 |
 | 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 / May 2009The Ozzy language
Hello All! I was just recently reminded of another difference between OZ-English and US-English by this headline from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Bulldogs down Tigers in clash of hookers". It evokes an interesting picture for a US English speaker. http://tinyurl.com/cfr66l Thinking back to my childhood in Britain, I vaguely remember that a "hooker" is a position on a Rugby team but I don't think I have used that sense of the word in half a century.  SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Hello All! > I was just recently reminded of another difference between OZ-English > and US-English by this headline from the Sydney Morning Herald: > "Bulldogs down Tigers in clash of hookers". It evokes an interesting > picture for a US English speaker. > http://tinyurl.com/cfr66l > Thinking back to my childhood in Britain, I vaguely remember that a > "hooker" is a position on a Rugby team but I don't think I have used > that sense of the word in half a century. Whatever happened to alt.lang.strine? SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com INCREDIBLE new art blog: http://inflagrantedilettante.blogspot.com/ >> Hello All! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Whatever happened to alt.lang.strine? Been forgot? > > Thinking back to my childhood in Britain, I vaguely remember that a > > "hooker" is a position on a Rugby team but I don't think I have used > > that sense of the word in half a century. The noun is logical. The ball is tossed low into the middle of a scrum (two teams of 6 men packed down together) and the hooker is in the middle of the front row of 3 men. His job is to hook the ball backwards with his feet so that it moves backwards, to where the scrum-half is ready to pick up the ball and pass it to the waiting three-quarters (runners.) The two props, either side of the hooker, hold him up so he can use both feet all the time to hook the ball backwards. He does not need to stand on either of his own feet. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: > >> Thinking back to my childhood in Britain, I vaguely > >> remember that a "hooker" is a position on a Rugby team but > >> I don't think I have used that sense of the word in half a > >> century. > The noun is logical. The ball is tossed low into the middle > of a scrum (two teams of 6 men packed down together) and the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > use both feet all the time to hook the ball backwards. He > does not need to stand on either of his own feet. All very well but would you venture to predict how the average American would define "hooker"? SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > All very well but would you venture to predict how the average > American would define "hooker"? How many average Americans read the Sydney Morning Herald? SignatureRay UK >> Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >How many average Americans read the Sydney Morning Herald? In the age of the Internet, it's not unlikely. I've read several Australian papers on the web over the years, and I'm in upstate New York. >>> Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Australian papers on the web over the years, and I'm in upstate New > York. But are you "average"? SignatureRay UK snip >> In the age of the Internet, it's not unlikely. I've read several >> Australian papers on the web over the years, and I'm in upstate New >> York. > >But are you "average"? Well, I'd like to think not. > "musika" wrote: >> But are you "average"? > > Well, I'd like to think not. Ah, one of those who make an average possible, eh? SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> "musika" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Ah, one of those who make an average possible, eh? Well, someone has to do it. > snip >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, I'd like to think not. There you are, then. SignatureRay UK > But are you "average"? Surely AUEers are not average by definition. SignatureRob Bannister > > But are you "average"? > > > Surely AUEers are not average by definition. And, by definition, they are not average. SignatureBob Lieblich Under the inversion layer >> > But are you "average"? >> > >> Surely AUEers are not average by definition. > >And, by definition, they are not average. Not until they reach auerage. SignatureJames >>> But are you "average"? >>> >> Surely AUEers are not average by definition. > > And, by definition, they are not average. My point, exactly. SignatureRay UK >>> But are you "average"? >>> >> Surely AUEers are not average by definition. > > And, by definition, they are not average. Thank you. I didn't spot that ambiguity. SignatureRob Bannister >> But are you "average"? > > Surely AUEers are not average by definition. Exactly my point. SignatureRay UK > Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >All very well but would you venture to predict how the average American >would define "hooker"? You aren't going to give the average American context? How would the average Brit define "guard"? (As in "He's a guard") SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > How would the average Brit define "guard"? (As in "He's a guard") The context is a headline in the _Sydney Morning Herald_. Possibly specifically the sports section. I don't think the context is likely to matter a whole lot if the reader doesn't already associate "hooker" with a rugby position. If the headline had been Bulldogs down Tigers in clash of prostitutes do you think you would be likely to immediately wonder whether "prostitutes" had some special meaning in this unfamiliar sport? Or, conversely, if the sports section of the _Orlando Sentinel_ ran a headline reading American Coach: Australian Hookers Are The Best how many Americans would miss the "prostitute" reading even if they noticed that the story was about rugby? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most |punctilious compliance with the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do (650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking |well. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger >>> Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >The context is a headline in the _Sydney Morning Herald_. Possibly >specifically the sports section. That's not the context. That's the position where the term appears. To move your example into better position - American Coach: Australian Hookers Are The Best - the context would not be just these words, but what surrounds these words: an article about rugby, a photograph of rugby being played, or a profile of a rugby player. "Context is the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning" (M-W) When we ask for context, we want the appearance to be expanded until it throws light on the meaning. >I don't think the context is likely to matter a whole lot if the >reader doesn't already associate "hooker" with a rugby position. Sure it does. We don't have to understand what the position entails if we can clearly associate the word with the name of a position in a sport. In "Dallas Cowboys sign Free Safety", the non-follower of (US) football knows that the phrase relates to a football position even if they have no idea what a Free Safety is. All they need to know is that the Dallas Cowboys play football and "sign" means "put under contract". When we define a word, we seek an explanation of that word that makes it understandable. If we define "hooker" to mean "a player position in the sport of rugby", that's an adequate definition. We may want a more specific definition - as James added - but it's not always necessary. A perfect example of this is the word "villanelle". I'd never seen nor heard it before. Context - the rest of the post containing the villanelle - told me it was a form of verse. That was enough definition for me. I didn't need to know it that it usually consists of five tercets and a quatrain in which the first and third lines of the opening tercet...and so on. Like the person who has no interest in sports or rugby has no interest in knowing what a hooker does on the field, I have no interest in anything that contains tercets and quatrains. "Type of poem or verse" is enough. > Bulldogs down Tigers in clash of prostitutes > >do you think you would be likely to immediately wonder whether >"prostitutes" had some special meaning in this unfamiliar sport? Or, >conversely, if the sports section of the _Orlando Sentinel_ ran a >headline reading That's too far out. Especially for you. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>All very well but would you venture to predict how the average >>>>American would define "hooker"? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > light on its meaning" (M-W) When we ask for context, we want the > appearance to be expanded until it throws light on the meaning. No, the context is that it's a headline in the sports section. The whole point of a headline is that it's supposed grab your eye and get you to read the article. The context of a headline is the section of the paper it's in, possibly a picture, and the reader's background knowledge of recent events that are relevant to that section. The fact that there's very little context, combined with the fact that they're often written in a style in which parts of speech are ambiguous, is why they are so often amusing and incomprehensible (or misleading) to those who *don't* have the background knowledge. Sure, after reading the article the American non-rugby-fan would say "Oh, that's what they meant", but by then the "prostitute" reading has already happened. You said in another article that your son played hooker and that he gave you a bumper sticker that said "My son is a hooker". Do you think that if he played wing or flanker he would have been able to (or thought to) give you a corresponding bumper sticker? Or is it possible that that's the only one made up, in the realization that that's the only one that would be funny, because they realize how most Americans would understand the term? >>I don't think the context is likely to matter a whole lot if the >>reader doesn't already associate "hooker" with a rugby position. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > more specific definition - as James added - but it's not always > necessary. Of course. Nobody's arguing that once the term is defined that way it's still a misuse. Just that the other reading is going to come first for readers that don't [snip] >> Bulldogs down Tigers in clash of prostitutes >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's too far out. Especially for you. I don't think so. To someone unfamiliar with rugby positions, those are likely to be essentially identical. There's no good reason why a a position in a game I don't follow couldn't be called a "prostitute". But let's run with "hooker" in a sports section context. Bucs' QB At Club With Australian Hooker What's the reaction in Orlando before the story is read? Besides selling a lot more papers than Bucs' QB At Club With Australian Rugby Player SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little |practice, writing can be an kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog! (650)857-7572 | Calvin http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>>All very well but would you venture to predict how the average >>>>>American would define "hooker"? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >No, the context is that it's a headline in the sports section. We disagree here. "Context", to me, is enough surround to make meaning clear. Today's sports section headline is "Worse for Wear". To ask what that means, and to receive a good answer, requires context beyond the headline. The "wear" involved here is not frayed uniform cuffs or disintegrating athletic shoes. > The >whole point of a headline is that it's supposed grab your eye and get >you to read the article. The context of a headline is the section of >the paper it's in, possibly a picture, and the reader's background >knowledge of recent events that are relevant to that section. Yeah. So? You are adding a picture as part of context. Just as I indicated in the rugby example. We need to know what event is involved for the headline to have context. > The >fact that there's very little context, combined with the fact that >they're often written in a style in which parts of speech are >ambiguous, is why they are so often amusing and incomprehensible (or >misleading) to those who *don't* have the background knowledge. I understand headlines, but they are rarely without available context. They do not, in themselves, always provide context. >You said in another article that your son played hooker and that he >gave you a bumper sticker that said "My son is a hooker". Do you >think that if he played wing or flanker he would have been able to (or >thought to) give you a corresponding bumper sticker? The other common rugby bumper stickers I've personally seen are "Give blood. Play rugby.", "It takes leather balls to play rugby", and "Support your local hooker". There are others < http://wildcat.wsc.edu/clubs/rugby/bumper_stickers/index.html > but I've not noticed them. "Hooker" is the only position that lends itself to a clever bumper sticker. >> That's too far out. Especially for you. > >I don't think so. To someone unfamiliar with rugby positions, those >are likely to be essentially identical. There's no good reason why a >a position in a game I don't follow couldn't be called a >"prostitute". It's still too far out as an example. You can do better. >But let's run with "hooker" in a sports section context. > > Bucs' QB At Club With Australian Hooker > >What's the reaction in Orlando before the story is read? Besides >selling a lot more papers than I can't tell you specifically, of course, but there are several rugby teams in town (Orlando Rugby Football Club (men), Orlando Rugby Football Club (women), Iron Horse (the team my son played for here), Griffins, Florida Rugby Union, East Side All Blacks (which are), University of Central Florida (men) and University of Central Florida (women). We have a fairly high population of former residents of the UK, New Zealand, and Australia. So, some would read it as a rugby-related headline. Some would read it as a name headline (Hooker being a last name). The rest would read down. For context. Look at the posts that appear in aue where someone is asking about a word or phrase. They are usually in full sentences. But, we ask for context. The sentence, or a headline, isn't context if it doesn't shed light on the meaning. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida [snip] >>You said in another article that your son played hooker and that he >>gave you a bumper sticker that said "My son is a hooker". Do you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I've not noticed them. "Hooker" is the only position that lends > itself to a clever bumper sticker. My favourite such ambiguity is a graffito I saw years ago in a pub loo: "Play rugby: feel a man". Peter Groves > Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > All very well but would you venture to predict how the average American > would define "hooker"? But (I think) in both Britain and Australia you will find the word "Hookers" writ large on the sides of buildings. I'm not sure what the firm does, but at one time in Britain they were my landlords. SignatureRob Bannister >> Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >"Hookers" writ large on the sides of buildings. I'm not sure what the >firm does, but at one time in Britain they were my landlords. That would be the Real Estate firm L.J. Hooker; a fictitious name dreamed up by its (Chinese) founder and derived from his love of rugby and his favourite position in the game. Tony P >> But (I think) in both Britain and Australia you will find the word >> "Hookers" writ large on the sides of buildings. I'm not sure what the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dreamed up by its (Chinese) founder and derived from his love of > rugby and his favourite position in the game. The signs are more often seen in Sydney than elsewhere, though they have some branches scattered over a wide area. Of part-Chinese ethnicity, but Australian-born. He had an interesting background: http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A140553b.htm SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au (James Joyce) >>> But (I think) in both Britain and Australia you will find the word >>> "Hookers" writ large on the sides of buildings. I'm not sure what the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > background: > http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A140553b.htm One iconic Australian brand is "Coon" cheese. I suspect that it might face certain marketing difficulties in the US. Peter Groves > One iconic Australian brand is "Coon" cheese. I suspect that it might face > certain marketing difficulties in the US. The most aged Kraft "cheddar" (yes, those are scare quotes) has a black wrapper and bears the portrait of a raccoon. When I treked to the frozen north (Indiana) in the late '60s I learned the locals called it coon cheese although that name appeared nowhere on the label. I suspected nothing at the time. Many of the slightly-eu euphemisms were not at all common in the South. I had known very well what to think when I encountered Negro Head Oysters (name and portrait on label) in Mississippi in the early '60s and was informed the label had only recently been changed. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com INCREDIBLE new art blog: http://inflagrantedilettante.blogspot.com/ > (James Joyce) How'd he get into this thread? > One iconic Australian brand is "Coon" cheese. I suspect that it > might face certain marketing difficulties in the US. The history of Coon cheese here: http://www.naturallycoon.com.au/story.html I wonder, if Mr Coon or his ancestors had migrated to the US instead of Australia, would they have had to change their name? SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au Peter Groves: > > One iconic Australian brand is "Coon" cheese. I suspect that it > > might face certain marketing difficulties in the US. There's always the approach taken by the Smucker family firm: "With a name like Smucker's, it has to be good." John Holmes: > I wonder, if Mr Coon or his ancestors had migrated to the US instead of > Australia, would they have had to change their name? Well, the US Census Bureau says that Coon was the 1,779th-most-common last name in the 1990 census. The other names ranked from 1,770th to 1,790th are Shipley, Kerns, Jorgensen, Crain, Abel, Villalobos, Maurer, Longoria, Keene, Sierra, Witherspoon, Staples, Pettit, Kincaid, Eason, Madrid, Echols, Lusk, Wu, and Stahl, most of which I've encountered somewhere as the name of real or fictional people; it's not a spectacularly rare name. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "The singular of 'data' is not 'anecdote.'" msb@vex.net | -- Jeff Goldberg My text in this article is in the public domain. >Peter Groves: >> > One iconic Australian brand is "Coon" cheese. I suspect that it >> > might face certain marketing difficulties in the US. > >There's always the approach taken by the Smucker family firm: >"With a name like Smucker's, it has to be good." There was a Saturday Night Live sketch about coining a nasty name for a new jam so that they could use that slogan. Suggestions included Nose Hair, Death Camp and Painful Rectal Itch. The sketch ended like this: "So if it's great jam you're after, try this one, the brand so disgusting you can't say it on television. Ask for it by name!" http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75qjam.phtml SignatureJames Peter Groves: >>> One iconic Australian brand is "Coon" cheese. I suspect that it >>> might face certain marketing difficulties in the US. Mark Brader: > There's always the approach taken by the Smucker family firm: > "With a name like Smucker's, it has to be good." John Holmes: >> I wonder, if Mr Coon or his ancestors had migrated to the US instead of >> Australia, would they have had to change their name? > Well, the US Census Bureau says that Coon was the 1,779th-most-common > last name in the 1990 census. The other names ranked from 1,770th > to 1,790th are Shipley, Kerns, Jorgensen, Crain... Oh, for comparison, Smucker is one of a group of 2,316 names that the data table shows as ranked 36,423th through 38,738th, but they are all listed in reverse alphabetical order, so evidently they really are all tied for 36,423th place and the table is just badly presented. A random list of 15 other names in this group includes: Acero, Bindel, Devoti, Eltzroth, Hagemeyer, Hahl, Hinaman, Kara, McClimon*, Rufino, Sieczkowski, Silha, Stai, Van Hoff*, and Wingenter. (*On these two I'm assuming the rendering; the data table is presented case-insensitively and ignores spaces within a name.) Also for comparison, Holmes ranks 145th, Groves ranks 1,242nd, and Brader apparently is one of a 1,020-way tie for 25,874th place. The top 50 names, in order, are: Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, Brown, Davis, Miller, Wilson, Moore, Taylor, Anderson, Thomas, Jackson, White, Harris, Martin, Thompson, Garcia, Martinez, Robinson, Clark, Rodriguez, Lewis, Lee, Walker, Hall, Allen, Young, Hernandez, King, Wright, Lopez, Hill, Scott, Green, Adams, Baker, Gonzalez, Nelson, Carter, Mitchell, Perez, Roberts, Turner, Phillips, Campbell, Parker, Evans, Edwards, and Collins. SignatureMark Brader | "... a movement is already under way to declare December 7 Toronto | an annual legal holiday in commemoration of the opening of msb@vex.net | hostilities." -- Ring Lardner, New York Times, 1931 My text in this article is in the public domain. > Peter Groves: >>>> One iconic Australian brand is "Coon" cheese. I suspect that it [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Nelson, Carter, Mitchell, Perez, Roberts, Turner, Phillips, Campbell, > Parker, Evans, Edwards, and Collins. Interesting to see only seven Spanish and no other continental European names up there. (Of course, there are families who adopted Waspy names in the new country, but I don't imagine they are statistically significant. Oh, except perhaps black families: they almost always have "white" names.) SignatureMike. >> The top 50 names, in order, are: Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, >> Brown, Davis, Miller, Wilson, Moore, Taylor, Anderson, Thomas, [...] >Interesting to see only seven Spanish and no other continental European >names up there. Not so. "Miller" is, in the great majority of cases, an old anglicization of "Mueller". (There are still people who pronounce it the former way and spell it the latter.) The Andersons are Scandinavian (and you probably need to include the Andersens in that count, too, since the spelling is historically variable[1]). Some of the Smiths are probably Schmidts. -GAWollman [1] There are at least six attested spellings of my name, although with a profession-based surname it's not likely that all of us are the same family. 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 skrev: > The Andersons are > Scandinavian (and you probably need to include the Andersens in that > count, too, since the spelling is historically variable[1]). Many of them no doubt are. But Anderson is a traditional name in Scotland and northern England, and it ought to have been widespread in the U.S. before the wave of Scandinavian immigrants set in. Because of this, Norwegian and Danish Andersen and Swedish Andersson would be much more likely to be anglicized than, say, Jensen. SignatureJens Brix Christiansen > Garrett Wollman skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Many of them no doubt are. But Anderson is a traditional name in > Scotland and northern England, Yes, the Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames lists these spellings in the 1400s: Androuson, Andrewson, Androwson, Androson, Anderson. Original meaning, son of Andrew. > and it ought to have been widespread in > the U.S. before the wave of Scandinavian immigrants set in. However, using Ancestry.com to check births in Massachusetts during 1630-1670 shows that the Anderson births were way outnumbered by the neighboring names on the 1990 list: Taylor 5290 Anderson 15 Thomas 3000 Andrews was much more common, with 4911, and even Andrew had 158. (These numbers are not actual births but counts of genealogical records, so they contain considerable duplication as different Ancestry.com members trace back to the same individual.) Anyway, whenever it was that Anderson made its way up the list, it wasn't there and then. Somewhere there's a surname frequency list from the 1850 census, but I don't find it now. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> Garrett Wollman skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > wasn't there and then. Somewhere there's a surname frequency list from > the 1850 census, but I don't find it now. There's one at http://www.buckbd.com/genea/1850freq.html http://www.buckbd.com/genea/1850freq.txt but it only covers 197,678 entries, so I'm not sure what its scope is. The top ten there are Smith, Brown, Miller, Johnson, Jones, Davis, Williams, Wilson, Clark, and Taylor. Anderson is 27th, between Green adn Parker. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands |to yourself. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> The top 50 names, in order, are: Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, >>> Brown, Davis, Miller, Wilson, Moore, Taylor, Anderson, Thomas, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >anglicization of "Mueller". (There are still people who pronounce it >the former way and spell it the latter.) Surely some of them are "miller" as in the English job name from at least the 1300s. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. > On Tue, 5 May 2009 21:03:27 +0000 (UTC), woll...@bimajority.org > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Surely some of them are "miller" as in the English job name from at > least the 1300s. Definitely some of them. Maybe Garrett will tell us how he knows "the great majority" are anglicized German, though, but I don't find his statement surprising. I suspect a statistically significant number of American Browns used to be Braun or Braun-etwas too. The temple I attended as a boy had members surnamed Davis, and the rabbis were Alan Green and Daniel Roberts. Lots of Gentile names as well as Jewish could become Davis and Green. However, Roberts, Robins, Robbins, and maybe Robinson are mostly Jewish (Rabinowitz etc.) if not British or black, and as ethnic Jews constitute only about 2 or 3 percent of the American population, they (we) may not contribute significantly to the populations of those names. -- Jerry Friedman >Definitely some of them. Maybe Garrett will tell us how he knows "the >great majority" are anglicized German, though, but I don't find his >statement surprising. Because millers in England were held in disrepute; millers in Germany had a better reputation. As a result, more German millers were named Mueller than English millers were named Miller, and this is reflected in the family names of those who emigrated. I believe, although not from my own personal knowledge, that if you compared public records from the appropriate periods in England and proto-Germany, you would find that proportionally more German-speakers were named Mueller than Englishmen were named Miller. -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 > Jerry Friedman wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because millers in England were held in disrepute; millers in > Germany had a better reputation. Four non-argumentative comments (Hi, Jerry!): (1) When surnames came into vogue, the reputation of the profession or occupation was irrelevant, as far as I know. Regardless of country, someone who operated or owned a mill became known in England as "Miller," in Germany "Müller," in France "Meunier," in Spain "Molinero," in Italy "Mugnaio," in Holland "Molenaar," in Sweden "Mjölnare," in Hungary "Molnár," etc. (2) Even if English millers were held in disrepute (of which I know nothing), neither a miller nor other people would call him(self) "Smith" or "Baker" or "Tailor" but "Miller" -- because he was a *miller*. > As a result, more German millers were named Mueller > than English millers were named Miller, (3) I doubt that. Couldn't the reason for the different number of English/British "Millers" vs. German "Müllers" simply be that there were far fewer mills and millers in England than there were in all the German-speaking countries, such as (proto-)Germany, Austria, much of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and bordering areas? > and this is reflected > in the family names of those who emigrated. I believe, although not > from my own personal knowledge, that if you compared public records > from the appropriate periods in England and proto-Germany, you would > find that proportionally more German-speakers were named Mueller than > Englishmen were named Miller. (4) Because, combined, there were *far more mills and hence millers* ("Müller") in all the German-speaking countries I mentioned above. Consequently, "Müller" is now a high-frequency surname in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. (If I had the skills, equipment and access to databases like Evan, I would present a list of surnames in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland to show the high ranking of "Müller" [hint, hint]. Because of the French- and Italian-speaking regions of Switzerland, I believe that "Müller" will rank lower there than in Germany and Austria.) Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ Who next month will visit his Swiss friend Joni Müller. Reinhold {Rey} Aman skrev: > (1) When surnames came into vogue, the reputation of the profession or > occupation was irrelevant, as far as I know. Regardless of country, > someone who operated or owned a mill became known in England as > "Miller," in Germany "Müller," in France "Meunier," in Spain "Molinero," > in Italy "Mugnaio," in Holland "Molenaar," in Sweden "Mjölnare," in > Hungary "Molnár," etc. Rey's point is well made, but the Swedish form "Mjölnare" is a very rare name in Sweden nowadays. In Sweden, surnames based on professions are not very common. In Denmark, on the other hand, "Møller" is the most common surname that does not end in "-sen". SignatureJens Brix Christiansen > Reinhold {Rey} Aman skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > professions are not very common. In Denmark, on the other hand, > "Møller" is the most common surname that does not end in "-sen". Thank you for your interesting information, Jens. I'm surprised that in Sweden surnames based on professions/occupations are not very common, because in most other European countries such surnames usually rank at the top. I did a quick check of the most frequent surnames in Germany, and guess what -- "Müller" is No. 1! Here are the first five of 100 common German surnames, all of which are professions: 1. Müller (= Miller) 2. Schmidt (= Smith)[*] 3. Schneider (= Tailor) 4. Fischer (= Fisher) 5. Weber (= Weaver). [*] If all the spelling variants of "Schmidt" were included (e.g., "Schmied," "Schmitt," etc.), it would be No. 1. In fact, the 14 most frequent names are professions. Details are on the German-language Wikipedia site "Liste der häufigsten Familiennamen in Deutschland" (List of the most frequent family names [surnames] in Germany): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_h%C3%A4ufigsten_Familiennamen_in_Deutschland My surname is also such a name derived from a profession and is cognate with English "ombudsman" (from Swedish "ombudsman" < Old Norse "umbothsmathr") and Celto-Germanic "ambahtmanno" > "ambetmann" > "Amtmann" > "Ammann" > "Aman." Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ >> Reinhold {Rey} Aman skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > because in most other European countries such surnames usually rank at > the top. I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong, but when I worked briefly in Sweden many years ago I was told that surnames only came into general use there in the late 1800s. Occupational names go back a very great deal later than that, by and large. Of course, Iceland still doesn't use surnames at all. With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Attending Anesthesiologist) Now happily retired. Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk >>> Reinhold {Rey} Aman skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Of course, Iceland still doesn't use surnames at all. I also understand that the Dutch didn't use surnames until Napoleon forced the people to state theirs, at which point some of them invented rude ones to annoy him. I can't remember the name, but I was told that one of them means "born nude". SignatureDavid >>>> Reinhold {Rey} Aman skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >rude ones to annoy him. I can't remember the name, but I was told that >one of them means "born nude". I certainly have personally come across several Belgians with 'silly' names. I can immediately recall a 'Pancake' (Pannekoeke), a 'Swan Lake' (Zwaanepoel) and a 'Piss' (Pee) (and there must be more). I remember it was 'Mr Pancake' (who I used to work with) who told me that they had adopted these silly made-up names just to annoy the occupying powers (which must have been Napoleon). I think that this is a Belgian thing more than Dutch. SignatureIan >>> Reinhold {Rey} Aman skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Of course, Iceland still doesn't use surnames at all. What you say about Swedish surnames is basically right. Occupational names are rare by comparison with English or German (or even Danish), and surnames based on place-names are uncommon too. Here's a list of the 100 most common surnames in Sweden: http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____31063.aspx You have to go to no. 19 to find one that isn't a patronymic: Lindberg. That's an example of the kind of surnames that people invented when they changed their name from Andersson, two elements referring to something from nature: trees, rivers, lakes, mountains, valleys, sometimes in incongruous combinations like Berggren (mountain-branch), Forsblad (waterfall-leaf), Sjöqvist (lake-twig) and Granlöf (spruce-leaf). SignatureJames >Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >2. Schmidt (= Smith)[*] >3. Schneider (= Tailor) British practice is now to distinguish between tailor and cutter. The SOED says a cutter was originally a tailor, but is now the man who measures the customer up and cuts the cloth (dated back to the late 16th century, ie Elizabethan days). I haven't noted Cutter as a surname, though. There are none in the Oxford phone book. The 13 Cutlers are of course of a different occupation. Apart from them we have one Cutmore, one Cutt, 5 Cutting and one Cutts. If surnames were attached before the Elizabethan period, and a tailor was alternatively called a cutter then, I'm a little surprised we have so many Taylors and so few Cutters. Tailleur is cutter too, of course. The Tailor and Cutter magazine used to publish a best-dressed men list each year. I wasn't in it. [...] >My surname is also such a name derived from a profession and is cognate >with English "ombudsman" (from Swedish "ombudsman" < Old Norse >"umbothsmathr") and Celto-Germanic "ambahtmanno" > "ambetmann" > >"Amtmann" > "Ammann" > "Aman." Interesting to see Amt fitting in there. SignaturePaul >> Reinhold {Rey} Aman skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > "umbothsmathr") and Celto-Germanic "ambahtmanno" > "ambetmann" > > "Amtmann" > "Ammann" > "Aman." I found the statement "Schwarz, Eigenschaft („Der Schwarzhaarige“)" a little sweeping, as I think the English name "Black" could also refer to jobs like charcoal burner, blacksmith and maybe even chimney sweep. SignatureRob Bannister >>> Reinhold {Rey} Aman skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >little sweeping, as I think the English name "Black" could also refer to >jobs like charcoal burner, blacksmith and maybe even chimney sweep. Suggested origin of the name "Black" from these sites: http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/b/bl_name-BLACK.htm Definition: 1) One who was black haired or dark complexioned. 2) A cloth dyer who specialized in black dyes. http://www.searchforancestors.com/surnames/origin/b/black.php (Origin Scottish) From a nickname for a swarthy or dark-haired man. and extracts from: http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Black This very old and famous surname, equally popular in Scotland and England, has at least two possible origins, the first being a nickname given by the invading Angles and Saxons to the native Celts and Britons who were darker-haired and darker-skinned than themselves. ... The second possible origin is as a shortened form of Black-Smith, a worker in cold metals, as distinct from a White (Smith), one who worked in hot metals. .... SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>I found the statement "Schwarz, Eigenschaft („Der Schwarzhaarige“)" a >>little sweeping, as I think the English name "Black" could also refer to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > (Smith), one who worked in hot metals. > .... I've seen it suggested somewhere that it could also come from "Blanc", and so could mean someone who was either unusually dark or unusually fair. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > > Jerry Friedman wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Four non-argumentative comments (Hi, Jerry!): ... Hi, Rey! Not to argue, but I always read your argumentative comments with interest, including the ones that I snipped. It's the insulting ones that I skip. If you care. -- Jerry Friedman Jerry Friedman wrote: [...] >> Four non-argumentative comments (Hi, Jerry!): > ... > > Hi, Rey! Not to argue, but I always read your argumentative comments > with interest, including the ones that I snipped. It's the insulting > ones that I skip. If you care. I know how much you dislike insulting posts from me and from others (especially from me) and that you skip them, but thereby you are missing some of my best stuff! Think of my posts as birds (your love): Some are nightingales, some are birds of paradise, some are mockingbirds, some are owls, some are archaeopteryxes, some are cuckoos, some are mourning doves, and some are vultures. One can learn a lot from observing the most repulsive-looking vulture hacking apart carrion like Petey Daniels. :-) ~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ Fellow Ornithophile > In article > <f6678294-f01d-4fa8-b69b-06d9213afd30@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Because millers in England were held in disrepute; millers in Germany > had a better reputation. Millers were held in disrepute for a couple of reasons, I think: there was the practical problem that it was so easy for them to cheat you by retaining some of your grain, and so you assumed that they were doing just that. The cultural prejudice against them was that they didn't _produce_ anything, in the way a farmer produces grain or a carpenter tables: they merely processed stuff, and took payment for it. For this reason they shared some of the odium that attached to early modern lawyers, money-lenders and so on. What interests me, however, is why (if you are right) these causes didn't cause German millers to be held in disrepute. Peter Groves > As a result, more German millers were named > Mueller than English millers were named Miller, and this is reflected [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -GAWollman (From two weeks ago) Peter Groves: >>> One iconic Australian brand is "Coon" cheese. I suspect that it >>> might face certain marketing difficulties in the US. John Holmes: >> I wonder, if Mr Coon or his ancestors had migrated to the US instead of >> Australia, would they have had to change their name? Mark Brader: > Well, the US Census Bureau says that Coon was the 1,779th-most-common > last name in the 1990 census. The other names ranked from 1,770th [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've encountered somewhere as the name of real or fictional people; > it's not a spectacularly rare name. Afterthought: Accidentally rereading this now, I realized that I can think of at least one example of an at least somewhat well-known American named Coon. Gene L. Coon (1924-73) was a writer and producer on the original Star Trek, and was responsible for some of its most famous elements. In reference to him and Gene Roddenberry, someone once quipped that the show was a success in part because it had "good Genes". SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "I don't have a life; I have a program." --the Doctor msb@vex.net | (Michael Piller, Star Trek: Voyager, "Tattoo") My text in this article is in the public domain. >> (James Joyce) >How'd he get into this thread? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I wonder, if Mr Coon or his ancestors had migrated to the US instead of >Australia, would they have had to change their name? The name is not particularly uncommon, even in the US. One Carleton S. Coon was an anthropologist who wrote extensively on human racial differences - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon seems to me to give an adequate account, although note the "dispute" notice at the top. Not to be confused with Carleton "Carl" Coon, retired diplomat and Humanist chaplain at Harvard, or with the late Carleton Coon, jazz musician and co-founder of the Coon-Sanders Original Nighthawk Orchestra. All three of them white, in case you were wondering. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" >>> (James Joyce) >>How'd he get into this thread? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > All three of them white, in case you were wondering. Is it permissable to have any other first name? SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >(James Joyce) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >One iconic Australian brand is "Coon" cheese. I suspect that it might face >certain marketing difficulties in the US. My mother refused to buy it because of racist overtones. She worked in Trade Marks when it was registered and there was quite a kerfuffle even way back then. She obviously sided with the nay-sayers. She knew it was eponymous but still opposed it. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. > (James Joyce) >>>> But (I think) in both Britain and Australia you will find the word [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Peter Groves There is a bigger storm than that brewing Down Under - http://tinyurl.com/chhrpt or http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/2387071/Offensive-name-dogs-Dambusters/ (not the same link - the tinyurl is to the same story in the Independent) Apteryx Robert Bannister filted: >> All very well but would you venture to predict how the average American >> would define "hooker"? > >But (I think) in both Britain and Australia you will find the word >"Hookers" writ large on the sides of buildings. I'm not sure what the >firm does, but at one time in Britain they were my landlords. "You're a hooker?...I forgot!...I just thought I was doing great with you!" - Dudley Moore in "Arthur" ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> Don wrote on Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:27 -0400: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >"Hookers" writ large on the sides of buildings. I'm not sure what the >firm does, but at one time in Britain they were my landlords. I saw "Hooker Cockram" emblazoned on a building site once. I didn't have a camera so I couldn't send it to the 'Poon (it was in the eighties). SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >Hello All! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >picture for a US English speaker. >http://tinyurl.com/cfr66l It isn't really a difference in AuE vs AmE; it's a sports-specific term that is used wherever rugby is played. My son played hooker and gave me a bumper sticker that said "My son is a hooker". To be nationalistically different, the term for that position would have to be different in each country. Rugby is played here. I recently attended a match and took this shot of a rather too-friendly tackle: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/496130929_CT6Cw-L.jpg SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
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.