 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 20042004
By now it is well established how the early years of this century will be pronounced: by one and all, nearly enough. You heard it here in the late 20th century from those of us who know sh.t from Shinola, as the saying goes. I'd like to point out that the dozen, or so, people here who were enough out of touch with British and American use of the language to argue that we'd be saying things like 'twenty-oh-four', were Dead Wrong, as I knew they were at the time. That felt a relief: thank you.  SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net "Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... > By now it is well established how the early years of this century will > be pronounced: by one and all, nearly enough. You heard it here in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > language to argue that we'd be saying things like 'twenty-oh-four', > were Dead Wrong, as I knew they were at the time. The number of BBC announcers using the "20-o-4" form is increasing, and I remain confident that this well-established pattern will soon be fully restored. Matti -- But perhaps your "argue that X" is the other way round than mine? Weird things happen. > That felt a relief: thank you. No -- thank YOU, Charles. The relief is all mine, AABSTTA. > "Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I remain confident that this well-established pattern will soon be fully > restored. Whether or not it is used now, I find it unlikely that it won't be used in the future to refer to these years. I can't imagine anyone in 2019 (which is definitely twenty nineteen) saying "ten years ago, in two thousand and nine". They'd just say "twenty oh nine". 2000 will remain "two thousand", I should think, as no one calls 1000 "ten hundred", but the rest should fall in line quite nicely. >Whether or not it is used now, I find it unlikely that it won't be used in >the future to refer to these years. I can't imagine anyone in 2019 (which is >definitely twenty nineteen) saying "ten years ago, in two thousand and >nine". They'd just say "twenty oh nine". 2000 will remain "two thousand", I >should think, as no one calls 1000 "ten hundred", but the rest should fall >in line quite nicely. Agreed. I've heard "twenty hundred" only once in real life, and most of us don't often have occasion to refer to the year 1000. But I can imagine something like "between ten hundred and ten sixty-six", for consistency. David > Agreed. I've heard "twenty hundred" only once in real life, and > most of us don't often have occasion to refer to the year 1000. > But I can imagine something like "between ten hundred and ten > sixty-six", for consistency. I can't even imagine saying the year one thousand without the A.D. after it. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >> Agreed. I've heard "twenty hundred" only once in real life, and >> most of us don't often have occasion to refer to the year 1000. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can't even imagine saying the year one thousand without the A.D. > after it. http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini : It should be noted that technically for correctness, the "A.D." should appear before the year, e.g. A.D. 2001. This is in keeping with the original Latin meaning: "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2001". However in practice common usage places it ungrammatically at the end, which if taken literally would read "2001 in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ". Other era markings, B.C., C.E., and B.C.E. are placed after the year, e.g., 2001 C.E. They are also generally typeset in small caps. SignatureJack Gavin > >> Agreed. I've heard "twenty hundred" only once in real life, and > >> most of us don't often have occasion to refer to the year 1000. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Christ". Other era markings, B.C., C.E., and B.C.E. are placed after the > year, e.g., 2001 C.E. They are also generally typeset in small caps. We can argue against "2001 AD" on the grounds that it is not the traditional usage, but it makes no sense whatsoever to argue that it is "ungrammatical." When you import a word into English, you use English grammar rules, not the rules of the language to which the word originally belonged. We say, after all, "He speaks Esperanto" not *"He speaks Esperanton," which would be the form used if Esperanto grammar was in play. If no English grammar rule governs the imported usage, then it is a matter of idiom. "2001 AD," "This film appeals to the hoi polloi," "I'd like a French dip sandwich with au jus," and "I'm catching the Los Angeles flight" are all idiomatic English. Calling any of them ungrammatical is unjustified. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >>>> Agreed. I've heard "twenty hundred" only once in real life, and >>>> most of us don't often have occasion to refer to the year 1000. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > are all idiomatic English. Calling any of them ungrammatical is > unjustified. Touché. SignatureJack Gavin > When you import a word into English, you use English grammar rules, not the > rules of the language to which the word originally belonged. We say, after > all, "He speaks Esperanto" not *"He speaks Esperanton," which would be the > form used if Esperanto grammar was in play. And consequently we speak about two "criterions" - not two "criteria" :-). SignaturePer Erik Rønne Per Rønne wrote: >> When you import a word into English, you use English grammar rules, >> not the rules of the language to which the word originally belonged. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And consequently we speak about two "criterions" - not two "criteria" > :-). Sometimes. MWCD10: Main Entry: cri·te·ri·on Pronunciation: krI-'tir-E-&n also kr&- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural cri·te·ria /-E-&/; also -ri·ons AHD4 documents the same usage. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ Per Rønne wrote: >>When you import a word into English, you use English grammar rules, not the >>rules of the language to which the word originally belonged. We say, after [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And consequently we speak about two "criterions" - not two "criteria" > :-). Not at all. What I hear most often is "one criteria". SignatureRob Bannister On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:49:34 +0100, per.ronne@doesnt.work.spam.filter.invalid (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8n?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ne?=) wrote: >> When you import a word into English, you use English grammar rules, not the >> rules of the language to which the word originally belonged. We say, after >> all, "He speaks Esperanto" not *"He speaks Esperanton," which would be the >> form used if Esperanto grammar was in play. > >And consequently we speak about two "criterions" - not two "criteria" No, it's now one criteria, two criterias. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk "Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote... > per.ronne@doesnt.work.spam.filter.invalid wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, it's now one criteria, two criterias. Hardly. One criteria, two criteriae. Matti > "Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote... > > per.ronne@doesnt.work.spam.filter.invalid wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hardly. One criteria, two criteriae. One criteria, two criterion: <http://www.chemistry.gatech.edu/stms/massres.txt> <http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Tn6C6FGCbv4J:hrl.harvard.edu/~kavcic/papers /isita02.ps+%22two+criterion%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8> = <http://tinyurl.com/3gu43> <http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/predictions/experimental/bulletin/Jun97/q18.html> <http://www.mcb.mcgill.ca/~pdlee/Affy_algorithms.html> Nathematicians seem particularly prone to "two criterion" in contexts where it's obvious that "criterion" is a plural. SignatureBob Lieblich Applying stringent criterion >Nathematicians seem particularly prone to "two criterion" in >contexts where it's obvious that "criterion" is a plural. One mathmeticia, two mathmeticii. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Nathematicians seem particularly prone to "two criterion" in > contexts where it's obvious that "criterion" is a plural. ITYM anathematicians. SignatureRegards John >> "Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >should think, as no one calls 1000 "ten hundred", but the rest should fall >in line quite nicely. AOL all the way. That is, I agree. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > "Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I remain confident that this well-established pattern will soon be fully > restored. I heard someone (can't remember who) say "two-kay-four" a couple of weeks ago, right around the time of the New Year. Anyone else hear this? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> "Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I heard someone (can't remember who) say "two-kay-four" a couple of >weeks ago, right around the time of the New Year. Anyone else hear this? It sounds like the sort of thing that would be favoured by Alan Partridge (definitely no relation to Eric). -- Ross Howard >"Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I remain confident that this well-established pattern will soon be fully >restored. Some people just can't admit it when they're wrong. Nobody says 20-o-4, especially not in BBC news broadcasts, which I listen to every day. Okay, maybe the occasional luney Limey, but should their usage be counted in our survey? SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>"Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >day. Okay, maybe the occasional luney Limey, but should their usage be >counted in our survey? That's *loony* Limeys, Charles. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >>>"Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >That's *loony* Limeys, Charles. When I edited 'lunatic' to make it an adjective, after I inserted 'Limey', 'luney' was the result. Although it is not an accepted word, I think I could defend its derivation as easily as the OED attempts to defend the derivation of 'loony', probably more easily. I hope that didn't come across as Coopernican or Lamprheysonian wriggling when under fire. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > When I edited 'lunatic' to make it an adjective, NOOP would have sufficed, as in "lunatic fringe". SignatureJack Gavin >By now it is well established how the early years of this century will >be pronounced: by one and all, nearly enough. You heard it here in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >language to argue that we'd be saying things like 'twenty-oh-four', >were Dead Wrong, as I knew they were at the time. But I heard a BBC newsreader say 'twenty-oh-four' a couple of days ago. Mike SignatureM.J.Powell >>By now it is well established how the early years of this century will >>be pronounced: by one and all, nearly enough. You heard it here in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Mike Next year will be MMV, pronounced umvee. "Irwell" <tay243REMOVE@softhome.net> wrote in message > Next year will be MMV, pronounced umvee. To distinguish it from 'emvee' which presumably was 999 years ago? Then I suppose we get umvie, umvee-ie, umvee-ie-ie, umvix, emvex, ermmm ... pe > >By now it is well established how the early years of this century will > >be pronounced: by one and all, nearly enough. You heard it here in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But I heard a BBC newsreader say 'twenty-oh-four' a couple of days ago. I've also noticed the spreading of the "twenty-oh-" form at the BBC. Maybe they've had a circular. They must get circulars. How else can one explain the sudden change in the way they say "dossier" and "Al-Qaeda"? I think honours are even. Charles and others (and I) were right that most people are saying "two thousand and", but I think others are right that once people start saying "twenty-oh-twelve/thirteen", they'll start to use that form for the past years. Maybe the BBC is worried about the English in its archives sounding dated - hence the decision to make the change artificially early. Adrian > I've also noticed the spreading of the "twenty-oh-" form at the BBC. Maybe > they've had a circular. They must get circulars. How else can one explain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people are saying "two thousand and", but I think others are right that once > people start saying "twenty-oh-twelve/thirteen", My first ever "Oy!" > they'll start to use that > form for the past years. Maybe the BBC is worried about the English in its > archives sounding dated - hence the decision to make the change artificially > early. This has come up before. The BBC leaves this sort of thing entirely to the discretion of its presenters. I've always used the "twenty oh-..." form, but then I used to bang on about here 7 or 8 years ago. I asked one of the Radio 4 news/continuity team who happens to be an old friend, and he says that there has been no advice, nor would he have expected it. Had it been offered he would probably have ignored it. They have certainly discussed it among themselves but did not expect to agree. For what it's worth, his preference is to continue with the "two thousand and ..." form until 2009, and then change. The London Olympic Games proposals are, in his words, for "twenty twelve". Philip Eden Philip wrote: >For what it's worth, his preference is to continue >with the "two thousand and ..." form until 2009, and >then change. I've heard clerks pronounce the (five-digit) Zip Code 20009 as "two thousand nine." > Philip wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've heard clerks pronounce the (five-digit) Zip Code 20009 as "two > thousand nine." Geeks of a certain age routinely pronounce 80286 as "eighty two eighty six". SignatureJack Gavin > > Philip wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Geeks of a certain age routinely pronounce 80286 as "eighty two eighty > six". Furrfu! How else could it be pronounced? SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. >> > Philip wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Furrfu! How else could it be pronounced? It is not clear from the way it was written how geeks pronounce it. I pronounce it "Eighty, two eighty-six". Does anyone pronounce it "Eighty-two, eighty-six"? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> Geeks of a certain age routinely pronounce 80286 as >>> "eighty two eighty six". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Does anyone pronounce it "Eighty-two, eighty-six"? I have heard it both with and without a discernable pause after the first "eighty". SignatureJack Gavin > >>> Geeks of a certain age routinely pronounce 80286 as > >>> "eighty two eighty six". [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have heard it both with and without a discernable pause after the first > "eighty". The other day, the TV news spoke of someone sending sixty five men teams to do some job, I forget what, now. I suppose it has to mean sixty teams of five men each, not some unknown number of 65-men teams -- but it made me stop and think. SignatureBest - Donna Richoux > The other day, the TV news spoke of someone sending sixty five men > teams to do some job, I forget what, now. > > I suppose it has to mean sixty teams of five men each, not some > unknown number of 65-men teams -- but it made me stop and think. In such cases, when I am speaking, I try to insert a strategic "of", even though it sounds a bit awkward: "sending sixty of five-man teams" SignatureJack Gavin >> The other day, the TV news spoke of someone sending sixty five men >> teams to do some job, I forget what, now. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >"sending sixty of five-man teams" This is an instance where English could use a measure word to advantage. Sixty "sets" of five-man teams. "Of" is probably as good a word as any- a short sound like the Chinese general-purpose measure word "ge4". A recent joke (which falls apart when it is in written down) that exploits that ambiguity involves inquiring as to why a certain pop star likes twenty(-)eight-year-olds. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com Spehro Pefhany filted: >This is an instance where English could use a measure word to >advantage. Sixty "sets" of five-man teams. "Of" is probably as good a >word as any- a short sound like the Chinese general-purpose measure >word "ge4". A recent joke (which falls apart when it is in written >down) that exploits that ambiguity involves inquiring as to why a >certain pop star likes twenty(-)eight-year-olds. Somewhere I have a cartoon ("They'll Do It Every Time"?) that shows a couple watching television...the caption indicates that one of them is asking "Did he say 'sixty second commercial' or 'sixty-second commercial'?"...(the distinction seems to be between a commercial lasting sixty seconds and the one following the 61st commercial; left to my own devices I think I'd write both with hyphens).... A relative of mine has the phone number 890-9089 (a very slow number to dial on a rotary phone)...when someone asks for it, as on a credit-card receipt, we like to recite it as "eight-ninety-ninety-eighty-nine" with no discernable breaks....r R.H. Draney writes: > Somewhere I have a cartoon ("They'll Do It Every Time"?) that shows a couple > watching television...the caption indicates that one of them is asking "Did he > say 'sixty second commercial' or 'sixty-second commercial'?"... > left to my own devices I think I'd write both with hyphens).... Indeed. Fortunately there is a way to write it that is correct and still expresses the point: "... '60-second commercial' or '62nd commercial'?" SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "In my case, self-absorption is msb@vex.net completely justified." -- LAURA >>The other day, the TV news spoke of someone sending sixty five men >>teams to do some job, I forget what, now. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "sending sixty of five-man teams" What about "sending sixty teams of five"? SignatureFrances Kemmish Production Manager East Coast Youth Ballet www.byramartscenter.com >>> The other day, the TV news spoke of someone sending sixty five men >>> teams to do some job, I forget what, now. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What about "sending sixty teams of five"? That is also fine, when the noun phrase "five-man teams" can be readily recast to "teams of five [men]". In other cases, the recasting may induce awkwardness of its own. SignatureJack Gavin Donna wrote: >The other day, the TV news spoke of someone >sending sixty five men teams to do some job, I >forget what, now. Over here in America, a "five-men team" would be a weirdness in itself! One solution to the problem highlights the quintuplicity of it: "five dozen five-man teams." > Donna wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Over here in America, a "five-men team" would be a weirdness in itself! No, you're right, I should have written "man". > One solution to the problem highlights the quintuplicity of it: "five dozen > five-man teams." I would have settled for a slight pause after "sixty". SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >Donna wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >One solution to the problem highlights the quintuplicity of it: "five dozen >five-man teams." I thought in America they had five person teams. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >Donna wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I thought in America they had five person teams. In American we have pregnant people. SignatureBob Lieblich What next? Robert Lieblich filted: >> >One solution to the problem highlights the quintuplicity of it: "five dozen >> >five-man teams." >> >> I thought in America they had five person teams. > >In American we have pregnant people. Maybe so, but we don't make teams out of people...we make them out of resources....r >Robert Lieblich filted: >>In American we have pregnant people. > >Maybe so, but we don't make teams out of people...we make them out of >resources....r Ah yes.... In our department at the university where I worked, someone was appoionted as "the HR person". The head of department always treferred to her as "the HR person" and her job as HR. About a year later, I made some comment at a staff meeting about the "huamn relations" person, and the head of department looked blank. I said "Tjoeks, she's the HR person, surely..." I was then informed that it was "Human Resources". And that was the Editorial Department, where we were supposed to understand communication, and improve it in weritten texts. Fortunately we had a policy of avoiding abbreviations in written text, except sometimes in parentheses. Even so, the number of abreviations lecturers could concoct without seeing any need to explain them was mind boggling. I came across "i.a." in one text, and the context suggested that the "in absentia" I found in a dictionary did not fit. The author meant "inter alia". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > The other day, the TV news spoke of someone sending sixty five men > teams to do some job, I forget what, now. > > I suppose it has to mean sixty teams of five men each, not some > unknown number of 65-men teams -- but it made me stop and think. Couldn't it also mean 65 "men" teams, with each of the teams being of an unknown-to-us number of men? SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. In alt.usage.english, Steve Hayes wrote: >>> > Philip wrote: >>> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Does anyone pronounce it "Eighty-two, eighty-six"? I pronounce it "eight-oh-two-eight-six". SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > It is not clear from the way it was written how geeks pronounce it. > > I pronounce it "Eighty, two eighty-six". Yeah, that. Or more likely just "two-eighty-six". > Does anyone pronounce it "Eighty-two, eighty-six"? I hope not. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. "John Varela" <OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote... > > Geeks of a certain age routinely pronounce 80286 as "eighty two > > eighty six". > > Furrfu! How else could it be pronounced? Eighty Two-Eight-Six is how all right-thinking geeks say it. Elsewhere madness lies. Matti Matti Lamprhey spake thus: > "John Varela" <OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote... > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Eighty Two-Eight-Six is how all right-thinking geeks say it. Elsewhere > madness lies. Ah. Eight Oh Two Eight Six is my version. <goes off to suffer insanity in silence> SignatureDavid ===== > Matti Lamprhey spake thus: >> "John Varela" wrote... >>>> Geeks of a certain age routinely pronounce 80286 as "eighty two >>>> eighty six". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ah. Eight Oh Two Eight Six is my version. My house number's being of the same format makes me agree with you, like, totally. SignatureSkitt (in SF Bay Area) It's like Jesus said -- give a man a fish, and he'll know where to come for fish. Teach a man to fish, and you've destroyed your marketbase. "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... > Matti Lamprhey spake thus: > > "John Varela" <OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > <goes off to suffer insanity in silence> I should have said Eight Oh Two Eight Six, in fact. So it looks as if we Brits are pretty consistent. Matti > "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... >> Matti Lamprhey spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I should have said Eight Oh Two Eight Six, in fact. So it looks as if > we Brits are pretty consistent. Et moi. Len >> "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... >>> Matti Lamprhey spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > Et moi. For any who might be unaware, the reference to geeks was because the 80286 was an exact, famous silicon chip (an Intel microprocessor or CPU, to be specific). Its *name* was shortened to "eighty two eighty six", and in context, was perfectly clear. These same geeks would not likely use the same words to speak the *number* resulting from 40,143 times 2. So, my question to those who responded "eight oh two eight six", etc, is: Were you speaking the name of a chip you were somewhat familiar with, or just a number? SignatureJack Gavin Jack Gavin spake thus: > >> "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... > >>> Matti Lamprhey spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Were you speaking the name of a chip you were somewhat familiar with, or > just a number? The chip - that was so obvious it didn't occur that it might require explanation. There must be a difference between the US geek and the UK geek, as I am almost certainly one of the latter. I met that Iann Barron once, you know. SignatureDavid (30 years in IT) ===== > Jack Gavin spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > The chip - that was so obvious it didn't occur that it might require > explanation. Well, just wanted to be sure. > There must be a difference between the US geek and the UK geek, as I > am almost certainly one of the latter. I claim membership as one of the former. > I met that Iann Barron once, you know. I corresponded with Stan Kelley-Bootle more than once, you didn't know. SignatureJack Gavin "Jack Gavin" <jackgavinSPAMLESS@comcast.net> wrote... > For any who might be unaware, the reference to geeks was because the > 80286 was an exact, famous silicon chip (an Intel microprocessor or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is: Were you speaking the name of a chip you were somewhat familiar > with, or just a number? The microprocessor; that was the one in the PC AT, I think. My first PC quasiclone (the Victor 9000) had the 8088, though. Matti >The microprocessor; that was the one in the PC AT, I think. My first >PC quasiclone (the Victor 9000) had the 8088, though. The AT had the 80286; the original PC and the XT used the 8088. The clones followed suit. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>The microprocessor; that was the one in the PC AT, I think. My first >>PC quasiclone (the Victor 9000) had the 8088, though. > >The AT had the 80286; the original PC and the XT used the 8088. The >clones followed suit. I think that the original IBM PC used the 8086. The ones that followed, and the clones, used the 8088, a later, more effective, chip. I have long forgotten the difference, except that the 80286 was a dead-end chip. The very successful 80386/486 used a different paging mechanism. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >>>The microprocessor; that was the one in the PC AT, I think. My first >>>PC quasiclone (the Victor 9000) had the 8088, though. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I think that the original IBM PC used the 8086. No, it used the i8088, a 16-bit processor chip with 8-bit (multiplexed) external data bus. It was a somewhat controversial decision by the Boca Raton skunkworks because it compromised performance in favor of cost. The 8086 (16-bit processor with 16-bit external data bus) existed at that time, but IBM chose not to use it. They ran the processor at a leisurely 4.77MHz, which is related in a Burkesque manner to the North American standard (NTSC*) television colorburst/chrominance subcarrier frequency of 3.579545MHz, in order to save a bit of money. >The ones that followed, and >the clones, used the 8088, a later, more effective, chip. I have long >forgotten the difference, except that the 80286 was a dead-end chip. The >very successful 80386/486 used a different paging mechanism. That's my recollection. Something to do with "protected mode", maybe, as well? *"Never Twice the Same Color" Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com In alt.usage.english, Spehro Pefhany wrote: >>The ones that followed, and >>the clones, used the 8088, a later, more effective, chip. I have long [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That's my recollection. Something to do with "protected mode", maybe, >as well? Actually the 80286 had protected mode operation. From <http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/35>: Intel 80286 (1982) A 16-bit, 134,000 transistor processor capable of addressing up to 16 MB of RAM. In addition to the increased physical memory support, this chip is able to work with virtual memory, thereby allowing much for expandability. The 286 was the first "real" processor. It introduced the concept of protected mode. This is the ability to multitask, having different programs run separately but at the same time. This ability was not taken advantage of by DOS, but future Operating Systems, such as Windows, could play with this new feature. On the the drawbacks of this ability, though, was that while it could switch from real mode to protected mode (real mode was intended to make it backwards compatible with the 8088's), it could not switch back to real mode without a warm reboot. This chip was used by IBM in its Advanced Technology PC/AT and was used in a lot of IBM-compatibles. It ran at 8, 10, and 12.5 MHz, but later editions of the chip ran as high as 20 MHz. While these chips are considered paperweights today, they were rather revolutionary for the time period. Intel 386 (1985 - 1990) The 386 signified a major increase in technology from Intel. The 386 was a 32-bit processor, meaning its data throughput was immediately twice that of the 286. Containing 275,000 transistors, the 80386DX processor came in 16, 20, 25, and 33 MHz versions. The 32-bit address bus allowed the chip to work with a full 4 GB of RAM and a staggering 64 TB of virtual memory. In addition, the 386 was the first chip to use instruction pipelining, which allows the processor to start working on the next instruction before the previous one is complete. While the chip could run in both real and protected mode (like the 286), it could also run in virtual real mode, allowing several reasl mode sessions to be run at a time. A multi-tasking operating system such as Windows was necessary to do this, though. [continues] My recollection is that the 80286 was rather more of a conceptual leap forward than the 80386. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >>>> The microprocessor; that was the one in the PC AT, I think. My >>>> first PC quasiclone (the Victor 9000) had the 8088, though. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > American standard (NTSC*) television colorburst/chrominance subcarrier > frequency of 3.579545MHz, in order to save a bit of money. The 8086 was used by IBM in 1987, three years after the AT, in the PS/2 models 25 and 30, and also by Compaq in the Deskpro. >> The ones that followed, and >> the clones, used the 8088, a later, more effective, chip. I have long [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's my recollection. Something to do with "protected mode", maybe, > as well? I am no expert on the matter, but I remember that the main limitation of the 286 was the amount of memory that it could address, quite limited. The 286 could work in protected mode, but not in 86 virtual mode. -- Saludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) >>>>> The microprocessor; that was the one in the PC AT, I think. My >>>>> first PC quasiclone (the Victor 9000) had the 8088, though. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> American standard (NTSC*) television colorburst/chrominance subcarrier >> frequency of 3.579545MHz, in order to save a bit of money. That's right. I remembered them the wrong way around. IBM's first step into the portable computer market was the 5100 in the mid 1970s. http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5100.html At nearly $20,000 (with an IBM chipset) I expect they thought they needed to make something cheaper. >The 8086 was used by IBM in 1987, three years after the AT, in the PS/2 >models 25 and 30, and also by Compaq in the Deskpro. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >286 was the amount of memory that it could address, quite limited. The 286 >could work in protected mode, but not in 86 virtual mode. The story in the early 1990s was that the first version of OS/2 was subcontracted to MS, and they wrote it to take advantage of the 80286's hardware features, possibly in some sort of MS macro language. IBM had to totally rewrite it (in PL/S, I think) for the later chips, and they missed the boat in timing. Gates got Windows 95 out first, and captured all of the headlines. He admitted in public that OS/2 was technically superior to Windows, but won the marketing game. After I left IBM I taught some OS/2 classes in 1995 for new users whose companies had chosen OS/2. The room had PCs down each side, one half with OS/2, the other with Win95. When the classes were over the attendees all wanted to play with Win95, which was the system they'd all read about. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >>> "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... >>>> Matti Lamprhey spake thus: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Its *name* was shortened to "eighty two eighty six", and in context, was >perfectly clear. But there were 8086 and 8088 chips that were called "eighty eighty-six" and "eighty eighty-eight". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >Its *name* was shortened to "eighty two eighty six", and in > >context, was perfectly clear. > > But there were 8086 and 8088 chips that were called "eighty > eighty-six" and "eighty eighty-eight". There were also the 80186 and 80188 (and, of course, the 8080). I don't think it was until the 80386 came out that I started hearing the "80" dropped. But they were pretty much always pronounced (in my hearing) as though the "80" was a separate number. Question for those a bit older than me: Were the 4004 and 8008 ever pronounced "forty oh four" and "eighty oh eight". I always thought of them as "four thousand four" and "eight thousand eight", but I never actually played with them. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Any programming problem can be 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |solved by adding another layer of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |indirection. Any performance |problem can be solved by removing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> >Its *name* was shortened to "eighty two eighty six", and in >> >context, was perfectly clear. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >them as "four thousand four" and "eight thousand eight", but I never >actually played with them. I sat in a meeting round about 1977 during which ideas for an intelligent workstation / personal computer were discussed. An American from the 3270 terminal development team said that they could easily put a 4004 into it to provide programmability, but I can't remember how he said it. I would only be guessing if I said that it may have been 'forty oh four'. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >>> >Its *name* was shortened to "eighty two eighty six", and in >>> >context, was perfectly clear. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >provide programmability, but I can't remember how he said it. I would only >be guessing if I said that it may have been 'forty oh four'. It was called four thousand and four, or four bit slices. National Semiconductor developed them. The 8085 was the workhorse for dedicated systems, and the Zilog version was considered the best of the bunch at that time. >It was called four thousand and four, or four bit slices. >National Semiconductor developed them. >The 8085 was the workhorse for dedicated >systems, and the Zilog version was considered >the best of the bunch at that time. Here, it was called the "Zed Eighty", though I doubt that it was called that in its country of origin. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >It was called four thousand and four, or four bit slices. National > >Semiconductor developed them. The 8085 was the workhorse for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Here, it was called the "Zed Eighty", though I doubt that it was > called that in its country of origin. No, but I bet it won't surprise you to learn that it was the "zee eighty" here. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English is about as pure as a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |cribhouse whore. We don't just Palo Alto, CA 94304 |borrow words; on occasion, English |has pursued other languages down kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |alleyways to beat them unconscious (650)857-7572 |and rifle their pockets for new |vocabulary. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --James D. Nicoll >>It was called four thousand and four, or four bit slices. >>National Semiconductor developed them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Here, it was called the "Zed Eighty", though I doubt that it was called that >in its country of origin. Clive Sinclair made a personal computer called the ZX80, with the Zilog Z80 chip. http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?Sinclair (A page with photos gave a page fault for a picture of the ZX80.) I still have my (working) Z88 machine. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >>>It was called four thousand and four, or four bit slices. >>>National Semiconductor developed them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >(A page with photos gave a page fault for a picture of the ZX80.) >I still have my (working) Z88 machine. I had one, very powerful machine for its time. Sinclair also supplied a kit for a miniature radio when transistors first came out. >>>>It was called four thousand and four, or four bit slices. >>>>National Semiconductor developed them. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Sinclair also supplied a kit for a miniature >radio when transistors first came out. Sir Clive also had a kit to build an electronic calculator which was unusually compact for its time. Unusually unreliable as well, but there you go. I believe he also had a kit to build a rather large LED digital wristwatch, as well as numerous other fun toys. He's still around and still tinkering. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3125341.stm Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >>>It was called four thousand and four, or four bit slices. >>>National Semiconductor developed them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >(A page with photos gave a page fault for a picture of the ZX80.) >I still have my (working) Z88 machine. Lots of computers used it. I have a NewBrain that uses it, and still works. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, in alt.usage.english, Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> writes >Lots of computers used it. I have a NewBrain that uses it, and still works. I wanted one of those! I didn't have the money to buy a computer until Amstrad made the CPC6128, which was the dogs gonads. SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected > > >Its *name* was shortened to "eighty two eighty six", and in > > >context, was perfectly clear. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > them as "four thousand four" and "eight thousand eight", but I never > actually played with them. * I played with the "sixty-five oh two", which was the processor in the Apple II. earle * Earle Jones filted: >I played with the "sixty-five oh two", which was the processor in the >Apple II. Ditto, and in the Atari 800 as well...the Apple //c (watch in amazement as your newsreader tries to make a web link out of Apple's preferred orthography!) went to something called a 65C02...it had extra instructions that its ancestor lacked, but I never figured out any use for them....r > Earle Jones filted: > > > >I played with the "sixty-five oh two", which was the processor in > >the Apple II. > > Ditto, and in the Atari 800 as well... Not to mention the first box I played with, the Commodore PET. A picture of the Apple, PET, and TRS-80, as announced at the 1977 West Coast Computer Faire, can be found at http://www.cedmagic.com/history/three-computers-1977.html Yes, Joey, that's what home computers used to look like. In their initial configurations, each came with 4kB of RAM, but could be expanded to a whopping 64kB (RAM and ROM together). No, Joey, that's not a typo. With cassette tapes as storage. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you rewrite a compiler from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |scratch, you sometimes fix things Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you didn't know were broken. | Larry Wall kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>Earle Jones filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > expanded to a whopping 64kB (RAM and ROM together). No, Joey, that's > not a typo. With cassette tapes as storage. The first mainframe my b-i-l worked on, that took up an entire floor, was 16k, which was, I think, standard at the time. SignatureRob Bannister > A picture of the Apple, PET, and TRS-80, as announced at the 1977 West > Coast Computer Faire, can be found at > > http://www.cedmagic.com/history/three-computers-1977.html Not so. The TRS-80 in the photo has a numeric keypad, which the original TRS-80 Model 1 lacked. A numeric keypad was added to later Model 1s. The photo at http://www.trs-80.com/trs80-1.htm looks just like the one I had, including the clunky floppy drives, except that mine had a toggle switch glommed onto the top rear of the keyboard unit to switch clock rates. It was part of a kit I installed with a faster Z80 chip. I still have the original Z80 chip; I wonder if I could get something for that on eBay. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. > > A picture of the Apple, PET, and TRS-80, as announced at the 1977 West > > Coast Computer Faire, can be found at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not so. The TRS-80 in the photo has a numeric keypad, which the original > TRS-80 Model 1 lacked. A numeric keypad was added to later Model 1s. Ah. You're right. I had forgotten about that. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"You can't prove it *isn't* so!" is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic--as Palo Alto, CA 94304 |though it were necessary to submit |a piece of the moon to chemical kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |analysis before you could be sure (650)857-7572 |that it was not made of green |cheese. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Bergen Evans >> A picture of the Apple, PET, and TRS-80, as announced at the 1977 West >> Coast Computer Faire, can be found at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >part of a kit I installed with a faster Z80 chip. I still have the original >Z80 chip; I wonder if I could get something for that on eBay. I've got an original working Commodore PET, with the metal case and "chicklet" keyboard. I think it was around $1800 in 1979. Seems to be worth about $200 to $250 today, from searching on completed eBay auctions. I think I'll hang onto it. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > I've got an original working Commodore PET, with the metal case and > "chicklet" keyboard. I think it was around $1800 in 1979. That sounds high. I believe it was in the $600-800 dollar range in 1977 ($1,800-2,400 in today's dollars), and I don't think it got that much more expensive in the next couple of years. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig. | Robert Heinlein kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ It was >part of a kit I installed with a faster Z80 chip. I still have the original >Z80 chip; I wonder if I could get something for that on eBay. I'm not dead certain about this, but I believe that little vehicle that trundled about on the moon a year or two ago had an 8085 processor. > the Apple //c (watch in amazement as your > newsreader tries to make a web link out of Apple's preferred orthography!) No it didn't. went > to something called a 65C02...it had extra instructions that its ancestor > lacked, but I never figured out any use for them....r I'm trying to remember. Wasn't it floating point? SignatureRob Bannister > > went to something called a 65C02...it had extra instructions that > > its ancestor lacked, but I never figured out any use for them....r > > I'm trying to remember. Wasn't it floating point? Yeah, right! A summary can be found at http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=D9zzFz.8B4@actrix.gen.nz Looking at the list (I did a bit with the 6502, but never played with a 65C02), the instructions added were an unconditional branch (BRA)[1], push/pull (what we call "pop" these days) of the index registers X and Y (PHX, PHY, PLX, PLY)[2], storing zero at a destination address (STZ), and testing and (re)setting bits using a mask stored in the accumulator (TRB, TSB). They also added some new addressing modes such as being able to increment and decrement the accumulator directly, jumping to a location offset by an index register, doing a bunch of things indirect through a zero-page address, and something not clear added to the BIT instruction. In addition, they cleaned up a bunch of things, like what happens if you try to jump indirect through an address whose first byte happens to be the last byte on a page. On the 6502, the second byte was taken from the first byte on the *same* page, while in the 65C02, they fixed it so that it now came, as expected, from the first byte of the next page, with a small performance hit. Many of these would have been very nice. But you still had to do floating point the hard way. [1] You could only do relative branches conditionally on the 6502, which meant that you either did a more expensive absolute jump or made sure you knew what the value of one of the flags was going to be [2] You could only do the "accumulator" and the "process status register" on the 6502. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ << [Evan Kirshenbaum ] Question for those a bit older than me: Were the 4004 and 8008 ever pronounced "forty oh four" and "eighty oh eight". I always thought of them as "four thousand four" and "eight thousand eight", but I never actually played with them. [end quote] >> I don't recall, never used them. Probably followed the chip or tube pronunciation patterns. Usage as seen on the web is mixed, but only found 3 sites. My guess is that it started out as "four thousand four", because of the naming convention at Intel [1]. Intel labeled this first microprocessor chip the "4004" ("four thousand four"). The four thousand number meant that it was a custom product, designed for Busicom. The final number four designated the 4004 as the fourth custom chip made by Intel. I am sure that most people first encountered the name in text, then used their own speech patterns. Not many people could actually afford buying one, or met Intel's tiny sales force. Wouldn't be surprised if the pronunciation varied by region or specialty. The page[2] with the "forty-oh-four" pronunciation was all in Romanian except for that little bit. I suppose the page is a translation. [1] http://www.stanford.edu/group/mmdd/SiliconValley/ Rogers-Larson/SiliconValFever.1984.book/Chapter6/Chapter6.rtf. [2] www.bestgames.ro/pc_museum/stories/evolution.htm -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >"John Varela" <OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote... >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Eighty Two-Eight-Six is how all right-thinking geeks say it. Elsewhere >madness lies. Quite right. Everyone should have upgraded to a Pentium by now. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > I've also noticed the spreading of the "twenty-oh-" form at the BBC. Maybe > they've had a circular. They must get circulars. How else can one explain > the sudden change in the way they say "dossier" and "Al-Qaeda"? Do tell. How do they say 'dossier'? SignatureRob Bannister >>By now it is well established how the early years of this century will >>be pronounced: by one and all, nearly enough. You heard it here in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >But I heard a BBC newsreader say 'twenty-oh-four' a couple of days ago. One newsreader does not establish a consensus. (That's 'consensus of opinion' to you, Raymond.) SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >> Charles Riggs writes >>> By now it is well established how the early years of this century >>> will be pronounced: by one and all, nearly enough. You heard it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > One newsreader does not establish a consensus. (That's 'consensus of > opinion' to you, Raymond.) A thought -- your "newsreader" made me think it -- is a newsreader a software program or the user of such a program when actually reading a newsgroup's item? I would have written "news reader" for the person, but then, there is that "news" versus "newsgroup" thing. Oh, what to do, what to do? Comments? SignatureSkitt (in SF Bay Area) Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. -- Emo Phillips >>> Charles Riggs writes > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >software program or the user of such a program when actually reading a >newsgroup's item? A program only, I'd say. When we read AUE are we reading the news? >I would have written "news reader" for the person, but then, there is that >"news" versus "newsgroup" thing. Oh, what to do, what to do? > >Comments? As a 100% American, I'd have written the word as you would, but I'm not sure what I am anymore. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > But I heard a BBC newsreader say 'twenty-oh-four' a couple of days ago. Does no native English speaker say twenty-hundred-four? In Danish we said the equivalent of nineteen-hundred-[and-]ninetynine. SignaturePer Erik Rønne "Per Rønne" <per.ronne@doesnt.work.spam.filter.invalid> wrote... > > But I heard a BBC newsreader say 'twenty-oh-four' a couple of days > > ago. > > Does no native English speaker say twenty-hundred-four? In Danish we > said the equivalent of nineteen-hundred-[and-]ninetynine. Not nowadays. But in some British-made programmes and films on historical topics you might hear the narrator saying things like "In the Year of Our Lord seventeen hundred and forty two..." Matti Matti Lamprhey spake thus: > "Per Rønne" <per.ronne@doesnt.work.spam.filter.invalid> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > historical topics you might hear the narrator saying things like "In the > Year of Our Lord seventeen hundred and forty two..." I started a one-man campaign to shorten that YOOL in place of AD, but it hasn't caught on yet SignatureDavid, copyright YOOL 2004 ===== Matti Lamprhey filted: >"Per Rønne" <per.ronne@doesnt.work.spam.filter.invalid> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >historical topics you might hear the narrator saying things like "In the >Year of Our Lord seventeen hundred and forty two..." A certain Mayor Hylan of New York City once made a Fourth of July speech in which he announced "what this country needs is more of the spirit of one seven seven six"....r >"Per Rønne" <per.ronne@doesnt.work.spam.filter.invalid> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Matti I always heard: In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Doesn't sound right without the "hundred and". > >Not nowadays. But in some British-made programmes and films on > >historical topics you might hear the narrator saying things like "In the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I always heard: In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed > the ocean blue. Doesn't sound right without the "hundred and". I remember it from: On the fourth of July eighteen hundred and six We set sail from the sweet cove of Cork. We were sailing away with a cargo of bricks For the grand city hall in New York. 'Twas a wonderful craft, she was rigged fore-and-aft, And oh, how the wild winds drove her. She stood several blasts, she had twenty-seven masts, And they called her the Irish Rover. > I remember it from: > > On the fourth of July eighteen hundred and six Interesting. I know it as "In the Year of Our Lord, eighteen hundred and six". I don't think I've ever heard it with a specific date. I see both attested on the web. I wonder which is the original. I'm mostly familiar with it from the Clancy Brothers' version (off _Hearty and Hellish_), which seems to be this one: http://sailorsongs.com/irish_rover.htm SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Whatever it is that the government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |does, sensible Americans would prefer Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that the government do it to somebody |else. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I remember it from: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://sailorsongs.com/irish_rover.htm Never take the lyrics of a Clancy Brothers' version as gospel. They copyright their arrangements of trad songs. To do this, they change a bit of lyric here and a bit of lyric there to make it their own song. Take a look at the bottom right corner of: http://www.makem.com/discography/recordings/lyricpage/irishrover.html You'll find songs in the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem songbooks with the copyright mark on songs that have been sung for hundreds of years. Or, have a least evolved from songs sung for hundreds of years. What they copyright, by the way, is the arrangement. That includes the traditional melody *with* the words they've put to it. They can't copyright the melody. "The Irish Rover" is one of the most popular Irish bar songs in America. Come March 17th, there will be hundreds of "Irish" groups singing "The Irish Rover". There will be a word changed here and a word changed there, and the listener will never notice. Someone will learn the song that night, and what they hear - or think they hear - will be their version. This is the chorus that the Clancy Brothers sing: We had one million bags of the best Sligo rags We had two million barrells of bone We had three million bales of old nanny goats' tails We had four million barrells of stone We had five million hogs and six million dogs And seven million barrells of porter We had eight million sides of old blind horses' hides In the hold of the Irish Rover And this is the chorus the Pogues sing: We had one million bales of the best Sligo rags We had two million barrels of stones We had three million sides of old blind horses hides, We had four million barrels of bones. We had five million hogs, we had six million dogs, Seven million barrels of porter. We had eight million bails of old nanny goats' tails, In the hold of the Irish Rover. There are other differences in the two arrangements. >By now it is well established how the early years of this century will >be pronounced: by one and all, nearly enough. You heard it here in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >That felt a relief: thank you. Is this the REAL Charles Riggs? I understood he was leaving and never returning, ever. And how do Brits and Americans pronounce it? All the people around here say "Two thousand and four". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, in alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs <CHANGE@aircom.net> writes >By now it is well established how the early years of this century will >be pronounced: by one and all, nearly enough. You heard it here in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >language to argue that we'd be saying things like 'twenty-oh-four', >were Dead Wrong, as I knew they were at the time. Not totally - I heard twenty-oh-four on Radio four (either the Today programme, or P.M.) earlier this week. >That felt a relief: thank you. Maybe less than you had hoped. SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected "Mark Browne" <news@kafana.demon.co.uk> wrote... > [...] I heard twenty-oh-four on Radio four (either the Today > programme, or P.M.) earlier this week. The ones that I've heard doing this are Charlotte Green (who was invited onto _Feedback_ to talk about it a year or two ago) and Vaughan Savage. Matti >"Mark Browne" <news@kafana.demon.co.uk> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The ones that I've heard doing this are Charlotte Green (who was invited >onto _Feedback_ to talk about it a year or two ago) and Vaughan Savage. With a voice like hers, Charlotte Green could get away with saying anything. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England |
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.