsilk is traditionally used to treat oedema and jaundice. Studies indicate that cornsilk can reduces blood clotting time and reduce high blood pressure." -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> Robert Bannister filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I'm not sure I would have understood that. Unsurprising, since you call a different set of plants "corn". SignatureWCdnE >>> Robert Bannister filted: >>>>> To most Brits, a 'field of corn' means wheat. It was not until I >>>>> was in my thirties that I actually saw a field of maize, and it >>>>> certainly looks nothing like a cornfield. >>>> A golden cornfield or a woman with hair the colour of ripe corn would go >>>> oddly with American corn, but I suppose such expressions are dated today. >>> Check out Ralph Bakshi's movie "American Pop", in which Tony, finding himself in >>> Kansas, flirts with the blonde waitress from the diner where he's found a >>> temporary dishwashing job, by comparing her hair to corn*silk*....r >> I'm not sure I would have understood that. > Unsurprising, since you call a different set of plants "corn". Sweetcorn or maize, or what you may call it, growing is now not an uncommon site in Britain, at least the southern part. Warmer climates and the development of hardier strains mean it grows much better than used to be the case. If one has seen it growing, and one is aware of the AmE (and this is another Americanism which is spreading into BrE) usage of "corn" to mean exclusively sweetcorn, one would understand the analogy. I agree that "corn" on its own to me still means "wheat", but I suspect to most younger Brits it now has the AmE usage. At one time, sweetcorn was referred to as "Cobbett's corn" after the great radical, William Cobbett, who tried to introduce it into Britain. See: http://www.newstatesman.com/200207220046 or http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=3mwOaTVqMacC&dq=%22cobbett's+corn for Cobbett's original treatise on the topic. Cobbett himself notes in Chapter II that in America already "corn" on its own referred to this rather than to other grain. Unfortunately for Cobbett, the early 19th century was a period of great coldness in Britain, so his attempt to introduce it was not a success, it just would not grow in the then British climate (this was a time when snow could be expected throughout winter, and I think the Thames still regularly froze over - unknown now, and snow in London is now a once or twice every few years occurrence, none at all this winter). Matthew Huntbach >AmE (and this is another Americanism which is spreading into BrE) usage >of "corn" to mean exclusively sweetcorn But there is no such usage. There are two kinds of corn (maize): sweet, which contains lots of sugar if harvested at the right time, and field, which is almost entirely starch. Cornstarch, cornmeal, hominy, and nixtamal are all made from field corn, which is anything but sweet. (As, for that matter, is high-fructose corn syrup -- the syrup is made by cracking cornstarch.) >Unfortunately for Cobbett, the early 19th century was a period of >great coldness in Britain, so his attempt to introduce it was not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in London is now a once or twice every few years occurrence, none at >all this winter). It's not the winter weather that mattered; it was the lack of truly hot summers that made the difference. The parts of the U.S. where maize is an important crop have far more severe winters than anything in England now or during the Little Ice Age. (Scotland, on the other hand....) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>Unfortunately for Cobbett, the early 19th century was a period of >>great coldness in Britain, so his attempt to introduce it was not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in England now or during the Little Ice Age. (Scotland, on the other > hand....) Is it the heat of the summer or the length of the hot weather, though? I always thought that it was the length of the summer. The Wisconsin Department of agriculture says that the optimum soil temperature for field (dent) corn planting is between 50 and 55F and notes that this temperature is likely to occur between May 1st and May 10th; The Iowa Department of Agriculture guidelines say consistently at or above 50F or generally around May 15th. Then it takes between 3 and 4 weeks for the plant to emerge from the ground, and roughly another 11 weeks before it begins to form the kernels. Then it takes another 7 weeks or so to fully ripen and dry sufficiently to harvest. I make that between 21 and 22 weeks from planting to harvest -- four and one-half months from May -- into September. >> AmE (and this is another Americanism which is spreading into BrE) usage >> of "corn" to mean exclusively sweetcorn > But there is no such usage. There are two kinds of corn (maize): > sweet, which contains lots of sugar if harvested at the right time, > and field, which is almost entirely starch. Cornstarch, cornmeal, > hominy, and nixtamal are all made from field corn, which is anything > but sweet. (As, for that matter, is high-fructose corn syrup -- the > syrup is made by cracking cornstarch.) OK, I am using "sweetcorn" as the generic term, since this is the form of it we are most likely to encounter here at least in its unprocessed form. I take your point that actually "sweetcorn" is a subset of what should more properly be called "maize" and you call just "corn". I am not sure of the stuff that can now commonly be seen growing in southern England is sweetcorn or what you call field corn. >> Unfortunately for Cobbett, the early 19th century was a period of >> great coldness in Britain, so his attempt to introduce it was not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> in London is now a once or twice every few years occurrence, none at >> all this winter). > It's not the winter weather that mattered; it was the lack of truly > hot summers that made the difference. The parts of the U.S. where > maize is an important crop have far more severe winters than anything > in England now or during the Little Ice Age. (Scotland, on the other > hand....) Yes, the difference between how winter is now and how winter was in the early 19th century as described in historical sources is the most striking weather difference between their time and ours. But the difference was that it was cooler all round, rather than the difference between our climate and US climates now - we have less extremes. It just doesn't jump out so much from the historical accounts that they didn't experience summer as hot as we do, though I do remember reading somewhere an account of what was then regarded as extreme heat but we would now consider pretty normal high summer weather. Matthew Huntbach >>> AmE (and this is another Americanism which is spreading into BrE) usage >>> of "corn" to mean exclusively sweetcorn [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I am not sure of the stuff that can now commonly be seen growing in >southern England is sweetcorn or what you call field corn. In South African usage, "sweetcorn" is found in tins. The stuff that shows in the fields, or sold unprocessed, is called mealies. But in tins, it's called "sweetcron", not "tinned mealies". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > In article <alpine.LRH.1.00.0802211236280....@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sweet, which contains lots of sugar if harvested at the right time, > and field, which is almost entirely starch. This is a consumer's classification. An agronomist's would have many kinds of non-sweet corn. I don't have time now to look for a good one. (Wikipedia lists 8 non-sweet types, including the dent corn that Barbara Bailey mentions, but says the classification is obsolete.) > Cornstarch, cornmeal, > hominy, and nixtamal are all made from field corn, which is anything [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in England now or during the Little Ice Age. (Scotland, on the other > hand....) A good deal more severe than Scotland too. The lowest temperature recorded in Braemar (pretty far north, not on the coast, 339 meters altitude) since 1959 was -6.7 C (19.9 F). http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/braemardata.txt The /average/ January low in Peoria, Ill., is 14 F (-10 C). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Illinois#Averages As I recall from living in Urbana, there were wide swings above and below that average. -- Jerry Friedman [...varieties of maize grown in Br...] The most important factor for cultivation of sweet corn here has been the breeding not so much of cold-hardy varieties as of quick-maturing.ones. Apart from those, the British fields of maize reported upthread would mostly have been forage crops cut green for silage, not grown to maturity for grain. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >This is a consumer's classification. An agronomist's would have many >kinds of non-sweet corn. Sure, but I'm not an agronomist (nor even a simple gardener), so that taxonomy is not useful to me. The existence of a specialist taxonomy does not mean that non-specialists must hew to it. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > In article <eae69867-9cfc-41f0-99f2-a5b40c00c...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > taxonomy is not useful to me. The existence of a specialist taxonomy > does not mean that non-specialists must hew to it. Sure. I was just pointing out that other classifications exist. -- Jerry Friedman >> Check out Ralph Bakshi's movie "American Pop", in which Tony, >> finding himself in Kansas, flirts with the blonde waitress from the >> diner where he's found a temporary dishwashing job, by comparing >> her hair to corn*silk*....r > > I'm not sure I would have understood that. Oh, I would. I can't count the hours I've spent trying to remove the silk from the corn, only to find that some of it finds its way into the cooking anyway. After which the family complains of beard hairs in the food. One of the advantages of living alone is that I no longer get those complaints. These days I have a new gripe. The supermarkets now insist on selling corn with the leaves removed. I refuse to buy corn unless it is in its original condition. As a result, I haven't been able to eat any corn in the last couple of months. No, I lie. I did buy some husked corn recently, out of desperation, but I had to throw most of it out because it deteriorates without adequate cover. When I cut an ear of corn in half, I'm very careful to ensure that the leaves cover the part that I'm saving for later. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Check out Ralph Bakshi's movie "American Pop", in which Tony, >>> finding himself in Kansas, flirts with the blonde waitress from the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >corn with the leaves removed. I refuse to buy corn unless it is in its >original condition. Agreed. I like to cook it in the husk, within a few minutes of harvesting it. > As a result, I haven't been able to eat any corn in >the last couple of months. No, I lie. I did buy some husked corn >recently, out of desperation, but I had to throw most of it out because >it deteriorates without adequate cover. When I cut an ear of corn in >half, I'm very careful to ensure that the leaves cover the part that I'm >saving for later. SignatureWCdnE Oleg Lego filted: >>These days I have a new gripe. The supermarkets now insist on selling >>corn with the leaves removed. I refuse to buy corn unless it is in its >>original condition. > >Agreed. I like to cook it in the husk, within a few minutes of >harvesting it. Motion carried...if you're going to buy corn that's been tampered with, you may as well buy it in the tin, or frozen in plastic bags....r SignatureWhat good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? R wrote on 21 Feb 2008 10:14:29 -0800: RHD> Oleg Lego filted: ??>> ??>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:15:09 +1100, Peter Moylan posted: ??>> ??>>> These days I have a new gripe. The supermarkets now ??>>> insist on selling corn with the leaves removed. I refuse ??>>> to buy corn unless it is in its original condition. ??>> ??>> Agreed. I like to cook it in the husk, within a few ??>> minutes of harvesting it. RHD> Motion carried...if you're going to buy corn that's been RHD> tampered with, you may as well buy it in the tin, or RHD> frozen in plastic bags....r I agree, even if this discussion should be moving to rec.food.cooking by rights :-) I would not buy corn that was not enclosed by husks. It's almost like those helpful people who remove the heads and tails of trout, "for convenience" and so you can't check freshness by looking at the eyes. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > R wrote on 21 Feb 2008 10:14:29 -0800: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >remove the heads and tails of trout, "for convenience" and so >you can't check freshness by looking at the eyes. Or worse, those that remove the heads from salmon or halibut, robbing the diner of the best part of the fish; the cheeks. SignatureWCdnE > Oleg Lego filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with, you may as well buy it in the tin, or frozen in plastic > bags....r All the greengrocer's around here sell it whole; it's only the supermarkets that mutilate it. But it is also one of the easiest things to grow at home, and so much better straight from the plant than even the freshest corn from a shop. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >> Oleg Lego filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >But it is also one of the easiest things to grow at home, and so much >better straight from the plant than even the freshest corn from a shop. In case anyone is wondering why this is so, here's a short course on it. Sweet corn (maize) is loaded with sugars. As soon as it is picked, these sugars start changing to starches, and in doing so, the sweetness is diminished. If you buy corn on the cob from a shop or supermarket, it is almost guaranteed to be well past its prime. I consider its prime to lie within the first hour or less, after harvesting. I'm not such a fanatic about it that I'll take the means to cook it out to the garden, but I would not be surprised if a cob husked while still on the plant, twisted off, and plunged immediately into the pot was considerably sweeter than one that suffered a 5 minute delay while being carried to the house. SignatureWCdnE > Sweet corn (maize) is loaded with sugars. As soon as it is picked, > these sugars start changing to starches, and in doing so, the > sweetness is diminished. If you buy corn on the cob from a shop or > supermarket, it is almost guaranteed to be well past its prime. What's the biology - and purpose - behind that? It seems the exact opposite to the way barley behaves say. Barley has lots of stored energy as starch, and converts it to sugars when needed at germination. That's how malting works - the seeds are germinated which creates the starch-to-sugar enzymes. Then the germination is stopped with careful levels of heat that don't denature the enzymes. Then, during mashing, the enzymes do their stuff and break the starches down to sugars, which the yeast will subsequently ferment. Adjustment of malt type, mash time and temperature and pH leads to different mixtures of sugars that get fermented, and longer chains that don't, but add taste and "mouth feel" to the brew. Nick <1-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote in news:62a8r0F21orjaU1 @mid.individual.net: >> Sweet corn (maize) is loaded with sugars. As soon as it is picked, >> these sugars start changing to starches, and in doing so, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > opposite to the way barley behaves say. Barley has lots of stored > energy as starch, and converts it to sugars when needed at germination. Well that's what sweet corn does too, if you leave it on the stalk to get fully mature. It's really corn that's been hybridized to be exceptionally sugary, milky, and tasty at several stages of immaturity. "Field corn contains approximately 4 percent sucrose (sugar) in the immature milky stage, while "standard" sweet corns at the same stage may contain as much as 6 percent sucrose. (Standard sweet corns contain the recessive "su-1" gene; field corn is dominant for the same gene, making it starchy.) Following harvest, or if left on the stalk too long, sucrose in standard sweet corn is rapidly converted to starch." <http://cahe.nmsu.edu/pubs/_h/h-223.html> (Field corn is certainly edible by humans at the same stage, even if it's not quite as tender and milky.) "When to Harvest: When husk is still green, silks dry brown, kernels full size, and yellow or white color to the tip of the ear. Harvest at the milky stage. (Test by puncturing a kernel with thumbnail. If a clear liquid appears, the corn is immature. If the liquid is milky, the corn is ready. If no liquid appears, the corn is over-ripe)" <http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/garden/mg/vegetable/corn.html> Compare that to when to harvest field corn: "R3 or the milk stage will occur approximately 18-22 days after silking. The kernel is now yellow on the outside with the inside containing milky white fluid. ... R6 or physiological maturity occurs approximately 55-65 days after silking. All kernels have reached their maximum dry matter accumulation now since the starch layer has moved completely to the cob. A black or brown layer will be visible at the base of each kernel. Tip kernels will first reach this black layer stage followed by basal kernels. Kernel moisture is now between 30-35% with much variability due to hybrid and environment." <http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/corn/production/management/growth/yield. html> Barbara wrote on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:01:04 +0100 (CET): ??>> Oleg Lego wrote: ??>>> ??>>> Sweet corn (maize) is loaded with sugars. As soon as it ??>>> is picked, these sugars start changing to starches, and ??>>> in doing so, the sweetness is diminished. If you buy corn ??>>> on the cob from a shop or supermarket, it is almost ??>>> guaranteed to be well past its prime. ??>> What's the biology - and purpose - behind that? It seems ??>> the exact opposite to the way barley behaves say. Barley ??>> has lots of stored energy as starch, and converts it to ??>> sugars when needed at germination. BB> Well that's what sweet corn does too, if you leave it on BB> the stalk to get fully mature. It's really corn that's been BB> hybridized to be exceptionally sugary, milky, and tasty at BB> several stages of immaturity. BB> "Field corn contains approximately 4 percent sucrose BB> (sugar) in the immature milky stage, while "standard" sweet BB> corns at the same stage may contain as much as 6 percent BB> sucrose. (Standard sweet corns contain the recessive "su-1" BB> gene; field corn is dominant for the same gene, making it BB> starchy.) Following harvest, or if left on the stalk too BB> long, sucrose in standard sweet corn is rapidly converted BB> to starch." <http://cahe.nmsu.edu/pubs/_h/h-223.html> BB> (Field corn is certainly edible by humans at the same BB> stage, even if it's not quite as tender and milky.) BB> "When to Harvest: When husk is still green, silks dry brown, BB> kernels full size, and yellow or white color to the tip of BB> the ear. Harvest at the milky stage. (Test by puncturing a BB> kernel with thumbnail. If a clear liquid appears, the corn BB> is immature. If the liquid is milky, the corn is ready. If BB> no liquid appears, the corn is over-ripe)" BB> <http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/garden/mg/vegetable/corn.html> You know, don't you, that corn has been bred to keep its sweetness longer and the white varieties are generally best? Is this Frankencorn to Europeans? :-) :-) Another point that I did not mention about husks is that they are useful if you want a small amount quickly. Nuking in the husks just takes minutes and the results are very good. If you are cooking on a barbeque, the corn with husks can be laid directly on the grid. By the time the husks are charred the corn inside is cooked well. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not [...] > You know, don't you, that corn has been bred to keep its > sweetness longer and the white varieties are generally best? Is > this Frankencorn to Europeans? :-) :-) Well, ignoring the smileys, no, it isn't. Selective breeding is OK, as we know pretty well how its products interact with natural systems; genetic engineering, not so much. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Barbara wrote on Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:01:04 +0100 (CET): > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >directly on the grid. By the time the husks are charred the corn >inside is cooked well. The microwave is definitely the best way to do them. SignatureWCdnE >Another point that I did not mention about husks is that they >are useful if you want a small amount quickly. Nuking in the >husks just takes minutes and the results are very good. If you >are cooking on a barbeque, the corn with husks can be laid >directly on the grid. By the time the husks are charred the corn >inside is cooked well. Not to mention that you can't make decent tamales without husks. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Sweet corn (maize) is loaded with sugars. As soon as it is picked, >> these sugars start changing to starches, and in doing so, the >> sweetness is diminished. If you buy corn on the cob from a shop or >> supermarket, it is almost guaranteed to be well past its prime. >What's the biology - and purpose - behind that? It seems the exact >opposite to the way barley behaves say. Barley has lots of stored >energy as starch, and converts it to sugars when needed at germination. Starches last longer than sugars. The corn seeds are converting sugars to starches in preparation for the germination, which will then use the starches as they convert back to sugars. Isn't nature clever? >That's how malting works - the seeds are germinated which creates the >starch-to-sugar enzymes. Then the germination is stopped with careful [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >different mixtures of sugars that get fermented, and longer chains that >don't, but add taste and "mouth feel" to the brew. SignatureWCdnE >>> Sweet corn (maize) is loaded with sugars. As soon as it is picked, >>> these sugars start changing to starches, and in doing so, the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to starches in preparation for the germination, which will then use > the starches as they convert back to sugars. Isn't nature clever? Got you - you are catching them early in the process; in the charging stage as it where. >>>> Sweet corn (maize) is loaded with sugars. As soon as it is picked, >>>> these sugars start changing to starches, and in doing so, the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Got you - you are catching them early in the process; in the charging >stage as it where. Yup. If you read the more technical answer in this thread, referencing the stages as water, milk, etc., that's a very common progression in a number of seeds. Cereal grains can be judged as to progress as they mature, and compared with typical years, to decide if the crop will be early or late, and how good the resulting product will be. Taking a single grain and dismantling it will tell you the stage; empty, water, milk, dough, then ripe. Checking the stage fairly often also allows you to figure out the effect of a freeze, which is either good, bad or indifferent, depending on the stage of the crop. Two years ago, we had a freeze in August, when the about 40 acres of the oats were at the water-milk stage. It was about the worst time, and guaranteed that the crop would be way too light. We ended up selling it standing, right away (after testing for nitrates), to be used as "green feed" for cattle. The other 80 acres of oats were farther along, and yielded well. SignatureWCdnE >But it is also one of the easiest things to grow at home, and so much >better straight from the plant than even the freshest corn from a shop. Sure. Grow about twenty stalks in a windowbox. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> But it is also one of the easiest things to grow at home, and so much >> better straight from the plant than even the freshest corn from a >> shop. > > Sure. Grow about twenty stalks in a windowbox. I don't know that Peter, to whom I was replying, has a windowbox. But I do know that he has a backyard and lives in a climate where corn grows very well. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>> But it is also one of the easiest things to grow at home, and so >>> much better straight from the plant than even the freshest corn [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I do know that he has a backyard and lives in a climate where corn > grows very well. I love the vision of this real Texan-scale windowbox. The "backyard" had better be an nice open sunny one, and the variety a quick-maturing one. And in any case* a windowbox's oblong configuration isn't best for sweet corn: because it needs to be wind-pollinated, on the small scale it's best grown in squares *A usually quite irrational expression I've found myself using a lot lately. I think it should probably be banned. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > I love the vision of this real Texan-scale windowbox. The "backyard" had > better be an nice open sunny one, and the variety a quick-maturing one. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > *A usually quite irrational expression I've found myself using a lot > lately. I think it should probably be banned. I too have been using it a lot lately, as well as "And anyway". I think it is an emphasis which sounds a bit tetchy. I think this is evidence that I am turning into a Grumpy Old Woman. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> I love the vision of this real Texan-scale windowbox. The >> "backyard" had better be an nice open sunny one, and the variety a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > think it is an emphasis which sounds a bit tetchy. I think this is > evidence that I am turning into a Grumpy Old Woman. I'm trying to figger out why "Any road ... " comes up on my messages. Anyway, curiouser and curiouser. SignatureFrank ess >>> I love the vision of this real Texan-scale windowbox. The >>> "backyard" had better be an nice open sunny one, and the variety a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm trying to figger out why "Any road ... " comes up on my messages. "Any road.." has a pleasantly bucolic flavour. Are you an elderly countryman? > Anyway, curiouser and curiouser. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>> I love the vision of this real Texan-scale windowbox. The >>>> "backyard" had better be an nice open sunny one, and the variety [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "Any road.." has a pleasantly bucolic flavour. Are you an elderly > countryman? Elderly? Only in a years sense (71). Countryman? Sort of (early years). I had a BBC series flash of Inspector Dalgleish. Could be. SignatureFrank ess >>>>> I love the vision of this real Texan-scale windowbox. The >>>>> "backyard" had better be an nice open sunny one, and the variety [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >I had a BBC series flash of Inspector Dalgleish. Could be. Dalgleish is at least a commander, now, if not an assistant commissioner. Any road, he'd be the last person to say "any road". His father was a vicar or parson, and he was well brung up. SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England > >>> I love the vision of this real Texan-scale windowbox. The > >>> "backyard" had better be an nice open sunny one, and the variety a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "Any road.." has a pleasantly bucolic flavour. Are you an elderly > countryman? Not forgetting its northern cousin "Any road up". SignatureDavid Stockholm >> I love the vision of this real Texan-scale windowbox. The "backyard" had >> better be an nice open sunny one, and the variety a quick-maturing one. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it is an emphasis which sounds a bit tetchy. I think this is evidence > that I am turning into a Grumpy Old Woman. I realised early on, when the series first appeared on TV, that although I am not as noisy as the Grumpy Old Men in the programme, I am definitely even more grumpy. I am amazed at the number of Letters to the Editor I write in rage; fortunately, I am usually able to stop myself from pressing the "Send" button. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister wrote, in <62jp1gF22js65U1@mid.individual.net> on Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:26:24 +0900: > >> I love the vision of this real Texan-scale windowbox. The "backyard" had > >> better be an nice open sunny one, and the variety a quick-maturing one. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Editor I write in rage; fortunately, I am usually able to stop myself > from pressing the "Send" button. "They prosper who burn in the morning The letters they wrote overnight." SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE > "They prosper who burn in the morning > The letters they wrote overnight." Perhaps I should adopt that as a motto. Where is the quote from, please? SignatureRob Bannister >> "They prosper who burn in the morning >> The letters they wrote overnight." > > Perhaps I should adopt that as a motto. Where is the quote from, > please? Rear Admiral Ronald A. Hopwood, "The Laws of the Navy", _Army and Navy Gazette_, 23 July 1896. http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lawsnavy.htm SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |To find the end of Middle English, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you discover the exact date and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time the Great Vowel Shift took |place (the morning of May 5, 1450, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |at some time between neenuh fiftehn (650)857-7572 |and nahyn twenty-fahyv). | Kevin Wald http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum wrote, in <zltlkhkc.fsf@hpl.hp.com> on Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:14:59 -0800: > >> "They prosper who burn in the morning > >> The letters they wrote overnight." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lawsnavy.htm That's the man. I have it in print but can't lay my hands on it. I know exactly where it should be but it isn't. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >>>"They prosper who burn in the morning >>>The letters they wrote overnight." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lawsnavy.htm Many thanks for that. SignatureRob Bannister >>> But it is also one of the easiest things to grow at home, and so >>> much better straight from the plant than even the freshest corn [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I do know that he has a backyard and lives in a climate where corn > grows very well. Unfortunately it's a rented house, which rather takes away the motivation to establish a vegetable garden. By this time next year I might well be living somewhere else. You're right about the climate being right, though. Back in the days when I had a big vegetable garden, the corn grew as tall as an elephant's ... sorry, I've gone and forgotten the words of the song. Good corn, anyway. I fully agree with whoever it was who said that corn needs to be cooked as soon as it's picked. Back in the day, I felt that way about many vegetables. A lettuce, for example, loses its flavour about half an hour after it's taken from the garden. After a couple of hours it might as well be thrown out. People who have only ever eaten shop lettuces don't know what they've been missing out on. And beans ... you don't even bother carrying up the beans up to the house, because in that time they lose their crunchiness. Better to stand in the garden and eat them on the spot. Especially the climbing varieties. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. [...] >> I don't know that Peter, to whom I was replying, has a windowbox. But >> I do know that he has a backyard and lives in a climate where corn [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You're right about the climate being right, though. [...] Oops! My message earlier in the thread, about the need for quick-growing varieties of sweet corn, was written in the mistaken belief that the Peter concerned was North Atlantic Duncanson, not South Pacific Moylan. It must have seemed very strange. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > [...] >>> I don't know that Peter, to whom I was replying, has a windowbox. But [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Peter concerned was North Atlantic Duncanson, not South Pacific Moylan. > It must have seemed very strange. I was just thinking of getting some climate charts out. I could not visialize anywhere in Australia that one would have to worry about a too short growing season. SignatureJohn Kane, Kingston ON Canada >>> Check out Ralph Bakshi's movie "American Pop", in which Tony, >>> finding himself in Kansas, flirts with the blonde waitress from the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >half, I'm very careful to ensure that the leaves cover the part that I'm >saving for later. Some people, my wife and I, for instance, rip the husks down the sides of the ear when buying corn so that we can see how it looks. Many times the cob isn't completely covered with kernels, or too many kernels are brown. I expect the store just wants to move the mess of husks out where they can control it better than on the produce department floor. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>These days I have a new gripe. The supermarkets now insist on selling >>corn with the leaves removed. I refuse to buy corn unless it is in its [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > move the mess of husks out where they can control it better than > on the produce department floor. Around here (American Midwest--Illinois/Iowa border) when the corn is in season and is sold at the store in the husks, most grocery stores place huge trash bins right beside the display. Some folks husk completely in the store, others pull the husks back to check and sometimes a few husks break or tear off. The only time we have corn husked and pre-wrapped is when it's not local, and it's not in season. Like now--I could buy 3 ears for $1.29 if I really wanted to. Hatunen filted: >>These days I have a new gripe. The supermarkets now insist on selling >>corn with the leaves removed. I refuse to buy corn unless it is in its [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >move the mess of husks out where they can control it better than >on the produce department floor. And then you put the cob you didn't like the looks of, kernels missing from one side *and* partially dehusked, back into the pile with the others.... Cereal molester!...r SignatureWhat good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? > > In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" still means > > "grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me when reading: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I didn't join in at the time, but "a field of corn" cannot mean maize to > me (born mid 1950s). I wouldn't call a field of barley "corn" either. I am a 60s child, and talk about corn fields. I know that the crops aren't corn, but the fields are corn fields. The weeds that grow in them are cornflowers. Unless they're poppies. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" still means >"grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me when reading: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I know maize does move in the wind, but that comes across to me very >strongly as being fields of grain of some unspecified sort. A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly reveal. In particular, a field of maize doesn't look golden or like it ripples. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly >reveal. In particular, a field of maize doesn't look golden or >like it ripples. I thought a field of maize WAS a field of grain. We have "grain elevators" out in the country that are used to store maize. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >>near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >We have "grain elevators" out in the country that are used to store maize. While maize might, strictly speaking, be a grain, it is not called such in Canada, and likely not in the US (though I am not sure of the US reference). SignatureWCdnE >>>A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >>>near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >such in Canada, and likely not in the US (though I am not sure of the >US reference). Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much hear it called that. It's usually just "corn". Of course, you don't hear "maize" much in the USA, either. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] > Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much > hear it called that. It's usually just "corn". Of course, you > don't hear "maize" much in the USA, either. Except that maize isn't a grain because it's a grass: that's a cereal. It's a grain because it's a seed. Beans, for example, are grains, too. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Mike wrote on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:57:57 -0000: ML> Hatunen wrote: ML> [...] ??>> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you ??>> don't much hear it called that. It's usually just "corn". ??>> Of course, you don't hear "maize" much in the USA, either. ML> Except that maize isn't a grain because it's a grass: that's a ML> cereal. It's a grain because it's a seed. Beans, for ML> example, are grains, too. I'd never have thought to use "grain" for beans. That's a new one to me! James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > [...] >> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Except that maize isn't a grain because it's a grass: that's a cereal. > It's a grain because it's a seed. Beans, for example, are grains, too. Oats and beans and barley grow... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > [...] > >> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oats and beans and barley grow... And little lambs eat ivy. SignatureSML >>> [...] >>>> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And little lambs eat ivy. That brought forth a kiddley-divey laugh. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > Oats and beans and barley grow... but the peas were adversely affected by the weather? ¬R >> Oats and beans and barley grow... > > but the peas were adversely affected by the weather? Older than I would have thought. It first shows up in Google Books in Davy Crockett's 1833 autobiography, in a dance called "We are on our way to Baltimore": Nothing seemed to give more enjoyment than a play termed, "We are on our way to Baltimore." This, from its title, was probably picked up by David, during his wanderings; and derived its chief charm from the circumstance, that every couple who composed it, had to kiss each other at stated pauses. It consisted of a wild and irregular dance, during which, with measured steps, the following lines were sweetly chanted: "We are on our way to Baltimore, With two behind, and two before; Around, around, around we go, Where oats, peas, beans and barley grow, In waiting for somebody. (A kiss.) "'Tis thus the farmer sows his seed, Folds his arms, and takes his ease, Stamps his feet, and claps his hands, Wheels around, and thus he stands, In waiting for somebody." (Another kiss.) Davy Crockett, _Sketches and Eccentricities of Col. David Crockett, 1833 "*How* oats, peas, beans and barley grow" is first attested in the same year in an 1833 letter from William H. Seward from Edinburgh We were quite amused as we descended the hill, by seeing a merry bevy of little girls "all in a ring," enjoying identically the childish play of our infancy, which we had never dreamed was of trans-Atlantic origin--"How oats, peas, beans, and barley grow." William Seward, _The Works of William H. Seward_, 1853 and the lack of knowledge is attested in 1870: It is as true to us as to our fathers, that "You nor I, nor nobody, knows How oats, peas, beans, and barley grows." Edward Everett Hale, _Old and New_, 1870 "Peas" first gets left off in 1883, in _Shropshire Folk-Lore_. So is Crockett's version a bastardization of an older children's rhyme or did a dance morph into a children's rhyme (as was the case with "Pop! Goes the Weasel") with the original forgotten? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [re Oats and beans and barley grow...] > Older than I would have thought. It first shows up in Google Books in > Davy Crockett's 1833 autobiography, in a dance called "We are on our [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > or did a dance morph into a children's rhyme (as was the case with > "Pop! Goes the Weasel") with the original forgotten? I think you have to call it a "singing game," not strictly a dance or a children's rhyme. The words that are in the Opies' _The Singing Game_ (1985) are posted in a Mudcat message: http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=512917 The Opies didn't know the origin, and didn't know of any versions in print before the 1880s. They reported various accounts of how it was sung and danced; kissing was often a feature. They found "peas" to be in American versions, as opposed to "Oats and beans and barley grow" or "Where the wheat and barley grow." They describe quite similar versions in other European languages. For example, the Danish farmer of 1879 sows the oats, claps his hands, stamps his feet, and turns around. The oldest record in this group that they report is Swedish, 1842. Where the Crockett version stands in the flow of the folk process will probably never be known, unless a lot more records turn up. I learned the song from Canadian friends, actually, and maybe it was more commonly done there. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux An American living in the Netherlands > [re Oats and beans and barley grow...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> consisted of a wild and irregular dance, during which, with >> measured steps, the following lines were sweetly chanted: [snip] >> So is Crockett's version a bastardization of an older children's >> rhyme or did a dance morph into a children's rhyme (as was the case >> with "Pop! Goes the Weasel") with the original forgotten? > > I think you have to call it a "singing game," not strictly a dance > or a children's rhyme. Well, the Crockett version is explicitly a dance (a "wild and irregular dance" with "measured steps"). That's why I brought up "Pop! Goes the Weasel", which (also?) began life as a dance. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > [re Oats and beans and barley grow...] > > > >> Older than I would have thought. It first shows up in Google Books > >> in Davy Crockett's 1833 autobiography, It's all in the third person, actually, so it looks like more of a "told to" than a strict autobiography. The title pages say "of," not "by" -- "Sketches and Eccentricities of Col. David Crockett." >>>in a dance called "We are on > >> our way to Baltimore": [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > irregular dance" with "measured steps"). That's why I brought up > "Pop! Goes the Weasel", which (also?) began life as a dance. This gets complicated, partly because the word "dance" has so many meanings, and I don't mean to ruin such a lovely subject by getting into an argument over it. But not everything that one dances to is a dance. You can dance to a song, for example. I'd say that usually "a dance" is played on instruments, not sung by the participants. There is a category of entertainment in which a song is sung by the group, and certain movements are performed -- dance steps, gestures, chasing, etc. The Opies use "singing game" as the name of this category; another is "play-party," which is what a 1934 writer chose, in paraphrasing the memoirs: Davy Crockett - Page 27 by Constance Rourke - Juvenile Nonfiction - 1934 Play-party songs like " Sell the Thimble" and "Grind the Bottle" and "We're on the Way to Baltimore" were sung and danced. However, I can't confirm, so far, her claim that "Sell the Thimble" and "Grind the Bottle" were "play-parties" or singing games -- maybe they were just group games. The memoirs themselves, as you quoted, call these things "plays." Plays which had been fashionable when their grandmothers were girls, such as Sell the Thimble, Grind the Bottle, &c., were called up, and wearied out. I looked to see if I could find any description of those two. An 1851 mention draws a specific distinction between playing these games and dancing: At Blackstoneville, we always sat pretty silent until "Grind the bottle," or "Sister Phoebe one" was proposed, and it was only after we played both of these that dancing began. -- Mississippi Scenes ... By Joseph Beckham Cobb The same writer makes the point again, describing a country wedding: By way of an agreeable change, dancing was suspended occasionally, and " Sister Phebe," " Grind the Bottle," and " Blind man's buff" were introduced. Although I can't be sure about "Sell the Thimble" and "Grind the Bottle," "Sister Phoebe definitely turns up "Kansas Play-Party Songs" by Myra E. Hull, 1938: http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1938/38_3_hull.htm 1. Oh, sister Phoebe, how happy were we, When we sat under the juniper tree. The Juniper tree, high oh, high oh, The Juniper tree, high oh! 2. Keep your hat on it will keep your head warm; And take a sweet kiss; it will do you no harm. (Chor.) According to Carl Van Doren, this game, a kissing game, is played thus: A girl sits in a chair in the center of the room, while the other players march around her singing. A boy carrying a hat walks round and round the sitting player. At the proper moment, he places the hat on the girl's head and kisses her. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux Donna Richoux filted: >> >> Older than I would have thought. It first shows up in Google Books >> >> in Davy Crockett's 1833 autobiography, > >It's all in the third person, actually, so it looks like more of a "told >to" than a strict autobiography. The title pages say "of," not "by" -- >"Sketches and Eccentricities of Col. David Crockett." Crockett's biographer would have been Georgie Russell...Buddy Ebsen played him in the 1955 Disney TV series....r SignatureWhat good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? >> > [re Oats and beans and barley grow...] >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "told to" than a strict autobiography. The title pages say "of," not > "by" -- "Sketches and Eccentricities of Col. David Crockett." I appear to have been misled by Google Books and by my own memory. His autobiography (now that I look at it, told in the first person) is _A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett of the State of Tennessee_ (note also "of") and was published in 1834, whereas this one is _Sketches and Eccentricities of Col. David Crockett of West Tennessee_ and published in 1833. The preface to the (real) autobiography says that it was written as a response to the earlier book: A publication has been made to the world, which has done me much injustice; and the catchpenny errors which it contains, have been already tooo long sanctioned by my silence. I don't know the author of the book--and indeed I don't want to know him; for after he has taken such a liberty with my name, and made such an effort to hold me up to public ridicule, he cannot calculate on any thing but my displeasure. If he had been content to have written his opinions about me, however contemptuous they might have been, I should have had less reason to complain. But when he professes to give my narrative (as he often does) in my own language, and then puts into my mouth such language as would disgrace even an outlandish African, he must himself be sensible of the injustice he has done me, and the trick he has played off on the publick. I have met with hundreds, if not with thousands of people, who have formed their opinions of my appearance, habits, language, and every thing else from that deceptive work. They have almost in every instance expressed the most profound astonishment at finding me in human shape, and with the _countenance_, _appearance_, and _common feelings_ of a human being. It is to correct all these false notions, and to do justice to myself, that I have written. The Google Books notes for one edition of _Sketches_ say The author was unknown to Crockett who wrote his "Narrative" to correct the wrong impressions produced by this publication. Cf. Pref. to Crockett's Narrative. Doubtfully ascribed to J.S. French by E.A. Poe. Cf. Southern literary messenger, v. 2, 1835-36, p. 589. A recent biography, however, points the finger at Mathew [sic] St. Clair Clark. Although Crockett pleaded ignorance of the identity of the author, it was surely he who provided the bulk of the biographical information to his friend Clarke. James Shackford, _David Crockett: The Man and the Legend_, 1994 >>>>in a dance called "We are on >> >> our way to Baltimore": [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > I think you have to call it a "singing game," not strictly a >> > dance or a children's rhyme. To the extent that "singing game" is in my vocabulary, I pretty much associate it with children, not adult couples. >> Well, the Crockett version is explicitly a dance (a "wild and >> irregular dance" with "measured steps"). That's why I brought up [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dance. You can dance to a song, for example. I'd say that usually > "a dance" is played on instruments, not sung by the participants. But when you have set steps and actions (the kisses) at particular times performed by couples, it sounds more like a dance with words rather than a song people danced to. > There is a category of entertainment in which a song is sung by the > group, and certain movements are performed -- dance steps, gestures, > chasing, etc. The Opies use "singing game" as the name of this > category; I can buy that, although I'm not sure where you draw the line. Would the "Hokey Pokey" be a dance or a "singing game"? I'm pretty sure that "Pop! Goes the Weasel" was called a "dance" in early sheet music. [snip more interesting stuff] SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It's gotten to the point where the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only place you can get work done is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |at home, because no one bugs you, |and the best place to entertain kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |yourself is at work, because the (650)857-7572 |Internet connections are faster. | Scott Adams http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > I appear to have been misled by Google Books and by my own memory. > His autobiography (now that I look at it, told in the first person) is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > injustice; and the catchpenny errors which it contains, have been > already tooo long sanctioned by my silence. I don't know the [snip interesting stuff about fraudulent Crockett book] [re discussion of "We are on our way to Baltimore" which contains references to "Oats, Peas, Beans and Barley Grow"] > >> >> Nothing seemed to give more enjoyment than a play termed, > >> >> "We are on our way to Baltimore." This, from its title, was [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > To the extent that "singing game" is in my vocabulary, I pretty much > associate it with children, not adult couples. It was interesting in researching this subject (not all of which research made it into previous posts) that these games appeared to be played by mixed ages. Here is a nice bit: The Art of Amusing By Frank Bellew (On-line at Google Books) Published 1866 Carleton Publisher, New York p 88-89 ...Between forty and fifty persons, little (some very little) and big (some very big), sat down to tea, and did generously by the repast. The meal concluded, dignity received informal notice to quit, and all pitched in to clear away the things. A circle of humanity formed itself, and behold the noble sport of "Oats, peas, beans, and barley grows." Leading moral philosophers, eminent divines, weather-beaten old vikings, gallant soldiers, and care-worn editors, sowed their seed, took their ease, stamped their feet, clapped their hands, viewed their lands, and, after waiting for a partner, became united in the bonds of juvenile matrimony with little curly-headed toddlers, and seemed to enjoy the fun just as much as though they had never looked into a Greek lexicon, heard the boom of cannon, or written a leader. We would like to dwell long upon this merrymaking under the sky, for there occurred enough pretty incidents and enough funny things out there to bear telling for a week ; but our mission is to instruct our friends how to amuse others ; so we must pass from the romps in the open air to the amusements which took place inside, after darkness had driven the merry-makers from the lawn. One of the first things I ever heard about "play party" songs was that they were permitted in communities that banned dancing as being work of the devil. They were very close to dancing. But also I see them described at the same dance/party/evening/entertainment. > > There is a category of entertainment in which a song is sung by the > > group, and certain movements are performed -- dance steps, gestures, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can buy that, although I'm not sure where you draw the line. Would > the "Hokey Pokey" be a dance or a "singing game"? A singing game. Except that in school, we always did it to a record, it never occurred to us to sing it ourselves on the playground. But we could have. >I'm pretty sure > that "Pop! Goes the Weasel" was called a "dance" in early sheet music. I wish we could nail down more clearly what exactly people did with that -- was it some dance routine performed on stage by the minstrels, was it something the crowd did, was it a solo step, a couple dance, a dance for a set of couples... Do you have JStor access? I keep finding articles of interest to us there. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> I'm pretty sure that "Pop! Goes the Weasel" was called a "dance" in >> early sheet music. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > minstrels, was it something the crowd did, was it a solo step, a > couple dance, a dance for a set of couples... Looking at the Music for the Nation archive, an 1854 version calls it a "gallop" and says "composed for fun and to be danced with a rush". (Although the archive picked up "A. Rush" as the composer.) An 1853 version (crediting Jas. W. Porter) has a subtitle The new dance lately introduced at her majesty's and nobilities balls Ah. That one has a description: Form in Two Lines _ Top Couple Ballançez, Four Bars _ then Gallop down inside and back, Four Bars _ take the next Lady, Hands Round Four Bars _ then Two Bars back and (while all Sing Pop Goes the Weasel) pass her under your arms to her Place _ Repeat with the lady's Partner then Gallop down inside and back, Four Bars _ and down outside to the other end of the line, Four Bars, which finishes the Figure _. The next Couple follows. &c: &c: [Yeah, it appears to use "&c:" with a colon for etc. I don't think I've seen that before. Or maybe it's not a colon. The two dots are smaller than the "c" and angled, like an italic colon, although the "c" doesn't appear to be italic.] > Do you have JStor access? I keep finding articles of interest to us > there. I occasionally have JSTOR access. I have a San Francisco library card, which gets me access, but they appear to only allow (I kid you not) two simultaneous users, so I often can't get in. 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/ >An 1853 >version (crediting Jas. W. Porter) has a subtitle > The new dance lately introduced at her majesty's and nobilities > balls Interesting! There are several references here for the more usual version, danced in long lines: http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=19247#910384 and the earliest, from 1850: http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/hasm.a2552/ calls it "an old English Dance lately revived." I wonder if Porter's might have been a newly devised version adapted to sets of four couples assembled for a quadrille. I like the uneven division of it, and the balance and gallop in place of the ordinary walk down the center. I'll have to pass it on to contradance friends who may not have encountered it. ¬R Where'd they come from, these guys? And why does it smell o|-< ><> like herring and straw in here all of a sudden? http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/engel.html --Kevin S. Wilson [...] > The Opies didn't know the origin, and didn't know of any versions in > print before the 1880s. They reported various accounts of how it was > sung and danced; kissing was often a feature. They found "peas" to be > in American versions, as opposed to "Oats and beans and barley grow" > or "Where the wheat and barley grow." [...] The peas were in the Australian version during the 'forties. No bussing, though. I remember one mimed the broadcasting of seed, but I've forgotten what else. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com "We are on our way to Baltimore, With two behind, and two before; Around, around, around we go, Where oats, peas, beans and barley grow, In waiting for somebody. (A kiss.) "'Tis thus the farmer sows his seed, Folds his arms, and takes his ease, Stamps his feet, and claps his hands, Wheels around, and thus he stands, In waiting for somebody." (Another kiss.) Davy Crockett, _Sketches and Eccentricities of Col. David Crockett, 1833 So is Crockett's version a bastardization of an older children's rhyme or did a dance morph into a children's rhyme (as was the case with "Pop! Goes the Weasel") with the original forgotten? Written about the same time (collected from other sources, so probably a few years earlier than 1834). THE BOUNDARIES OF MIDDLESEX. Middlesex is bounded on the East By Essex and the River Lea; On the West by Buckinghamshire, And the River Colne we see. On the North by Hertfordshire, Where Oats and Wheat and Barley grow ; On the South we Surrey find, With the Thames that Ebb and Flow. The infant teacher's assistant ... or, Scriptural and moral lessons for ... - Page 96 by Thomas Bilby, R B. Ridgway - 1834 -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (thread merge puzzle: back-to=back = 1:58) >[...] >> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Except that maize isn't a grain because it's a grass: that's a cereal. >It's a grain because it's a seed. Beans, for example, are grains, too. Perhaps in en_GB, but not in en_US. AHD3 says: 1. a. A small, dry, one-seeded fruit of a cereal grass [...] b. The fruits of cereal grasses, especially after being harvested, considered as a group. 2. Cereal grasses, considered as a group: /a field of grain/. None of the senses I've omitted would include beans, and this matches my personal understanding as well. (Note also that "cereal" tout court would not be understood by most non-agronomists as a kind of grass, but rather as a kind of breakfast food.[1] I believe most en_US speakers would parse "cereal grass" as used in AHD3's definition as "the sort of plant cereal is made from", despite the historical causality running in the opposite direction.) -GAWollman [1] Which might be further divided into "[cold] cereal" and "hot cereal", although for many the latter is just a strange way of saying "oatmeal". SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness Garrett Wollman filted: >(Note also that "cereal" tout court would not be understood by most >non-agronomists as a kind of grass, but rather as a kind of breakfast [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >cereal", although for many the latter is just a strange way of saying >"oatmeal". Only for the many who have never had grits, Cream of Wheat, Cream of Rice, Malt-O-Meal, Maypo, and a vast assortment of others, including one that tasted exactly like Roman Meal bread....r SignatureWhat good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? >[...] >> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Except that maize isn't a grain because it's a grass: that's a cereal. >It's a grain because it's a seed. Beans, for example, are grains, too. Just to muddy the waters, per the online Merriam-Webster: "grain Etymology: Middle English, partly from Anglo-French grain cereal grain, from Latin granum; partly from Anglo-French graine seed, kermes, from Latin grana, plural of granum more at corn" and "corn Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German & Old Norse korn grain, Latin granum Date: before 12th century 1: chiefly dialect : a small hard particle : grain 2: a small hard seed 3a: the seeds of a cereal grass and especially of the important cereal crop of a particular region (as wheat in Britain, oats in Scotland and Ireland, and Indian corn in the New World and Australia)" I don't think I'll drag out the OED for this. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> [...] >>> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I don't think I'll drag out the OED for this. I find OED actually says "rarely of beans, etc." It is rather specialised these days --I think of the general population's inability to talk precisely about cattle, for another example. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >I find OED actually says "rarely of beans, etc." It is rather >specialised these days --I think of the general population's inability >to talk precisely about cattle, for another example. Inability or lack of need? -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >> I find OED actually says "rarely of beans, etc." It is rather >> specialised these days --I think of the general population's >> inability to talk precisely about cattle, for another example. > > Inability or lack of need? I assume the former, caused by the latter. I'd sound pretty imprecise trying to describe the maintenance of a jet engine. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> [...] >>>> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > -- > Mike. Didn't a biblical character stand among the alien corn, well before it migrated to that hemisphere? What "corn" was that? SignatureFrank ess > Didn't a biblical character stand among the alien corn, well before it > migrated to that hemisphere? Ruth. >What "corn" was that? That is really two questions: (1) What grain was prevalent in Palestine ca. 1000 B.C.? (2) What grain would an English reader have thought of in 1611? I don't know, but my guess is wheat for both. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: When in danger or in doubt, :|| ||: Run in circles, scream and shout. :|| >> Didn't a biblical character stand among the alien corn, well before it >> migrated to that hemisphere? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I don't know, but my guess is wheat for both. But would wheat have been considered alien in Palestine in 1000 BC? And did "Palestine" exist in 1000 BC? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Steve Hayes wrote, in <88ekr31ekq3r7kihu7bp4egm8qbvcjf6f1@4ax.com> on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 04:05:06 +0200: > >> Didn't a biblical character stand among the alien corn, well before it > >> migrated to that hemisphere? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > But would wheat have been considered alien in Palestine in 1000 BC? Not at all. It wasn't the wheat but the location. Ruth was in exile in an alien place. > And did "Palestine" exist in 1000 BC? That bit of ground did. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE > Steve Hayes wrote, in <88ekr31ekq3r7kihu7bp4egm8qbvcjf6f1@4ax.com> > on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 04:05:06 +0200: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > That bit of ground did. And to the extent that it was inhabited by Philistines it was Philistia ==> Palestine. But Ruth was relocated to Bethlehem in Judea, wasn't she? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. >> Didn't a biblical character stand among the alien corn, well before it >> migrated to that hemisphere? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I don't know, but my guess is wheat for both. Good guess on both counts. Wheat was certainly the major cereal crop in England (though not Scotland) at that time. I can't speak with complete certainty about Palestine, but Ancient Rome depended on the Near East generally as a source of wheat. Carthage (modern day Tunisia and Libya) was called the "granary of Rome". I've also heard Libya called "the Roman wheat bowl". This was of course before the desert had encroached as far north as it has today. No one so far has mentioned the British Corn Laws that created such political uproar in the 19th Century. They were of course aimed at protecting English wheat farmers, and provide an excellent proof of the damage caused by protectionist trade policies -- as did the increased prosperity that followed their repeal. >>Didn't a biblical character stand among the alien corn, well before it >>migrated to that hemisphere? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I don't know, but my guess is wheat for both. But they could have been millet or spelt. SignatureRob Bannister >[...] >> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Except that maize isn't a grain because it's a grass: that's a cereal. >It's a grain because it's a seed. Beans, for example, are grains, too. So are beans corn? I thought grain in the AmE sense was corn in the OtherE sense. In South Africa "corn" is usually applied to wheat and maize. In Afrikaans wheat is "koring". Maize is usually called "mealies" in English, "mielies" in Afrikaans, except when it comes in a tin, when it is called "sweetcorn" in English. Mazemeal is sold in shops, but thoguh it is labelled "maizemeal" on the packets, everyone calls it "mealiemeal". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > [...] >> Maize is a grain by definition, being a grass, but you don't much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Except that maize isn't a grain because it's a grass: that's a cereal. > It's a grain because it's a seed. Beans, for example, are grains, too. I believe you are techically correct, because I have heard the expression "cereal grain", which gets over 300,000 Googles. But I doubt that anyone in the USA who is not a farmer would know that "grain" includes non-grasses. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. >> A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >> near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We have "grain elevators" out in the country that are used to store > maize. They have their own elevators? Over here, grain has to walk up stairs SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >>> near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They have their own elevators? Over here, grain has to walk up stairs What a corny pun! I bet you have a sheaf of them. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>> A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >>>> near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What a corny pun! I bet you have a sheaf of them. Sometimes only trying it out will separate the wheat from the chaff. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On 18 Feb 2008, Mike Lyle wrote >>>>> A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, >>>>> as a near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sometimes only trying it out will separate the wheat from the > chaff. The Ancients found that mystical forces stopped them doing that, but elsewhere -- bar ley lines -- it can work. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 18 Feb 2008, Mike Lyle wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The Ancients found that mystical forces stopped them doing that, but > elsewhere -- bar ley lines -- it can work. Get oatta here! SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> On 18 Feb 2008, Mike Lyle wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Get oatta here! <applause> SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > On 18 Feb 2008, Mike Lyle wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The Ancients found that mystical forces stopped them doing that, but > elsewhere -- bar ley lines -- it can work. The bar ley line? Isn't that what the Egyptians got through in '73? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>> A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >>>>> near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Sometimes only trying it out will separate the wheat from the chaff. That's barley tolerable. SignatureWCdnE >>>>>> A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >>>>>> near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >That's barley tolerable. This thread went to seed several posts back. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>>> A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >>>>>>> near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >This thread went to seed several posts back. A rye comment. SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England >>A field of maize doesn't look a bit like a field of grain, as a >>near-harvest time visit to Kansas and Nebraska would quickly >>reveal. In particular, a field of maize doesn't look golden or >>like it ripples. > >I thought a field of maize WAS a field of grain. Yeah. but you know what I mean. >We have "grain elevators" out in the country that are used to store maize. Sure. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" still means > >"grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me when reading: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > reveal. In particular, a field of maize doesn't look golden or > like it ripples. No need to vist Nebraska. Lots of maize is grown in Western Europe, Jan > In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" still means > "grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me when reading: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > So that's someone born in the late 40s using the term in the > tradional way. There's a song about Liverpool by Stan Kelly and Leo Rosselson: http://irishlyrics.homestead.com/files/I_wish_i_was_back_in_liverpool.txt I wish I was back in Liverpool Liverpool town where I was born Where there ain't no trees, no scented breeze No fields of waving corn But there's lots of girls with peroxide curls And the Black and Tan flows free There's six in a bed by the old pier head And it's Liverpool town for me SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >http://irishlyrics.homestead.com/files/I_wish_i_was_back_in_liverpool.txt > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >There's six in a bed by the old pier head >And it's Liverpool town for me I know the song well. Every recording I have with that song on it breaks up "peroxide" to "per-roxide". -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" still means >"grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me when reading: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >So that's someone born in the late 40s using the term in the tradional way. To call that usage "traditional" is to incorrectly prejudge the question you're asking, by implying a general change where none exists. Pratchett uses the term in the British manner, pure and simple. Whilst imported products (and culturally-ignorant advertising) may do their level best to confuse, I've never noticed any shift in the usage towards the AmE, and in anyone over the age of about 8 at least, if confusion arises it's more likely to be caused by ignorance of the AmE usage than the other way around. Unqualified "corn" is a grain plant. To me, raised in the north of England, it's wheat (although Chambers tells me that in Scotland and Ireland it's likely to be oats). Maize is "maize" when it's growing or in bulk. When it's in small amounts for consumption, an ear of maize, husked or unhusked, is "(a) corn-on-the-cobb". Loose maize kernels are "sweetcorn", and I wasn't aware until I looked it up just now that "sweetcorn" is actually a particular maize variety. As for "cornfield" - travel around the UK, and if you keep your eyes open you'll see the odd field of maize, but you'll also still see one heck of a lot more wheat, barley, rye and oats (and the individual areas planted will typically be larger, too). No-one who grew up here and had the slightest exposure to the countryside would be likely to see the term and think of maize. Cheers - Ian (BrE: Yorks., Notts., Hants.) [...] >> I know maize does move in the wind, but that comes across to me very >> strongly as being fields of grain of some unspecified sort. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > exists. Pratchett uses the term in the British manner, pure and > simple. [...] And isn't that ripple of a cornfield a heart-lifting sight? It really does move in waves. "And valleys smile with waving corn." ("Fleecy flocks the hills adorn", too, of course. Good old Handel.) SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >[...] >>> I know maize does move in the wind, but that comes across to me very [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >does move in waves. "And valleys smile with waving corn." ("Fleecy >flocks the hills adorn", too, of course. Good old Handel.) "Amber waves of grain." Love the imagery. SignatureWCdnE >>[...] >>>> I know maize does move in the wind, but that comes across to me very [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >"Amber waves of grain." Love the imagery. The amber waves of grain are, of course, wheat. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>[...] >>>>> I know maize does move in the wind, but that comes across to me very [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >The amber waves of grain are, of course, wheat. Of course. Mind, we (in my grain-growing community)would call fields of oats, barley, durum and rye the same thing. SignatureWCdnE >>>> [...] >>>>>> I know maize does move in the wind, but that comes across to me very [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Of course. Mind, we (in my grain-growing community)would call fields > of oats, barley, durum and rye the same thing. I thought durum was a type of wheat. SignatureJohn Kane, Kingston ON Canada > I thought durum was a type of wheat. It is - but it's more different than just a different variety - it's tetraploid while bread wheat is hexaploid. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat#Genetics for a better explanation than I can give 20 years since I last studied it. >> I thought durum was a type of wheat. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat#Genetics for a better explanation > than I can give 20 years since I last studied it. Thanks. I thought it was a variety of wheat. We learned about in it grade school. I always had the impression that Lord Durham was responsible for its introduction to Canada as well as for the cows. My spelling was bad then too. SignatureJohn Kane, Kingston ON Canada >>>>> [...] >>>>>>> I know maize does move in the wind, but that comes across to me very [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >I thought durum was a type of wheat. I suppose it is. 'round these parts, we speak of it as durum, not as wheat or "durum wheat". SignatureWCdnE > I suppose it is. 'round these parts, we speak of it as durum, not as > wheat or "durum wheat". I don't think I've ever spoken of it outside biological type conversations. I know pasta is made from durum flour, but don't talk about it much. >> I suppose it is. 'round these parts, we speak of it as durum, not as >> wheat or "durum wheat". > >I don't think I've ever spoken of it outside biological type >conversations. I know pasta is made from durum flour, but don't talk >about it much. You probably would, if it was one of a number of crops that you would be likely to grow to put money in your pocket. SignatureWCdnE >> I suppose it is. 'round these parts, we speak of it as durum, not as >> wheat or "durum wheat". > >I don't think I've ever spoken of it outside biological type >conversations. I know pasta is made from durum flour, but don't talk >about it much. Etymologically, "durum" comes from a Latin term meanint "hard", and I believe I've heard it referred to as "hard wheat". You wouldn't want to use soft wheat for pasta... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen filted: >Etymologically, "durum" comes from a Latin term meanint "hard", >and I believe I've heard it referred to as "hard wheat". You >wouldn't want to use soft wheat for pasta... Maybe if you like your pasta al gengive....r SignatureWhat good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? >Hatunen filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Maybe if you like your pasta al gengive....r My wife does. Drives me nuts. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> In the light of a recent discussion on whether "corn" still means >> "grain" in BrE, the following leapt out at me when reading: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > exists. Pratchett uses the term in the British manner, pure and > simple. Several people had told me otherwise, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm delighted to hear that they are wrong. |
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.