 |
 | 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 2010BrE: continentals
Hello: Would a British person ever say of himself/herself, when trying to present in opposition to the Americans, and as part of Europe, that he/ she is "a Continental?" --- continental British English old-fashioned belonging to or in Europe, not including Britain: continental holidays ---- -- Thanks. Marius Hancu > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > belonging to or in Europe, not including Britain: > continental holidays No. Under no circumstances.  SignatureDavid > > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No. Under no circumstances. Nor in any circumstances. -- franzi >> > Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >Nor in any circumstances. The Brits fought the Continentals 1775-89. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The Brits fought the Continentals 1775-89. And then in 1814 we took a little trip ... SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>> Hello: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >And then in 1814 we took a little trip ... If you're interested, 1:30 pm today, BBC R4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pkbff SignatureIan >>>>>> Hello: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >If you're interested, 1:30 pm today, BBC R4: >http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pkbff Thanks. Recorder set. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>> Hello: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If you're interested, 1:30 pm today, BBC R4: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pkbff Ta. The first record I bought. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> > Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >Nor in any circumstances. Not in any circumstance? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> > Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Not in any circumstance? Never say never, but except in the unlikely circumstance of the English Channel being filled in and Britain becoming physically re-connected to the continent, no. And even then it would take a few hundred years for the usage to catch on. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>> > Hello: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >re-connected to the continent, no. And even then it would take a few >hundred years for the usage to catch on. By which time we might all be Asian or Oriental. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) BrE filted: >>Never say never, but except in the unlikely circumstance of the >>English Channel being filled in and Britain becoming physically >>re-connected to the continent, no. And even then it would take a few >>hundred years for the usage to catch on. > >By which time we might all be Asian or Oriental. No big deal...Europe's but a medium-sized peninsula on the northwestern extremity of the Asian continent anyway....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >BrE filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >No big deal...Europe's but a medium-sized peninsula on the northwestern >extremity of the Asian continent anyway....r If Europe's but a peninsula, what's Ireland? Chopped liver? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck Riggs filted: >>No big deal...Europe's but a medium-sized peninsula on the northwestern >>extremity of the Asian continent anyway....r > >If Europe's but a peninsula, what's Ireland? Chopped liver? Part of an archipelago....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > BrE filted: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No big deal...Europe's but a medium-sized peninsula on the northwestern > extremity of the Asian continent anyway....r "Comfortably the world's largest peninsula" would be more accurate. >> BrE filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "Comfortably the world's largest peninsula" would be more accurate. Surely that large peninsular that sticks up from South America is a lot bigger. SignatureRob Bannister > >> BrE filted: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Surely that large peninsular that sticks up from South America is a lot > bigger. I think we need a rule that a peninsula has to be smaller than the rest of the land mass. In that case the biggest one would probably the one south and west of Suez. -- Jerry Friedman Jerry Friedman filted: >> >> No big deal...Europe's but a medium-sized peninsula on the northwester= >n [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >rest of the land mass. In that case the biggest one would probably >the one south and west of Suez. I heard that some people with shovels cut that one free....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > >>> > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > re-connected to the continent, no. And even then it would take a few > hundred years for the usage to catch on. When she's right, she's right, you know. During the Eurostar chaos of a couple of weeks ago (3 days with no service at all), MYM (living with me here, in Brussels) turned to me during one such news report and remarked in a very matter-of-fact way, "It's 'Continent cut off' again, then." cheers, Stephanie > During the Eurostar chaos of a couple of weeks ago (3 days with no > service at all), MYM (living with me here, in Brussels) turned to me > during one such news report and remarked in a very matter-of-fact way, > "It's 'Continent cut off' again, then." What? Is YYM British? I had imagined a Brusselois, Gauloises in one hand, Leffe in the other. SignatureDavid > > During the Eurostar chaos of a couple of weeks ago (3 days with no > > service at all), MYM (living with me here, in Brussels) turned to me [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What? Is YYM British? I had imagined a Brusselois, Gauloises in one > hand, Leffe in the other. Oh, dear heavens, no! I couldn't have coped with that, really I couldn't. In fact MYM has long connections to Lytham, of all places, as do I and as did a dearly missed member of this group. But we only met here in Brussels, life being the odd and sometimes wonderful thing that it is. He doesn't mind the occasional Leffe, and he did study philosophy in Paris in the smoky past, but he has no truck with Gauloises. cheers, S in B with MYM whose birthday it is today >>> During the Eurostar chaos of a couple of weeks ago (3 days with no >>> service at all), MYM (living with me here, in Brussels) turned to me >>> during one such news report and remarked in a very matter-of-fact way, >>> "It's 'Continent cut off' again, then." >> What? Is YYM British? I had imagined a Brusselois, Gauloises in one >> hand, Leffe in the other. Having met YM, this made me giggle immoderately. He bakes a mean scone, I can report. > Oh, dear heavens, no! I couldn't have coped with that, really I > couldn't. In fact MYM has long connections to Lytham, of all places, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cheers, > S in B with MYM whose birthday it is today Belated birthday wishes to him. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> Hello: >> >> Would a British person ever say of himself/herself, when trying to >> present in opposition to the Americans, and as part of Europe, that he/ >> she is "a Continental?" The full answer to this specific question is No, we wouldn't ever describe ourselves as Continentals. In the hypothetical situation where we were taking the side of France, Germany, Italy and Spain in a dispute with America, we would describe ourselves as Europeans. We would be allying ourselves with the Continentals, who are a separate entity from us. This situation has occasionally arisen in practice in minor trade disputes with the USA. The last one that I remember was about eight years ago when Europe refused to accept beef from the USA, because the use of growth hormones in rearing beef cattle is allowed by the health laws of the USA, but prohibited by Europe. The USA retaliated with some petty trade restrictions on Europe, including a ban on British knitwear which nearly put a well known Scottish knitwear company out of business. A very well-known company, but I have forgotten its name. Can anybody help me out? Anyway, it was all sorted out a couple of months later by negotiation. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. On Jan 5, 4:39 pm, "Richard Chambers" <richard.chambers7_NoSp...@ntlworld.net> wrote: > >> Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > out? Anyway, it was all sorted out a couple of months later by > negotiation. Pringle? > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > continental holidays > ---- Subject to the usual egg-on-face rules of a.u.e., I'd say no Brit could ever claim to be "continental": the point of the expression is its exclusion of the offshore islands. And I don't find it old-fashioned. Even in AmE it can, or at any rate could formerly, refer to Europe, if Marilyn Monroe is to be trusted (and if you can't trust Marilyn Monroe, why, who _can_ you trust?) If contrast is necessary with people from other continents, Brits will admit to being Europeans. SignatureMike. On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Would a British person ever say of himself/herself, when trying to > > present in opposition to the Americans, and as part of Europe, that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If contrast is necessary with people from other continents, Brits will > admit to being Europeans. Thank you all. Marius Hancu On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > -- > Mike. Most generous of them. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Most generous of them. Brits are incontinental Europeans. SignatureJames >> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Brits are incontinental Europeans. We Brits are not active Europeans. We are on the shelf. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" >>> <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > We Brits are not active Europeans. We are on the shelf. Is there a term of abuse for people who are too pro-EU? What would be the equivalent of calling an Irishman a West Briton? SignatureJames >>>> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" >>>> <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Is there a term of abuse for people who are too pro-EU? Brussels prats. >What would be >the equivalent of calling an Irishman a West Briton? SignatureJohn > >>>> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" > >>>> <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Brussels prats. <applause> Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "We must believe in free will. We have no choice." -Isaac B. Singer >We Brits are not active Europeans. We are on the shelf. His continental damage done Marooned on an island shelf Napoleon has ten years more To think about himself. (Auden, I think). SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk On 04 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" >>> If contrast is necessary with people from other continents, >>> Brits will admit to being Europeans. >> Most generous of them. > Brits are incontinental Europeans. No sh.t? SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 04 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >>> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No sh.t? Quite the reverse. SignatureJames > > On 04 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote > >>> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > James This decidedly uncontinental old Englishman also bristles at being called "European" or indeed "British" and positively becomes incontinent at being referred to as a "Brit". >> > On 04 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >> >>> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >called "European" or indeed "British" and positively becomes >incontinent at being referred to as a "Brit". Ah. A Yorkshireman. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> On 04 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >>>>> On Jan 4, 3:01 pm, "Mike Lyle" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > called "European" or indeed "British" and positively becomes > incontinent at being referred to as a "Brit". Whereas this Englishman (for that is what I *am*, inside), is perfectly content, nay pleased, to be British and European at the same time. When you stray away from Europe you discover how European you are. SignatureDavid Mike Lyle wrote, in <hhthei$npu$1@news.eternal-september.org> on Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:01:22 -0000: > > Hello: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If contrast is necessary with people from other continents, Brits will > admit to being Europeans. It calls to mind the long ago evening newspaper poster: "Fog in channel, continent isolated". SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >Hello: > >Would a British person ever say of himself/herself, when trying to >present in opposition to the Americans, and as part of Europe, that he/ >she is "a Continental?" No, the Brits are strictly insular, Donne notwithstanding. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No, the Brits are strictly insular, Donne notwithstanding. That was one of James Joyce's misgivings about the Irish, but I wouldn't think insularity applied to the British, whose homeland ruled half the world not so long ago. Quite the opposite, whatever the opposite of insular is: cosmopolitan, I suppose. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >half the world not so long ago. Quite the opposite, whatever the >opposite of insular is: cosmopolitan, I suppose. It depends on how you look at it. The British Empire could be seen as a large scattered archipelago. Some British could be insular in respect of anything outside it: French, Germans, Italians, Greeks, and other foreigners. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>Hello: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >anything outside it: French, Germans, Italians, Greeks, and other >foreigners. A Gilbert and Sullivan song I can't remember the name of gave me that impression. ObAUE: One of my choral instructors opined their songs should be called arias, but I wasn't convinced. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > A Gilbert and Sullivan song I can't remember the name of gave me that > impression. "For he is an Englishman", from _Pinafore_. From memory, so might contain errors: For he might have been a Rooshan, Or French or Turk or Prooshan, Or perhaps I-tal-i-an. But in spite of all temptations To belong to other nations He remains an Englishman, He remains an Englishman. > ObAUE: One of my choral instructors opined their songs should be > called arias, but I wasn't convinced. Some should. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email John Varela filted: >> A Gilbert and Sullivan song I can't remember the name of gave me that >> impression. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Some should. Only the ones they wrote in Italian...the English ones should be called airs (or "aires" if you're a traditionalist)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > John Varela filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Only the ones they wrote in Italian...the English ones should be called airs (or > "aires" if you're a traditionalist)....r Buenos. SignatureRob Bannister >> John Varela filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Only the ones they wrote in Italian... and then they'd need to use an Italian plural (arie? I'm not sure, but certainly not arias). Signatureathel >John Varela filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Only the ones they wrote in Italian...the English ones should be called airs (or >"aires" if you're a traditionalist)....r The English have enough airs already. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >John Varela filted: > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The English have enough airs already. Ayres, you mean? Jan >> A Gilbert and Sullivan song I can't remember the name of gave me that >> impression. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Some should. Some in Carousel could, but when you start calling pretty songs arias, you're descending down a slippery slope. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 05 Jan 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote >>> Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ruled half the world not so long ago. Quite the opposite, > whatever the opposite of insular is: cosmopolitan, I suppose. Assuming Steve was using "insular" with its original meaning (rather than as an synonym for "illiberal" or "narrow-minded"), the cultural awareness of living on an island struck me as one of the main differences between Canada and England when I moved here. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 05 Jan 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > awareness of living on an island struck me as one of the main > differences between Canada and England when I moved here. Have you tried the Isle of Man? SignatureDavid >> Assuming Steve was using "insular" with its original meaning (rather >> than as an synonym for "illiberal" or "narrow-minded"), the cultural >> awareness of living on an island struck me as one of the main >> differences between Canada and England when I moved here. > >Have you tried the Isle of Man? Or Jersey or Guernsey? SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ On 05 Jan 2010, Wood Avens wrote >>> Assuming Steve was using "insular" with its original meaning >>> (rather than as an synonym for "illiberal" or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Or Jersey or Guernsey? See my reply to David; I don't see how the fact that other islands may have an even stronger sense of island-ness is relevant to the question of whether England is or isn't culturally insular (in the strict sense of "as opposed to continental"). SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 05 Jan 2010, Wood Avens wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >question of whether England is or isn't culturally insular (in the >strict sense of "as opposed to continental"). No, indeed; it was just that going to, and coming back from, Jersey and Guernsey was so strikingly opposite an experience, for me as a British-islander, to going to and coming back from the USA. I clearly remember thinking, when I got back from Gernsey after my first trip there, that it must be something like this for Americans visiting Britain. Not that I was necessarily right about that, simply that that's the analogy that sprang unbidden to my mind at the time. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ On 05 Jan 2010, Wood Avens wrote >> On 05 Jan 2010, Wood Avens wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > necessarily right about that, simply that that's the analogy > that sprang unbidden to my mind at the time. It was certainly the case for me, as a "non-coastal Canadian" -- it's as much a physical thing as social/cultural, of course. I grew up in Ottawa, and well into my teens our summer holiday involved driving to visit my grandparents in Manitoba. So while we were travelling long distances -- it was 3 full days of driving, each way -- our family never travelled to the coast. Obviously I learned about and saw pictures of tides and oceans and shipping and stuff. and I messed about with boats on rivers and lakes. Nonetheless, I didn't see a body of salt water or a tidal flat until I was 21. (Lake Superior has tides, but they're measured in inches and you don't notice them.) It wasn't until I was 30 -- when I was living in Wivenhoe (near Colchester) -- that I personally saw fairly large boats sitting on the mud flats when the tide was out. When you're first exposed to such things in real life as an adult (as opposed to just knowing about them from book larnin'), it can seem really quite alien. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > Obviously I learned about and saw pictures of tides and oceans and > shipping and stuff. and I messed about with boats on rivers and > lakes. Nonetheless, I didn't see a body of salt water or a tidal > flat until I was 21. (Lake Superior has tides, but they're > measured in inches and you don't notice them.) You don't have to live far from the ocean to be unaware of tides. Perth's tides rarely go over two feet and are usually much less. Tidal information is mainly for boats who need to know how strongly the tide is flowing and in which direction. SignatureRob Bannister >> Obviously I learned about and saw pictures of tides and oceans and >> shipping and stuff. and I messed about with boats on rivers and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > information is mainly for boats who need to know how strongly the tide > is flowing and in which direction. And people living on the coast who are wondering what's likely to happen next high tide if the wind stays up. SignatureCheryl (glad to be at least a short distance above sea level right now) >>> Obviously I learned about and saw pictures of tides and oceans and >>> shipping and stuff. and I messed about with boats on rivers and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And people living on the coast who are wondering what's likely to happen > next high tide if the wind stays up. Don't get the wind up. SignatureRob Bannister On 05 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote >> On 05 Jan 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Have you tried the Isle of Man? Oh, I'm not saying that other places aren't even more culturally and socially insular -- the IOW is a good example -- but I don't see that that has much bearing on whether England does or doesn't have an island-as-opposed-to-continental culture. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 05 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > see that that has much bearing on whether England does or doesn't > have an island-as-opposed-to-continental culture. Agreed. I was just offering a nearby place with an even stronger feeling of "island-ness". SignatureDavid > Oh, I'm not saying that other places aren't even more culturally > and socially insular -- the IOW is a good example -- but I don't > see that that has much bearing on whether England does or doesn't > have an island-as-opposed-to-continental culture. How does Britain's island culture compare to that of Japan? Any similarities? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > > Oh, I'm not saying that other places aren't even more culturally > > and socially insular -- the IOW is a good example -- but I don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How does Britain's island culture compare to that of Japan? Any > similarities? You were thinking perhaps of begin almost fetishistic about tea and its associated rituals? Something to do with politeness and the clever use of language? Love of seafood? > > > Oh, I'm not saying that other places aren't even more culturally > > > and socially insular -- the IOW is a good example -- but I don't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > its associated rituals? Something to do with politeness and the > clever use of language? Love of seafood? No, I was thinking of cultural similarities that distinguish them from continental nations. The items you list exist in continental Europe and east Asia. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email On 05 Jan 2010, John Varela wrote >> Oh, I'm not saying that other places aren't even more >> culturally and socially insular -- the IOW is a good example -- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How does Britain's island culture compare to that of Japan? Any > similarities? Good question. Personally, I've no idea -- never been to Japan, so all my impressions of that culture are second- or third-hand. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 05 Jan 2010, John Varela wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Good question. Personally, I've no idea -- never been to Japan, so > all my impressions of that culture are second- or third-hand. I have been to Japan for a few weeks in total, but since Tokyo extends for about 50 miles in all directions, it often feels more like Manhattan than Britain. I think you'd have to get away from the cities to get a proper feel for the native culture. SignatureDavid >> On 05 Jan 2010, John Varela wrote >>> How does Britain's island culture compare to that of Japan? Any >>> similarities? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >than Britain. I think you'd have to get away from the cities to get a >proper feel for the native culture. Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> On 05 Jan 2010, John Varela wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the > cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? For the same reason that, say, a "typical Irish house" is a little thatched, whitewashed cottage. You have to drive for miles to see one among all the mock-Tudor mansions and Dallas-style monstrosities, yet somehow these rare and unrepresentative cottages typify all that is Ireland. SignatureJames > Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the > cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? I think it has to do with the newness of the culture of large cities. People outside those areas are probably more representative of the way the culture has been over a century or two, inclucing in the cities themselves when they were smaller. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au John Holmes <seesig@instead.com>: >> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the culture has been over a century or two, inclucing in the cities >themselves when they were smaller. The built-in assumption there is that the country's past is somehow more representative than its present. If you're looking for *distinctive* characteristics, the past is a good place to look. But it's hardly "representative". SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the culture has been over a century or two, inclucing in the cities > themselves when they were smaller. Perceived newness perhaps. There are a number of cities around the world that are over two thousand years old. Very few rural settlements are the same age. SignatureRob Bannister >>> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >>> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that are over two thousand years old. Very few rural settlements are the > same age. I thought parts of Europe, and by extension, parts of the rest of the world, had rural settlements going back to the beginning of recorded time, if not before. With brief breaks for pirate raids and wars, of course, but good soil and reliable rainfall weren't so common as to prevent re-building the huts and planting the crops again in the exact same place. It's easier to spot traces of ancient cities, because the residents had time and money and often built from stone or brick. But the peasants (or at least some peasants) had probably been farming the same spot long before the people living at the nearest crossroads or port had decided to enlarge their market space in hopes of enticing more trade. SignatureCheryl >>>> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >>>> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >before the people living at the nearest crossroads or port had decided >to enlarge their market space in hopes of enticing more trade. There is a Wikipedia article on cities (of course). It makes the logical point that settlements cannot exist in nomadic societies. If families, bands or tribes need to migrate to find food for themselves or their animals then they cannot establish permanent settlements. It was the coming of agriculture that allowed people to live in a fixed location all year round. They would be spread out over the land suitable for agriculture. Towns or cities cannot come into existence until it is not necessary for almost the whole population to be involved in agriculture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities#Theories_on_agricultural_or_urban_primacy In his book, Cities and Economic Development, Paul Bairoch takes up this position in his argument that agricultural activity appears necessary before true cities can form. According to Vere Gordon Childe, for a settlement to qualify as a city, it must have enough surplus of raw materials to support trade. Bairoch points out that, due to sparse population densities that would have persisted in pre-Neolithic, hunter-gatherer societies, the amount of land that would be required to produce enough food for subsistence and trade for a large population would make it impossible to control the flow of trade. To illustrate this point, Bairoch offers an example: "Western Europe during the pre-Neolithic, [where] the density must have been less than 0.1 person per square kilometer". Using this population density as a base for calculation, and allotting 10% of food towards surplus for trade and assuming that there is no farming taking place among the city dwellers, he calculates that "in order to maintain a city with a population of 1,000, and without taking the cost of transportation into account, an area of 100,000 square kilometers would have been required. When the cost of transportation is taken into account, the figure rises to 200,000 square kilometers...". Bairoch noted that 200,000 square kilometers is roughly the size of Great Britain. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >>>>> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > to 200,000 square kilometers...". Bairoch noted that 200,000 > square kilometers is roughly the size of Great Britain. I'm not sure from what you have quoted whether these authors have given sufficient weight to the productivity obtained when farming in extremely fertile flood plains like the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Indus, Ganges and many others. It is not coincidence that the first recorded cities grew up in such apparently dangerous areas. With regard to Cheryl's comment: except in flood-prone areas mentioned above, and because few people practised fertilisation, leaving land fallow or crop rotation, most early agriculture would have had to move around every few years. The good, flood plains would have been strongly fought over until a town grew up that was sufficiently strong to hang to the land. Peter's examples suggest towns grew as trading centres, but to my mind, knowing the combative nature of humans, it is equally likely that they arose up as forts, rather like the way villages grew around Roman camps and medieval castles. SignatureRob Bannister > With regard to Cheryl's comment: except in flood-prone areas mentioned > above, and because few people practised fertilisation, leaving land > fallow Really? Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; but in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow. [Ex. 23:10-11] I've always assumed that leaving fields fallow was common practice going way back. (Although it's always struck me as odd that this seems to imply that *everybody* is supposed to leave their fields fallow at the same time, rather than just a portion.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |raising taxes? When can we say of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork |in it, it's done?" kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> With regard to Cheryl's comment: except in flood-prone areas mentioned >> above, and because few people practised fertilisation, leaving land [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > seems to imply that *everybody* is supposed to leave their fields > fallow at the same time, rather than just a portion.) I'm not sure when Exodus was written, but I don't think it was that close to the beginnings of agriculture. A common way round leaving fields fallow (this needs a verb like "fallowing") is to set fire to the thing; the other method is to move on and possibly pinch someone else's fields. All very popular. Whichever method practised, I would imagine that if everyone did it at the same time, the results would be amusing (except for women and children). SignatureRob Bannister >>> With regard to Cheryl's comment: except in flood-prone areas mentioned >>> above, and because few people practised fertilisation, leaving land [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >thing; the other method is to move on and possibly pinch someone else's >fields. All very popular. Exodus was written about the 5th century BCE. That's long after the origins of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> With regard to Cheryl's comment: except in flood-prone areas >>>> mentioned above, and because few people practised fertilisation, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Exodus was written about the 5th century BCE. That's long after > the origins of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent. Those lines are identified as "E" text by Friedman, which would put it somewhere between 922 and 722 BC (during the existence of the northern kingdom). Still well after the introduction of algriculture, of course, but I thought that the claim being challenged was I thought parts of Europe, and by extension, parts of the rest of the world, had rural settlements going back to the beginning of recorded time, if not before. Agriculture goes back a fair bit before that. And, of course, it's quite likely that the written form of E largely captures an oral history that goes back a ways before. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |_Bauplan_ is just the German word 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for blueprint. Typically, one Palo Alto, CA 94304 |switches languages to indicate |profundity. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard Dawkins (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> With regard to Cheryl's comment: except in flood-prone areas mentioned >>> above, and because few people practised fertilisation, leaving land [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I'm not sure when Exodus was written, 1958. Amazon offers a UK printing published in 1920. How do they do that? http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/u/leon-uris/exodus.htm Oh, *the other* Exodus. Never mind. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > I thought parts of Europe, and by extension, parts of the rest of the > world, had rural settlements going back to the beginning of recorded [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > before the people living at the nearest crossroads or port had decided > to enlarge their market space in hopes of enticing more trade. Not only that, but when an invader conquered a city he might do something drastic such as kill all the men and elderly and sell the women and children into slavery. Or, if less bloodthirsty, the invader might remove the population as the Assyrians did to the Lost Tribes of Israel and the Babylonians did to the people of Jerusalem. The peasants, however, remain on the land because someone has to provide food to the city, and the warlike conquerors aren't about to take up farming. The conquerors may live in the villas on the hilltops, but they are not going to go digging in the dirt; they need the peasantry for that. It follows that the rural population is more likely to have continuity over the ages than the urban population. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> I thought parts of Europe, and by extension, parts of the rest of the >> world, had rural settlements going back to the beginning of recorded [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > It follows that the rural population is more likely to have > continuity over the ages than the urban population. Tempting, but I'm not convinced. Ownership of the food-producing land would surely have been the prime object, and absentee landlords can't operate unless they've got a lot of trustworthy bailiffs, so I think that this kind of system must have come much later. Before that, take the farm, kill the farmer and his male children, maybe keep his wife, but live on the land and then with your raiding friends, build a fort that can guard the whole area. Much, much later, a market develops around the fort, the fort expands, and then your descendants can live in the town while the peasants work. The peasants' blood, however, has been much diluted by a series of invaders over the centuries, so I'm doubtful about the continuity. SignatureRob Bannister > Tempting, but I'm not convinced. Ownership of the food-producing land > would surely have been the prime object, and absentee landlords can't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > however, has been much diluted by a series of invaders over the > centuries, so I'm doubtful about the continuity. I think they've done genetic studies in Iceland and some parts of the UK showing where the respective male and female - something about almost all Icelanders (Icelandic people??) being descended from Irishwomen, and people in some area of England I've forgotten being descended from Anglo-Saxon men and Celtic women. I'm not qualified to comment on the accuracy of this research. But whether or not the latest invader contributed to the bloodline over the years, there would almost certainly be continuity among the peasants - barring complete replacement of the population by invading hordes, of course. In your example, the widow taken over by the new lord and her surviving daughters all carry the family genes. Well, except for the Y chromosome, of course. SignatureCheryl [...] > > Before that, take the farm, kill the farmer and his male children, maybe > > keep his wife, but live on the land and then with your raiding friends, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Anglo-Saxon men and Celtic women. I'm not qualified to comment on the > accuracy of this research. Me neither but, being in possession of a functioning nose, I am qualified to comment on a conclusion drawn from the research by a smirking telly academic a few weeks ago. He claimed that Iceland's genetic make-up - male Nordic, female Celtic - proves that Vikings washed more frequently than did Celts and were thus more sexually attractive to Celtic women than were their own smelly menfolk. Not rape and pillage but a bit of light pillaging followed by mass voluntary elopement. Bullshit! > But whether or not the latest invader contributed to the bloodline over > the years, there would almost certainly be continuity among the peasants > - barring complete replacement of the population by invading hordes, of > course. In your example, the widow taken over by the new lord and her > surviving daughters all carry the family genes. Well, except for the Y > chromosome, of course. You almost come close to almost mentioning evolution here so I get to mention an even stupider claim by another smirking telly academic: that evolution explains why middle-aged and elderly men dance badly at weddings. Dr Peter Lovatt, a psychology lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire, says that 'Dad Dancers' are driven by a subconscious urge to make fools of themselves and thus repel fertile young women into the arms of younger, unrelated men with better genes. This apparently confers an evolutionary advantage on the 'Dad Dancers'. 'The message their dancing sends out is "'stay away, I'm not fertile". It would seem completely unsurprising to me that since middle-aged men have passed their natural reproductive age, and probably have a family already, evolution would act to ensure they are no longer attractive to 18-year-old girls.' -- VB > [...] >>> Before that, take the farm, kill the farmer and his male [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > probably have a family already, evolution would act to ensure they > are no longer attractive to 18-year-old girls.' Do you know of any theories to explain the evolutionary advantage conferred by the behaviour of smirking telly academics? SignatureJames >Do you know of any theories to explain the evolutionary advantage >conferred by the behaviour of smirking telly academics? Is anyone monitoring their increase, like that of Hadedas, Indian Mynahs and Crowned Plovers? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> [...] >>>> Before that, take the farm, kill the farmer and his male [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >Do you know of any theories to explain the evolutionary advantage >conferred by the behaviour of smirking telly academics? Don't gorgeous young studettes tend to fall in lust with their lecturers? I thought that was one of the compensations for the lousy salaries. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >[...] >> > Before that, take the farm, kill the farmer and his male children, maybe [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >already, evolution would act to ensure they are no longer attractive >to 18-year-old girls.' Was the picture quality sufficiently clear to see if there was bulge in the cheeks of the telly academics? > Was the picture quality sufficiently clear to see if there was bulge in > the cheeks of the telly academics? The first expert probably had a slightly bulging cheek. His theory about clean and kindly Norse babe-magnets was on a light-hearted prog called _It's Only a Theory_. He was probably trying to publicize a book. The second one, though, is just an idiot. He clearly doesn't know enough about evolution to knowingly get it wrong - or indeed about anything except dancing and how to be a media whore. -- VB >> Was the picture quality sufficiently clear to see if there was >> bulge in the cheeks of the telly academics? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > called _It's Only a Theory_. He was probably trying to publicize a > book. The theory about Norse cleanliness may be inspired by the fact that the word for Saturday in the Scandinavian languages means literally "bath-day". SignatureJames > >> Was the picture quality sufficiently clear to see if there was > >> bulge in the cheeks of the telly academics? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The theory about Norse cleanliness may be inspired by the fact that the > word for Saturday in the Scandinavian languages means literally "bath-day". He mentioned that. The only other evidence he offered was, somewhat confusingly, an account by Arabs who met some Vikings and thought them, filthy. -- VB <snip> > 'The message their dancing sends out is "'stay away, I'm not fertile". > It would seem completely unsurprising to me that since middle-aged men > have passed their natural reproductive age, and probably have a family > already, evolution would act to ensure they are no longer attractive > to 18-year-old girls.' Well, it's a lot easier and a lot more fun to make up ways in which evolution causes middle-aged men to dance badly (and probably be completely unfamiliar with the dances popular with 18-year-olds) than it is to do lengthy research into comparative anatomy or some other related field! SignatureCheryl ... > You almost come close to almost mentioning evolution here so I get to > mention an even stupider claim by another smirking telly academic: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > already, evolution would act to ensure they are no longer attractive > to 18-year-old girls.' I hope he hasn't reproduced. -- Jerry Friedman >... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >I hope he hasn't reproduced. Who, the Dad or the smirking telly academic? If it's the dancing Dad he already has reproduced, and his 18-year-old offspring are looking to do so too. The only evolutionary effect that I can see is that if they were so mortified by their Dad's dancing that they failed to reproduce themselves. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:48:39 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Who, the Dad or the smirking telly academic? The STA. All the references to Dads in the post I responded to were plural, so I hoped my "he" was unambiguous. > If it's the dancing Dad he > already has reproduced, That too. > and his 18-year-old offspring are looking to do so > too. The only evolutionary effect that I can see is that if they were so > mortified by their Dad's dancing that they failed to reproduce themselves. A possible explanation for the low birth rate in our civilization? -- Jerry Friedman > [...] >>> Before that, take the farm, kill the farmer and his male children, maybe [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > already, evolution would act to ensure they are no longer attractive > to 18-year-old girls.' This does not always apply if they have pots of money. SignatureRob Bannister > You almost come close to almost mentioning evolution here so I get to > mention an even stupider claim by another smirking telly academic: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > already, evolution would act to ensure they are no longer attractive > to 18-year-old girls.' My goodness me. An honest to goodness group selectionist. Can we put him a glass case next to the plogistonist and the flat-earther? SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > > Not only that, but when an invader conquered a city he might do > > something drastic such as kill all the men and elderly and sell the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > however, has been much diluted by a series of invaders over the > centuries, so I'm doubtful about the continuity. You're assuming an invasion little above the scale of banditry. I'm assuming an invasion of the scale of Sennacherib, Xerxes, or the Visigoths. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >>> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > world that are over two thousand years old. Very few rural > settlements are the same age. There weren't many cities with populations of millions two thousand years ago. What they were then would be considered rural towns by today's standards. But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to take on a bland international urban culture. There's an element of sameness about many of them. But perhaps that is less so in Europe than elsewhere. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>>> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >>>> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >sameness about many of them. But perhaps that is less so in Europe than >elsewhere. Living in a market town, I increasingly find myself saying "Come on! You don't live in the real world!" when I hear London-based politicians and media-persons and general-purpose celebrities making pronouncements about "society" or "youth" or, well, almost anything at all. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ On 08 Jan 2010, Wood Avens wrote > Living in a market town, I increasingly find myself saying "Come > on! You don't live in the real world!" when I hear London-based > politicians and media-persons and general-purpose celebrities > making pronouncements about "society" or "youth" or, well, > almost anything at all. Where it strikes me most is in national newspaper discussions of incomes. I get the impression that even when the writers acknowledge that the average is somewhere in the £20,000s, they don't actually know anyone who earns less than about twice that. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 08 Jan 2010, Wood Avens wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that the average is somewhere in the £20,000s, they don't actually > know anyone who earns less than about twice that. And as we know, most people earn less than average. -- franzi >> On 08 Jan 2010, Wood Avens wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >And as we know, most people earn less than average. That is actually quite true for Britain. The average income here is in the order of 26,000 UKP and the median income about 14,000. If you imagine some sort of scatter diagram of incomes it would look like a cathedral, with a huge, flattened base and a very tall, thin steeple. A vast proportion earn very much less than the average and very few earn extremely large multiples of the average. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >> On 08 Jan 2010, Wood Avens wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > franzi True, but I thought government quoted "average income" was supposed to ignore the self-employed and the billionaires, so you would still expect it to be lower than it is. I've forgotten what the average income here is supposed to be, but I think it's about $AUD3000 a fortnight, which is about two and half times as much as I was earning ten years ago, so I think they're just counting mine workers' wages. SignatureRob Bannister >>> On 08 Jan 2010, Wood Avens wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > about two and half times as much as I was earning ten years ago, so I > think they're just counting mine workers' wages. I expect most governments calculate various types of averages for their own use and publication. Which any given journalist picks up and reports as 'average' meaning 'sum of incomes divided by total number of earners' is anyone's guess. You can get various measures of disparity, too. SignatureCheryl >Where it strikes me most is in national newspaper discussions of >incomes. I get the impression that even when the writers acknowledge >that the average is somewhere in the [GBP] 20,000s, they don't actually >know anyone who earns less than about twice that. They've probably met the Polish woman who cleans their flat.... This phenomenon is observed in the U.S., too. I put it down to the professionalization of jounralism. Once, journos came from the working classes, but now they come primarily from the professional classes -- they are much more likely to have immediate family members who are doctors, lawyers, real-estate agents, derivatives traders, college professors, professional activists, full-time writers, and so on. It would be unusual for a reporter today to have a brother who's a plumber or a sister who's a housemaid. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >>Where it strikes me most is in national newspaper discussions of >>incomes. I get the impression that even when the writers acknowledge [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >on. It would be unusual for a reporter today to have a brother who's >a plumber Good thing, too. It might cause friction in family because his brother earns so much more money. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Living in a market town, I increasingly find myself saying "Come on! > You don't live in the real world!" when I hear London-based > politicians and media-persons and general-purpose celebrities making > pronouncements about "society" or "youth" or, well, almost anything at > all. I do more and more of that. A majority of apparently worrying "trends" seem to have no reality in my world. Middle class parents were castigated last week for ignoring perfectly good comprehensive schools. Not around here, they don't - all but one or two of the children in my (well-off) road walk to the local state schools. SignatureDavid >> Living in a market town, I increasingly find myself saying "Come on! >> You don't live in the real world!" when I hear London-based [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > schools. Not around here, they don't - all but one or two of the > children in my (well-off) road walk to the local state schools. There's certainly a strange assumption in the Daily Mail that all the reader's children go to private schools. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >There's certainly a strange assumption in the Daily Mail that all the >reader's children go to private schools. I assume all the editors' children do. (And I don't even read British newspapers.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 Wood Avens <woodavens@askjennison.com>: >Living in a market town, I increasingly find myself saying "Come on! >You don't live in the real world!" when I hear London-based >politicians and media-persons and general-purpose celebrities making >pronouncements about "society" or "youth" or, well, almost anything at >all. Although I live of the margins of a large city, I wholeheartedly agree. Media people assume everyone else is like them. I especially dislike the inclusion of every listener in their wacky world when they say "we" do this or "we" think that. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities >have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to >take on a bland international urban culture. I see nothing bland about the mixed ethnic populations and cultures of, say, New York or Miami. Or even London. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities > >have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to > >take on a bland international urban culture. > > I see nothing bland about the mixed ethnic populations and > cultures of, say, New York or Miami. Or even London. Go to New York or Tokyo or Rome or Madrid and you'll see the same chain stores and restaurants, many of the same products on the billboards, the same sort of camera stores selling the same products, look-alike department stores and supermarkets, the same souvenir shops. It's why, as someone mentioned here, you have to get out of the city and see a thatched cottage to actually see Ireland. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email John Varela filted: >Go to New York or Tokyo or Rome or Madrid and you'll see the same >chain stores and restaurants, many of the same products on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It's why, as someone mentioned here, you have to get out of the city >and see a thatched cottage to actually see Ireland. I blame John Ford: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_Man ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> >But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities >> >have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >It's why, as someone mentioned here, you have to get out of the city >and see a thatched cottage to actually see Ireland. A quaint thatched cottage is hardly more representative of modern Ireland than Dublin, Galway or Cork. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> >But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities >> >have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >It's why, as someone mentioned here, you have to get out of the city >and see a thatched cottage to actually see Ireland. Or just get out of the commercial districts and into the neighborhoods in places like New York, Miami or San Francisco. But if you're basing your blandness levels on just the more commerical districts.... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> >But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities > >> >have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But if you're basing your blandness levels on just the more > commerical districts.... The suburban shopping centers and strip malls are the same in New York, Miami, or San Francisco. There are differences in the style of housing between, say, Phoenix and Boston, but that's more a matter of climate than culture, though I will admit that you won't see many Kokopellis in Boston. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >The suburban shopping centers and strip malls are the same in New >York, Miami, or San Francisco. There are differences in the style of >housing between, say, Phoenix and Boston, but that's more a matter >of climate than culture, though I will admit that you won't see many >Kokopellis in Boston. There is a chocolatier by that name here (actually in Natick IIRC). I doubt you'll see too many triple-deckers in Phoenix, come to think of it, yet to a first approximation, Somerville's[1] entire housing stock consists of them. -GAWollman [1] The second-most-densely-populated place in the U.S. outside of the New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, at almost 19,000 inhabitants per square mile. SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> >> >But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities >> >> >have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >of climate than culture, though I will admit that you won't see many >Kokopellis in Boston. Except for the spelling, even the suburban shopping centres of Ireland are not much different than those. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities >>have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to >>take on a bland international urban culture. > >I see nothing bland about the mixed ethnic populations and >cultures of, say, New York or Miami. Or even London. Of those, London has become the most ethnically mixed of all, from what I gather by watching BBC documentaries. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities >>>have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Of those, London has become the most ethnically mixed of all, from >what I gather by watching BBC documentaries. Someone once noted, I think The Economist, that Miami isn't even an American city. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>>But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities >>>>have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Someone once noted, I think The Economist, that Miami isn't even >an American city. Since The Economist does not have a humour column, that surprises me. And yet, the statement could not have appeared in that newspaper in a serious vein, it seems to me, since any city located in an American state is an American one, regardless of its ethnic mix. So you must be joking us. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE ... > >Someone once noted, I think The Economist, that Miami isn't even > >an American city. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > state is an American one, regardless of its ethnic mix. So you must be > joking us. The reference would be to culture, not nationality. I'm not sure I'd agree, though I must say the most recent conversation I've had in French was with an airport-limo driver in Miami. -- Jerry Friedman >> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:21:11 -0700, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> >> wrote: ... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'd agree, though I must say the most recent conversation I've had > in French was with an airport-limo driver in Miami. I'd expect everyone knows that East Los Angeles (Eess Lowss) is the third largest city in Mexico. Budda-bing, budda-boom. SignatureFrank ess >>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:21:11 -0700, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> >>> wrote: ... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I'd expect everyone knows that East Los Angeles (Eess Lowss) is the >third largest city in Mexico. And San Diego, a city I'm more familiar with, has a sizable Mexican population. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>But more what I was thinking of was the way most of the larger cities >>>>>have doubled in size in the last fifty years, and in doing so tended to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >state is an American one, regardless of its ethnic mix. So you must be >joking us. As anyone who reads The Economist regularly knows, it has a somewhat droll sense of humor, even in serious articles. In any case, the point was that the city is now almost dominated by immigrants from the Caribbean. Some years ago there was a book named "The Nine Nations of North America", in which the author divided up North American by its cultural, ethnic and econonic areas rather than by the current politital boundaries. It's quite a fascinating read despite some of the major changes that have occured since its publication. [1][2]. One of the nations it defines is the The Islands, consisting of southern Florida along with teh assorted islands from there to roughly the coast of Colombia. It's capital is Miami, which is where the movers and shakers of the area come to work out deals and finacne projects. It also defines such nations as The Breadbasket (the grain growing area of the Plains states and provinces with capital at Kansas City), The Empty Quarter (the desert and range area of the West with its capital at Denver< where mining deals are made), and MexAmerica (the area of southern California across to the Gulf of Mexico from Galveston south, capital Los Angeles). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America [2] The book defines a nation called The Foundry which consists largely of the area on both sides of the Great Lakes from northern Illinois to Toronto where most manufacturing was located. Today, of course, this would be known as The Rust Belt. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >>>> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > sameness about many of them. But perhaps that is less so in Europe than > elsewhere. I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest equivalent in every continent in the world (barring Antarctica) and not even realise you've left home. You don't even get the variations in food and dress that still existed when I first went abroad. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest >equivalent in every continent in the world (barring Antarctica) and not >even realise you've left home. You don't even get the variations in >food and dress that still existed when I first went abroad. That's American hotel chains for you. Step outside the door, though, it's often a completely different matter. Even inside the hotels, the appearance and accents of the staff are a bit of a give-away. What you do get is roughly the same type of decor and service everywhere. I believe many Americans like it that way. I'm sure many people of other nationalities do as well. When travelling rough in a strange country, it's reassuring to be able to pop into the Sheraton or similar and experience traditional western comforts and conveniences. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Even inside the hotels, the appearance and accents of the staff are a > bit of a give-away. Are they? Hotel staff are seldom locals. In a London hotel, I'd probably get an Australian to make it feel more homey. > What you do get is roughly the same type of decor and service > everywhere. I believe many Americans like it that way. Don't forget (some of) the English demanding fish and chips, tea and English beer everywhere they go. I'm sure many > people of other nationalities do as well. When travelling rough in a > strange country, it's reassuring to be able to pop into the Sheraton or > similar and experience traditional western comforts and conveniences. SignatureRob Bannister >Are they? Hotel staff are seldom locals. In a London hotel, I'd probably >get an Australian to make it feel more homey. The workers at Marriott (ack, spit) hotels have their hometown or country of birth written on their nametags. Erm, that looks bad. The "ack, spit" is for Marriott, not the unfortunates who labor there. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >>> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Are they? Hotel staff are seldom locals. In a London hotel, I'd probably >get an Australian to make it feel more homey. In Orlando, the staff is mostly local to San Juan. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >>>> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > In Orlando, the staff is mostly local to San Juan. In other words, Americans. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It's not coherent, it's merely 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |focused. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Keith Moore kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >> Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >>> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Are they? Hotel staff are seldom locals. In a London hotel, I'd >probably get an Australian to make it feel more homey. Your imagined experience in London is untypical for exactly the reason you state. Try Bangkok, Lima, Kathmandu, Helsinki, Cairo, ... >> What you do get is roughly the same type of decor and service >> everywhere. I believe many Americans like it that way. > >Don't forget (some of) the English demanding fish and chips, tea and >English beer everywhere they go. I wasn't talking about anyone "demanding" anything. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >>> Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Your imagined experience in London is untypical for exactly the reason > you state. Try Bangkok, Lima, Kathmandu, Helsinki, Cairo, ... I haven't been to most of those places. I admit that the hotel staff in Bangkok appeared to be all Thai, but in Kathmandu they all seemed to be Indian. That was quite some time ago, so by now I would expect a greater ethnic mix except in Cairo where mixing seems to have gone backwards in recent years. >>> What you do get is roughly the same type of decor and service >>> everywhere. I believe many Americans like it that way. >> Don't forget (some of) the English demanding fish and chips, tea and >> English beer everywhere they go. > > I wasn't talking about anyone "demanding" anything. SignatureRob Bannister >Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >>I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >strange country, it's reassuring to be able to pop into the Sheraton or >similar and experience traditional western comforts and conveniences. Your idea of travelling rough is different than mine, Mike. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest equivalent >in every continent in the world (barring Antarctica) and not even >realise you've left home. You don't even get the variations in food and >dress that still existed when I first went abroad. ISTR that was/is totally deliberate. I'm not sure who introduced the idea of uniformity (Conrad Hilton?). The aim was that a hotel anywhere was an extension of a familiar culture. One would feel "at home" in any one of them. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest equivalent >> in every continent in the world (barring Antarctica) and not even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was an extension of a familiar culture. One would feel "at home" in any > one of them. I have a vague memory that it was Holiday Inn. SignatureDavid >>> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest equivalent >>> in every continent in the world (barring Antarctica) and not even [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I have a vague memory that it was Holiday Inn. Conrad Hilton appears as a character in the television show "Mad Men" (about an advertising agency). Hilton tells the ad men that he intends to build hotels around the world that will allow Americans to feel at home in any of them. That's fiction, of course, but quite possibly based on Hilton's actual plans. "Mad Men" has been quite popular here, and seems to represent the era pretty faithfully according to my recollections of the 50s. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest equivalent >>>> in every continent in the world (barring Antarctica) and not even [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > plans. "Mad Men" has been quite popular here, and seems to represent > the era pretty faithfully according to my recollections of the 50s. We like it a great deal, and are looking forward to the new series which starts in a few weeks. SignatureDavid >>>>> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest >>>>> equivalent [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > We like it a great deal, and are looking forward to the new series which > starts in a few weeks. 21st January, I have it marked in my diary. After watching an episode on a plane in October, I watched the first two series over a single week and can't wait for more. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>>>> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest >>>>>> equivalent [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >a plane in October, I watched the first two series over a single week >and can't wait for more. I've found little to fault in the area of reality as I remember it. I was just entering the corporate world in 1960, and was employed by the Chicago Tribune. I have never personally observed liquor bottles set out in offices, or open drinking during business hours in offices. (Though I have known businessmen with a bottle in a desk drawer.) However, I've never been in a Madison Avenue advertising agency office. The practice may have been observed there. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > "Mad Men" has been quite popular here, and seems to represent > the era pretty faithfully according to my recollections of the 50s. Acksherly, Coop, the first season is set in 1960, and the narrative went past the Kennedy assassination late last season (the third). And yet I havd to agree with the substance of your comment, because the show does really seem to be mining the 50s for most of its context and background rather than the 60s. Perhaps that's because what we know as "*the Sixties* didn't really begin until Kennedy was assassinated. The Berkeley "free speech" riots occurred in 1964, and the wider campus revolts followed over a period of several years. The nadir was 1968, a good year to forget if you possibly can. Woodstock was 1969, as recent anniversary observances reminded us. It's even possible to argue that the Sixties didn't really end until Nixon was re-elected in 1972 and Watergate erupted soon after. Like you, I was around for both 50s and 60s (and, coincidentally, the decades to follow), and it's fun reliving them through "Mad Men." Perhaps they'll plunge into the real Sixties next season. The forgoing is a structly US-centric view, of course. SignatureBob Lieblich Ah, yes, I remember it well On 09 Jan 2010, Robert Lieblich wrote >> "Mad Men" has been quite popular here, and seems to represent >> the era pretty faithfully according to my recollections of the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > them through "Mad Men." Perhaps they'll plunge into the real > Sixties next season. Hmmm. The series holds no appeal for me whatsoever, although I sort of lived through it -- as a child, though, born in 1952. The sum total of what I remember of pre-Beatles popular culture was the music -- my sister (8 years older) playing Pat Boone and Elvis records in her room, and a bit of Chubby Checkers and early Beach Boys. It would obviously be different for those of you who were young adults at the time, but for a kid with the usual lack of control over his life, it was a grey period -- run by people who were as ancient as my just-turned-40 parents -- and it's neither far enough in the past nor fondly remembered enough for nostalgia to kick in. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 09 Jan 2010, Robert Lieblich wrote > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > ancient as my just-turned-40 parents -- and it's neither far enough > in the past nor fondly remembered enough for nostalgia to kick in. Is that a factor? I think it's great TV drama - I'm a few years younger than you so I barely remember the beginning of the 60s. But it's well written, well acted, extremely well staged, and the characters are far from one-dimensional. SignatureDavid On 09 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote >> On 09 Jan 2010, Robert Lieblich wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Is that a factor? 'Tis for me, I guess. But then, in terms of telly-watching, I'm in the distinct minority of having extreme difficulty suspending disbelief for period-set dramas.[1] What really annoys is "period" set-dressing. Real people in the 1930s/1950s didn't live in entirely 1930s'/1950s homes and offices any more than real people in 2010 have houses filled exclusively with contemporary furniture. Aunt Ida's hideous 40-year-old table will be lurking somewhere, along with a quirky 80-year-old oddity that one picked up on holiday. (Unless you're Walter Gropius. But famously, even he resorted to using a goose-neck desk lamp in his totally-designed, though- through office in the Bauhuas, because he clearly screwed up the functional lighting. If there's a Bauhaus-set drama, that goose- neck lamp bloody well better be in it.) [1] Let alone -- shudder -- drama-documentaries, which should be entirely banned along with any and all forms of "historical fiction". There. Colours nailed firmly to the mast. > I think it's great TV drama - I'm a few years > younger than you so I barely remember the beginning of the 60s. > But it's well written, well acted, extremely well staged, and > the characters are far from one-dimensional. The period it's set in gives me the creeps, is all. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >[1] Let alone -- shudder -- drama-documentaries, which should be >entirely banned along with any and all forms of "historical >fiction". There. Colours nailed firmly to the mast. I'm OK with historical fiction so long as the author makes it more than plain which three paragraphs are the "historical" bits. What really irritates me these days is the dumbing down of science programs. I used to be a big fan of "Nova"[0] but no more: when it's not "hey, look up what neat toy our defense-industry sponsors have cooked up", it's all computer-generated animation, recreations, and false drama. It wasn't nearly as objectionable twenty years ago. -GAWollman [0] British television views, compare "Horizon". Most of the "Nova" programs were originally produced for "Horizon" anyway. [1] NMF SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 > What really annoys is "period" set-dressing. Real people in the > 1930s/1950s didn't live in entirely 1930s'/1950s homes and offices > any more than real people in 2010 have houses filled exclusively > with contemporary furniture. Aunt Ida's hideous 40-year-old table > will be lurking somewhere, along with a quirky 80-year-old oddity > that one picked up on holiday. We were married in 1959. Our first apartment, a furnished apartment on N 18th St in Phoenix, was decorated in tangerine and white naugahyde. The lean-to side table in the dining area had only two legs. We had to buy furniture for our second apartment, in 1960 in Stoneham, MA outside Boston. All "Danish modern" in the living room, and a bookcase headboard in the bedroom. All the wood was walnut veneer or imitation walnut. All the styles very typical of the era. Regarding "Mad Men", which I have never watched, I assume the characters are all relatively young, single or, if married, childless, and highly paid. People like that don't have Aunt Ida's table unless it's a genuine antique or it's funky; they have the latest thing and when the style changes they replace it. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >Regarding "Mad Men", which I have never watched, I assume the >characters are all relatively young, single or, if married, >childless, and highly paid. People like that don't have Aunt Ida's >table unless it's a genuine antique or it's funky; they have the >latest thing and when the style changes they replace it. Not that it means much to the premise of this thread, but there are only two residences regularly featured in "Mad Men". One is the suburban home of an executive with a wife and children, and the other is an apartment of a young married, but childless, couple. Both reflect the styles that I associate with the period of the show. The Park Avenue apartment (Pete Campbell's) has all new and trendy (for the period) furniture. What I notice most, and what dates the decor to me, is the artwork on the walls. One example is a pair of modernistic ceramic sculptures (Cats, I think, but I don't remember the actual subjects). Other interiors are shown, but these two are most often featured. Peggy Olson's parent's Brooklyn house may have Aunt Ida's table, but I don't recall the interior scenes. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On 09 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I agree entirely that the set designers completely miss the point when aiming for "autheticity". I remember the Sherlock Holmes series of the 80s/90s Sherlock picked up a cricket bat that was supposedly contemporary but was in reality a museum piece that looked old and discoloured and was obviously a century old. Sherlock would have used a bat that was clean, white and fresh. etc. On 11 Jan 2010, Redshade wrote >> What really annoys is "period" set-dressing. Real people in >> the 1930s/1950s didn't live in entirely 1930s'/1950s homes and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> screwed up the functional lighting. If there's a Bauhaus-set >> drama, that goose- neck lamp bloody well better be in it.) -snip- >> - Show quoted text - > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was clean, white and fresh. > etc. Agreed; that's a complaint I also have with performances of music on "original" (as opposed to "authentic") instruments. I recall hearing a recording of some Chopin performed on a Pleyel that he was known to have played -- but it sounded, predictably, like a 150-year-old instrument (with a dead sound board), which wouldn't have been anything near what it sounded like when Chopin played it. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 11 Jan 2010, Redshade wrote >> I agree entirely that the set designers completely miss the >> point when aiming for "autheticity". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> was clean, white and fresh. >> etc. Even assuming that the production team recognised that problem the cost of having an authentic-looking replica made might have been excessive. >Agreed; that's a complaint I also have with performances of music >on "original" (as opposed to "authentic") instruments. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >wouldn't have been anything near what it sounded like when Chopin >played it. Making a new piano to a 150-year-old design would be even more expensive than making a cricket bat to a 100-year-old design. Apart from the obvious differences in size and complexity, the bat would need only to look right whereas the piano would need to be functional and to sound right. There is obvious curiosity value in playing a piece of Chopin on a piano that Chopin had used. There might even be some interest in owning such a recording but as an object rather than as a recording to be listened to. There may not be a big market for "Genuine Replica Pleyel Pianos as played by Frederic Chopin". Are the people who might like to own one able to afford the price? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 11 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote -snip- s >> Agreed; that's a complaint I also have with performances of >> music on "original" (as opposed to "authentic") instruments. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > as played by Frederic Chopin". Are the people who might like to > own one able to afford the price? All very true, andd I agree they have curiousity value (freak-show value, in my view); but it didn't seem to stop people recording the things a few years back (which is when I recall hearing them). Admittedly, I could be out of date on this -- perhaps the craze for this particular party trick fizzled out once people realised how crummy the instruments sounded. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed On Jan 11, 11:48 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >On 11 Jan 2010, Redshade wrote > >> I agree entirely that the set designers completely miss the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Peter Duncanson, UK > (in alt.usage.english) If the incongruity had been noticed by the production team then I am sure that a studio carpenter, used to more challenging pieces of designery, would have knocked up a Victorian style bat ( out of Willow or even Balsa) in next to no time. Or perhaps even retro-engineered a modern machine-made (ie cheap) one. In message <505c412d-14d3-4409-9852-f8a098e3a6fe@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Redshade <stephenwild3@hotmail.com> writes >> On 09 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >fresh. >etc. It's surprising how many Jane Austin 'period dramas' take place in well-worn and dilapidated 17/18 century houses and churches. SignatureIan >It's surprising how many Jane Austin 'period dramas' take place in >well-worn and dilapidated 17/18 century houses and churches. If that drama genre can be guaranteed to thrive for the next few decades there might be a future in a business offering newly-built 17/18-century-style houses and churches for use as sets. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>It's surprising how many Jane Austin 'period dramas' take place in >>well-worn and dilapidated 17/18 century houses and churches. > >If that drama genre can be guaranteed to thrive for the next few decades >there might be a future in a business offering newly-built >17/18-century-style houses and churches for use as sets. Indeed. We're definitely in the wrong business! SignatureIan > Redshade <stephenwild3@hotmail.com> writes >>I agree entirely that the set designers completely miss the point >>when aiming for "autheticity". I remember the Sherlock Holmes >>series of the 80s/90s Sherlock picked up a cricket bat that was >>supposedly contemporary but was in reality a museum piece that >>looked old and discoloured and was obviously a century old. Sherlock >>would have used a bat that was clean, white and fresh. etc. > It's surprising how many Jane Austin 'period dramas' take place in > well-worn and dilapidated 17/18 century houses and churches. The most extreme example I can think of is the film version of _Jesus Christ Superstar_, which was filmed on the ruins of an ancient city in Israel. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Well, if you can't believe what you 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |read in a comic book, what can you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |believe?! | Bullwinkle J. Moose kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Redshade <stephenwi...@hotmail.com> writes > >>I agree entirely that the set designers completely miss the point [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's surprising how many Jane Austin 'period dramas' take place in > > well-worn and dilapidated 17/18 century houses and churches. Are there well-preserved 17th- and 18th-century buildings to film in? Or should the producers recreate some? > The most extreme example I can think of is the film version of _Jesus > Christ Superstar_, which was filmed on the ruins of an ancient city in > Israel. Well, they weren't exactly trying to reproduce the look of the period. -- Jerry Friedman No, wait. We need a more permanent solution to our problem. >I agree entirely that the set designers completely miss the point when >aiming for "autheticity". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >fresh. >etc. That's kind of like movies filmedin Greece and set in ancient Greece with scenes filmed at the ruins of temples. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> "Mad Men" has been quite popular here, and seems to represent >> the era pretty faithfully according to my recollections of the 50s. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The forgoing is a structly US-centric view, of course. The Sixties began with "Love Me Do" in 1962. This week I saw "Nowhere Boy", about John Lennon's early life. Fine acting from Anne Marie Duff as his mother and Kristin Scott Thomas as his aunt but a trivial film with many inaccuracies obvious to an aficionado - clearly made by a director too young to have experienced those times (and too in love with the handsome lead). SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > Conrad Hilton appears as a character in the television show "Mad Men" > (about an advertising agency). Hilton tells the ad men that he > intends to build hotels around the world that will allow Americans to > feel at home in any of them. There was a Hilton in Madrid when I visited in 1953. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > "Mad Men" has been quite popular here, and seems to represent > the era pretty faithfully according to my recollections of the 50s. My wife has been watching it and marvels at how well they have recaptured the ladies' styles of the time. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email On 09 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote >>> I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest >>> equivalent in every continent in the world (barring [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I have a vague memory that it was Holiday Inn. I think a number of chains had that as a selling point, but Holiday Inn stressed it more than the others by using the slogan "No Surprises". I don't know who developed the idea first, but ISTR reading somewhere that Howard Johnson hotels introduced complete standardisation at a fairly early date. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >I don't know who developed the idea first, but ISTR reading >somewhere that Howard Johnson hotels introduced complete >standardisation at a fairly early date. Howard Johnson also invented the casual-dining chain restaurant (and hired Jacques Pepin to work out the formulas in his commissary). -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 > On 09 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > somewhere that Howard Johnson hotels introduced complete > standardisation at a fairly early date. It's clearly what people still want. I do enough travelling with business, which nearly always puts you into safe and boring chains, so when I spend my own money I go to more interesting, family owned, places. When you look them up on websites like TripAdvisor they are full of complaints about there not being ice machines on every floor, or (to pick a couple of comments from a couple of places I've loved staying in): "the pub was dirty and full of dogs so was not a clean place to eat and drink," "Did not eat here apart from a luke warm and tasteless breakfast" (that was about a month before I stayed there, and had the second best hotel breakfast of my life). ""there are no water temperatures readings displayed" (about the pool), "We were never asked on any feedback or there is no questionnare" It's hard to pin it down with selected quotes, but you really do get a feeling that a lot of people want it stamped out of the standard box and whinge like hell when it's not. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk On 11 Jan 2010, Nick wrote >> I don't know who developed the idea first, but ISTR reading >> somewhere that Howard Johnson hotels introduced complete [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > get a feeling that a lot of people want it stamped out of the > standard box and whinge like hell when it's not. One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good meals (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's intentionally and obviously run very much as a food-serving pub and not a pub-with-a-restaurant-attached. They get people ordering food, and then complaining that the people at the next table are talking a bit loudly and drinking beer. (I know what you mean about TripAdvisor, as well -- very useful site, but I often read a comment and catch myself thinking "HHmmm...a negative; maybe I should reconsider...hang on, we've got a dyed-in-wool complainer here..." SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good > meals (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's > intentionally and obviously run very much as a food-serving pub and > not a pub-with-a-restaurant-attached. They get people ordering > food, and then complaining that the people at the next table are > talking a bit loudly and drinking beer. This is a bit like people who buy or build houses next to airports and then complain about the aircraft noise. SignatureRob Bannister >> One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good >> meals (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This is a bit like people who buy or build houses next to airports and > then complain about the aircraft noise. Britain has a small population of people who move to houses next to churches and then try to get the bells banned. See also those who move to villages and complain to the council about cocks crowing. SignatureMike. >>> One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good >>> meals (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > churches and then try to get the bells banned. See also those who move > to villages and complain to the council about cocks crowing. They must have been here too. I think church bells are totally banned here in Western Australia. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good >>>> meals (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > They must have been here too. I think church bells are totally banned > here in Western Australia. I think in Ontario, and sometimes here, it's farms, especially pig farms. Somehow, new purchasers don't notice the farm until after they buy. I'm not sure how you don't notice a pig farm, particularly if you are downwind. SignatureCheryl >>>>> One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good >>>>> meals (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I'm not sure how you don't notice a pig farm, particularly if you are >downwind. Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> I'm not sure how you don't notice a pig farm, particularly if you are >> downwind. > > Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? Frequently. You get used to it, eventually, or so people who live with it say. I merely visited fairly regularly over a period of some years. SignatureCheryl >>> I'm not sure how you don't notice a pig farm, particularly if you are >>> downwind. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You get used to it, eventually, or so people who live with it say. I > merely visited fairly regularly over a period of some years. That works with pig farms and glue factories if you live long enough. I'm not sure about paper mills. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> I'm not sure how you don't notice a pig farm, particularly if you are >>>> downwind. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That works with pig farms and glue factories if you live long enough. >I'm not sure about paper mills. My first time in Brunswick, Georgia I was almost overcome by the smell. In the restaurant I stopped in for lunch I mentioned this to the waitress who was puzzled at my comment. She was beyond noticing it. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> I'm not sure how you don't notice a pig farm, particularly if you >>>> are downwind. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That works with pig farms and glue factories if you live long enough. > I'm not sure about paper mills. Years ago, when they were still whaling, I was travelling with my family when we passed a fish plant where they were dealing with a whale. Now, that's a smell that catches your attention! From time to time, coastal communities still have to deal with it when a whale dies naturally close enough to wash ashore - without anyone actually making an effort to dispose of the carcass, because everyone is arguing over (1) who is legally responsible for cleaning up the beaches and (2) does anyone who can plausibly be landed with the job under (1) actually have the equipment and know-how to deal with such a large carcass now that there aren't fish plants that do it professionally. I believe mink farms have a strong smell too. SignatureCheryl > Years ago, when they were still whaling, I was travelling with my > family when we passed a fish plant where they were dealing with a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a large carcass now that there aren't fish plants that do it > professionally. You use dynamite, of course. <http://www.snopes.com/critters/disposal/whale.asp> Brian SignatureDay 346 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project >>>>> I'm not sure how you don't notice a pig farm, particularly if you >>>>> are downwind. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I believe mink farms have a strong smell too. The Cheynes Beach Whaling Company was still operating when I moved to Albany in 1974 and didn't close till the end of 1978, so I am very familiar with that smell. You actually get used to it very quickly, but it never seems to wash out of your clothes. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> I'm not sure how you don't notice a pig farm, particularly if you are >>>> downwind. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That works with pig farms and glue factories if you live long enough. >I'm not sure about paper mills. No matter how long I live, I will never be able to get used to the smell of farts, pig farms, paper mills or glue factories, in order of increasing virulence. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> You get used to it, eventually, or so people who live with it say. I >> merely visited fairly regularly over a period of some years. > > That works with pig farms and glue factories if you live long enough. Don't know about glue factories, but I have never had a problem with the smell from pig farms at all. I grew up in the Lincolnshire and Cheshire countryside, and, although there is often a smell of pigs from land in between Kidsgrove and Church Lawton (on the bus in between Stoke-on-Trent and Crewe), I don't recall that from my childhood. In fact, I think the smell from pig farms is merely just a sign that one is in the countryside, and I don't find it at all objectionable. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. >Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? I first read that as "pepper mill". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? > > I first read that as "pepper mill". Bless you (in case you sniffed). SignatureRob Bannister >>Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? > >I first read that as "pepper mill". The line was adapted from one of my favourite Dylan songs: http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/i-went-out-one-morning SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>> One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good >>>>>> meals (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? I lived for several years in Emporia, Kansas, in a neighborhood across the highway from an Iowa Beef packing plant, complete with stockyards and abattoir. The smell was bad enough when the wind blew from that direction, but if they were also cooking the blood...... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? Of 50 miles downwind of one. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? > >Of 50 miles downwind of one. I grew up living between two very large paper mills at Sittingbourne (1 mile and 2 miles resp.) and don't remember much of a smell, but the sausage and pie factory at Calne and the lino factory at Staines could make your eyes water at 3 miles! Bob Martin wrote, in <tEz3n.25854$Ym4.25066@text.news.virginmedia.com> on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:24:09 GMT: > >>Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but the sausage and pie factory at Calne and the lino factory at Staines > could make your eyes water at 3 miles! My grandfather lived from ~1880 to his death in 1937 about 300 yards from the family firm's paper mill at South Darenth. My father was born there. I was often there as a small child and I remember no smell. The mill was still working when I visited in 1995 but is now closed. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >Bob Martin wrote, in <tEz3n.25854$Ym4.25066@text.news.virginmedia.com> > on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:24:09 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >there. I was often there as a small child and I remember no smell. The >mill was still working when I visited in 1995 but is now closed. What IS the smell which is being complained of? Chlorine? SignatureIan >> Bob Martin wrote, in <tEz3n.25854$Ym4.25066@text.news.virginmedia.com> >> on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:24:09 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What IS the smell which is being complained of? Chlorine? Sulphur. Well, it's more like sulphur than anything else - burning sulphur giving an acidic taste in the back of your throat, not the yellow powder in school labs. It must do a marvellous job clearing the sinuses, but not surprisingly, is alleged to be associated with various lung ailments. I wrote 'sulfur' but my spell-checker didn't like it. I suppose that's a UK/US difference. SignatureCheryl >>> Bob Martin wrote, in <tEz3n.25854$Ym4.25066@text.news.virginmedia.com> >>> on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:24:09 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >sinuses, but not surprisingly, is alleged to be associated with various >lung ailments. Good job, Cheryl; I couldn't improve on your description of the smell. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >but the sausage and pie factory at Calne and the lino factory at Staines >could make your eyes water at 3 miles! Is it possible that we're faling to distinguish betweed a pulp mill, with emissions that smell and kill all the trees downwind, and a paper mill, which processes paper into a variety of products, and which may or may not include a pulp mill? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? >>> Of 50 miles downwind of one. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and a paper mill, which processes paper into a variety of > products, and which may or may not include a pulp mill? There's a kind of paper mill that's NOT a pulp mill with the associated aroma? I really didn't know that. I mean, I knew that there were factories that produced boxes, writing paper, newspapers, and other paper products, but I wouldn't have called them 'paper mills'. I'd have called them box factories, printers, etc. But I don't know that I've ever actually seen one. SignatureCheryl >>>>Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >and a paper mill, which processes paper into a variety of >products, and which may or may not include a pulp mill? No, the two mills I referred to were timber in, paper out. The Sittingbourne mill was founded by Edward Lloyd but at the time I lived there both that and the Kemsley mill were owned by Bowaters, and between them produced nearly all the paper used by London-printed newspapers. > Chuck Riggs wrote: >> Have you ever sniffed the air around a paper mill? > > Of 50 miles downwind of one. I've spent considerable amount of time around Everett, WA. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good >> meals (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >This is a bit like people who buy or build houses next to airports and >then complain about the aircraft noise. In all fairness, though, I think people who moved next to an airport in the propellor age have some righ to complain about the noise of jets taking off or arriving. I believe LAX had to buy the homes on land from the west end of its runways to te ocean because of the increased noise of the jet age. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good >>> meals (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > airport in the propellor age have some righ to complain about the > noise of jets taking off or arriving. Very true, but that simply is not what is happening today where greedy developers and councils (or whoever is responsible for allowing the building) are creating new suburbs around existing airports. I admit the biggest furore here in Perth is around the light aircraft airfield - I remember when it was tucked away among swampy fields with a few dismal horses and cows and, yes, it was mainly used by propeller engined planes. Today, "light aircraft" includes every businessman's and crook's private small jet, but there was still no excuse for allowing housing development all round it. Eventually, most cities have to build a new airport - usually an huge distance away and sometimes halfway to the next city, so they can share. That's when you can see the greed in action: someone gets the word on where it's going to be, and next minute, they've got the plans drawn up of a new housing subdivision. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> One of our local pubs finds the same -- they do extremely good meals >>>> (fresh ingredients, well-cooked, well-presented), but it's [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > where it's going to be, and next minute, they've got the plans drawn up > of a new housing subdivision. There was a really massive propane explosion in Toronto a year or so ago, across the street from a residential neighbourhood. I thought at first that the propane storage facility must have pre-dated the neighbourhood - there's a bit of light industry in that general area - but I heard later that it didn't - there were varying reports on whether the business had set up before the housing was built, or the business was set up under zoning that existed when the housing was built. Someone thought it was a good idea to approve the storage of lots and lots of propane, and someone else got a bit slack with the safety inspections. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/10/propane-fire.html SignatureCheryl [No Surprises] > It's clearly what people still want. I do enough travelling with > business, which nearly always puts you into safe and boring chains, You could stay in bordellos. L'amour unit ceux qu'enchaînent les affaires. [...] >>I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest equivalent >>in every continent in the world (barring Antarctica) and not even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >was an extension of a familiar culture. One would feel "at home" in any >one of them. Like airport waiting rooms. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>I'm sure it's possible to stay in the Hilton Hotel or nearest equivalent >>in every continent in the world (barring Antarctica) and not even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >was an extension of a familiar culture. One would feel "at home" in any >one of them. When we went to Germany for a couple of weeks a few years back when we spent the summer in Finland,we stayed largely Ibis hotels in Koeln, Muenchen and Berlin, and found no two were alike, although they did have somewhat modern interiors. But the Queens Hotel in Stockholm wasn't very American looking (although they had installed en suite loos). Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >When we went to Germany for a couple of weeks a few years back >when we spent the summer in Finland,we stayed largely Ibis hotels >in Koeln, Muenchen and Berlin, and found no two were alike, >although they did have somewhat modern interiors. I spent a night in the Ibis hotel in Cologne. ("Koeln" to you more Continental types) My room was a dreary little box utterly devoid of *any* personality. I stole an ashtray from there. I still have the ashtray, and that's the only reason I remember it was an Ibis hotel. Convenient to the train station, though. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>When we went to Germany for a couple of weeks a few years back >>when we spent the summer in Finland,we stayed largely Ibis hotels [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I spent a night in the Ibis hotel in Cologne. ("Koeln" to you more >Continental types) Tourists who know the city spell it Köln, Coop. <snip> SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>When we went to Germany for a couple of weeks a few years back >>>when we spent the summer in Finland,we stayed largely Ibis hotels [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Tourists who know the city spell it Köln, Coop. I'd spell it that way, too, if "ö" were easier to type on my computer. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>>When we went to Germany for a couple of weeks a few years back >>>>when we spent the summer in Finland,we stayed largely Ibis hotels [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I'd spell it that way, too, if "ö" were easier to type on my >computer. The accorhotels.com uses both spellings. "Koeln" up by the red logo and in the message from the manager, and "Köln" in the text. http://www.accorhotels.com/gb/hotel-1449-ibis-koeln-centrum/index.shtml SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper filted: >The accorhotels.com uses both spellings. "Koeln" up by the red logo >and in the message from the manager, and "Köln" in the text. You can have your umlaut with the vowel, or served on the side....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>>>>When we went to Germany for a couple of weeks a few years back >>>>>when we spent the summer in Finland,we stayed largely Ibis hotels [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >and in the message from the manager, and "Köln" in the text. >http://www.accorhotels.com/gb/hotel-1449-ibis-koeln-centrum/index.shtml IINM, Koeln was the spelling of Köln that either the occupying Americans or the Germans, I don't know which, coined after WWWII, handy for dummkophs who couldn't handle umlauts. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck Riggs a écrit : [...] > IINM, Koeln was the spelling of Köln that either the occupying > Americans or the Germans, I don't know which, coined after WWWII, > handy for dummkophs who couldn't handle umlauts. The spelling "Koeln" is the historically much older spelling, I think. In the Middle Ages, people wrote it thus, "Koeln", or they put in a very small "e" just above the "o", to show that the pronunciation was different from an ordinary "o". Germans at one point developed a form of handwriting in which the letter "e" very much looked like what I would recognize as an "n". See for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCtterlin#Overview_of_the_letters When that type of "e" was written as a superscripted letter, its two vertical bars became the two bars of the modern sign for the umlaut. By the way, Chuck, I liked your "WWWII". There's an eery science-fiction feel to it. SignatureIsabelle Cecchini Isabelle Cecchini a écrit : [...] > The spelling "Koeln" is the historically much older spelling, I think. > In the Middle Ages, people wrote it thus, "Koeln", Maybe not. It might have been something like "Coellen", rather. > or they put in a very > small "e" just above the "o", to show that the pronunciation was > different from an ordinary "o". My main point stands. SignatureIsabelle Cecchini > By the way, Chuck, I liked your "WWWII". There's an eery science-fiction > feel to it. I thought it was that new game console thing. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> By the way, Chuck, I liked your "WWWII". There's an eery science-fiction >> feel to it. > >I thought it was that new game console thing. He was looking to the future: World Wide War Eleven is the one that enables the cockroaches to be masters of the universe (if, in fact, they're not already). SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>> By the way, Chuck, I liked your "WWWII". There's an eery science-fiction >>> feel to it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enables the cockroaches to be masters of the universe (if, in fact, > they're not already). I thought there had to be a dot after <www>. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> By the way, Chuck, I liked your "WWWII". There's an eery science-fiction >>>> feel to it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I thought there had to be a dot after <www>. No. The use of www is a custom. Not all websites use it. Some websites have multiple servers named www1, www2, www3, etc. with identical content and the load being automatically distributed between them. You might go to www.[...] and discover that the url shown by your browser is www3.[...]. On another occsion you could go to the same url www.[...] and arrive at www1.[...]. Some urls do not include www in any form. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Chuck Riggs a écrit : > [...] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > put in a very small "e" just above the "o", to show that the > pronunciation was different from an ordinary "o". Looking at Google Books, I see "Koeln" back to a list of cities in the _Historische Litteratur für das Jahr 1781_ (published that year). The prior year, Friedrich Ekkard's _Litterariches Handbuch der bekanntern hoehern Lehranstalten in und auffer Teutschland, in statistisch-chronologischer Ordnung_ has it with an "oe" ligature. (Also used in the title.) I see "Köln"[1] back to something dated 1559, so both forms clearly persisted. [1] Or perhaps "Cöln". I'm not good at reading Fraktur and there seem to be several different forms of both "C" and "K" in the text, this being an uncommon one. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to display clothes aren't hired for Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired |for their resemblance to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger. (650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Chuck Riggs a écrit : >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > to be several different forms of both "C" and "K" in the text, > this being an uncommon one. Whatever Fraktur is, Evan, the Cöln spelling is a new one on me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>I see "Köln"[1] back to something dated 1559, so both forms clearly >>persisted. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Whatever Fraktur is, Evan, the Cöln spelling is a new one on me. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraktur_(script) Perhaps I should have said "Gothic" or "Blackletter" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackletter although Wikipedia says "Fraktur is a notable script of this type, and sometimes the entire group of faces is known as Fraktur." It's a form of typeset letters that was used for German into the 20th century, centuries after the rest(?) of Europe had switched to Roman type. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Chuck Riggs a écrit : >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Whatever Fraktur is, Evan, the Cöln spelling is a new one on me. From, I suppose the Roman name of the place, "Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium" Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:33:40 +0000, Chuck Riggs > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > From, I suppose the Roman name of the place, "Colonia Claudia Ara > Agrippinensium" Given the Roman penchant for planting colonies of ex-legionaries here and there in the provinces and subjugated lands, to bring some gravitas to those natives who needed to be overlooked, it's surprising that there aren't as many Colognes in the old empire as there are Alexandrias in Greater Macedonia. You could say much the same about Baths. The Germans really took to them, with Baden, Baden-Baden, and probably Baden-Baden-Baden in the planning stage. Last year in Marienbad taught me a game played with matchsticks. -- franzi On Jan 13, 11:15 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:33:40 +0000, Chuck Riggs > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > -- > franzi Am I allowed to say Cologne? There seems to be no complaints when I say "Munich" and not "Munchen"; "Florence" and not "FIrenza" and I surely cannot insist that the french stop saying "Londres". So I shall continue to say "Bombay" and "Peking" whether or not the self-appointed PC media nazis deem this to be "correct" or no. PS When I were a lad my Mother cooked chips in beef dripping whereas the local chip shop used pig lard. The difference was instantly noticed on the palette as was the subsequent change to vegetable oil. On an 80s football trip to Belgium we purchased chips from street vendors that were thrown away at the first taste as being "rank" only learning later that they were fried in (cheap) horse grease >On Jan 13, 11:15 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >Am I allowed to say Cologne? When here in the US, "Cologne" is perfectly acceptable to other Americans. The city becomes "Köln" when you go there. You go to Cologne, but send a postcard from Köln. > The difference was instantly >noticed on the palette as was the subsequent change to vegetable oil. Ouch. "Palate", not "palette", unless you smeared the stuff on a board and tried to paint with it. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>Am I allowed to say Cologne? > >When here in the US, "Cologne" is perfectly acceptable to other >Americans. The city becomes "Köln" when you go there. You go to >Cologne, but send a postcard from Köln. I rather think it would depend on whether Germany or France currently holds Alsace-Lorraine. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > When here in the US, "Cologne" is perfectly acceptable to other > Americans. The city becomes "Köln" when you go there. You go to > Cologne, but send a postcard from Köln. Of course, in a small office, cologne can become quite offensive. Funny stuff water: eau de toilette, de cologne, de nil, de vie. SignatureRob Bannister >On Jan 13, 11:15 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >vendors that were thrown away at the first taste as being "rank" only >learning later that they were fried in (cheap) horse grease We've discussed the spellings and pronunciations of foreign city names many times in this newsgroup, arguing back and forth whether it is best to use the native versions or the anglicized ones. The discussions in such threads often get emotional, I have noticed, perhaps because the choice of names is largely a matter of taste. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE In message <7459cd06-b9c5-41cd-8cbb-385949f57a63@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, franzi <et.in.arcadia.franzi@googlemail.com> writes >Given the Roman penchant for planting colonies of ex-legionaries here >and there in the provinces and subjugated lands, to bring some >gravitas to those natives who needed to be overlooked, it's surprising >that there aren't as many Colognes in the old empire as there are >Alexandrias in Greater Macedonia. I need to read that a couple of times before I realised that "overlooked" should be "overseen" (I think). An interesting difference in meaning. >You could say much the same about Baths. The Germans really took to >them, with Baden, Baden-Baden, and probably Baden-Baden-Baden in the >planning stage. In the UK, 'Streetmap' only lists two places called "Bath". There was obviously not a lot of washing done in the olden days. First, there's the obvious one in Wiltshire (not far from Bristol), where the Roman baths are. The another one listed is in Scotland, in Fife. However, the arrow on the map points to a place called "Bogside". I'm assuming that the Scots had to make do with the next-best thing. >Last year in Marienbad taught me a game played with matchsticks. >-- SignatureIan On Jan 14, 9:08 am, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <7459cd06-b9c5-41cd-8cbb-385949f57...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "overlooked" should be "overseen" (I think). An interesting difference > in meaning. There's a definition by Oxford "Watch over officially, superintend, oversee" dated to late Middle English. And this being a.u.e, how could I resist? > >You could say much the same about Baths. The Germans really took to > >them, with Baden, Baden-Baden, and probably Baden-Baden-Baden in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the map points to a place called "Bogside". I'm assuming that the Scots > had to make do with the next-best thing. I'm in two minds as to the hygiene of our common practice of placing the water closet and the bath in the same room. The Romans kept the places for the two bodily functions better separated, at least as far as our excavations show. -- franzi > I'm in two minds as to the hygiene of our common practice of placing > the water closet and the bath in the same room. The Romans kept the > places for the two bodily functions better separated, at least as far > as our excavations show. I'm still a little bothered by the modern habit of putting the shittery inside the house. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > I'm in two minds as to the hygiene of our common practice of placing > > the water closet and the bath in the same room. The Romans kept the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm still a little bothered by the modern habit of putting the shittery > inside the house. Call a spade a spade, and you'll never be short of something to dig the soakaway with. -- franzi >> I'm in two minds as to the hygiene of our common practice of placing >> the water closet and the bath in the same room. The Romans kept the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'm still a little bothered by the modern habit of putting the shittery >inside the house. Better than poisonous spiders under the dunny seat :-) On Jan 14, 3:55 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I'm in two minds as to the hygiene of our common practice of placing > the water closet and the bath in the same room. The Romans kept the > places for the two bodily functions better separated, at least as far > as our excavations show. In the US, there's a trend toward having large master bathrooms contain two rooms. The first small room contains the sink; the next, larger room contains the toilet and the bath/shower. I find this very odd. I could see the appeal in having the first room with both toilet and sink--that would allow someone to use the facilities while another person is taking a very long shower or bath. But that's not how it's done, and the separation as actually done seems fairly useless to me. > On Jan 14, 3:55 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But that's not how it's done, and the separation as actually done > seems fairly useless to me. When I was in Europe many years ago, some people had one room for a toilet and sink, and a second room for the bathtub and/or shower. I commented on it once, and the person whose apartment it was expressed surprise that anyone would do it differently, because that arrangement was so obviously more convenient and hygienic. It did have it's advantages. SignatureCheryl >>> I'm in two minds as to the hygiene of our common practice of placing >>> the water closet and the bath in the same room. The Romans kept the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It did have it's advantages. For the first eleven years of my life, starting in 1933, our family lived in an upscale apartment (my dad was a reasonably well-to-do lawyer) with a separate little room for just a flush toilet, the kind with a tank up by the ceiling and a long pull-chain dangling down. There was a sink in the kitchen with only cold running water. There was also a room that contained a tub with an over-the-tub shower that had a local gas heater. That was it, as far as piped water facilities were concerned. We survived, having Saturday baths and without hand washing after certain activities. The five-and-a-half-story building was then quite new, having been built in 1931. It is still there, and I visited it in 1996. The half story was the upper (sixth) one, having a fairly slanted roof, so the apartments on that floor occupied a much smaller area with windows facing only to the rear. The front part of that floor was an attic space with clotheslines for use by all tenants. We liver on the fourth floor (ground floor = first floor). There was a basement, and a part of it was the superintendent's apartment. Its windows looked out into little shafts that permitted daylight to enter. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> On Jan 14, 3:55 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It did have it's advantages. It's what we've got. I grew up with the sink in the room with the bath in, and the toilet in a very small ("the smallest room") room all by itself. Both my grand-parents' houses were like that as well. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >>> On Jan 14, 3:55 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > in, and the toilet in a very small ("the smallest room") room all by > itself. Both my grand-parents' houses were like that as well. All the houses I lived in were like that until we got married and moved into a brand new house which not only had the toilet, sink and bath in the same room but also had the luxury of a downstairs toilet with basin. An elderly relative observed that this would mean twice as much toilet cleaning and she couldn't understand why anyone would want that. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> On Jan 14, 3:55 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It did have it's advantages. Big advantage when people want to take showers and others need the toilet. Our little place has the toilet in a separate room from the bath and shower; unfortunately, it's too small for a handbasin - it sort of spoils it if you have to go and wash your hands in the kitchen. Still, it's fun with those young people who watch so much American TV that they ask the way to the "bathroom". SignatureRob Bannister >>> On Jan 14, 3:55 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >it's fun with those young people who watch so much American TV that they >ask the way to the "bathroom". I'm not Sure why. some variation of "bathroom" seems to be very common, even where tehre is no bath there. The loos in Mexican businesses are labelled "banos" (tilda over the "n" there). Still, "restroom" seems to be more common in commercial American establishments. But I doubt very many people go there to rest (although the ladies seem to get couches in theirs). Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>Big advantage when people want to take showers and others need the >>toilet. Our little place has the toilet in a separate room from the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > common, even where tehre is no bath there. The loos in Mexican > businesses are labelled "banos" (tilda over the "n" there). I think that may be an Americanism. The last time I was in Mexico (which, admittedly, was more than a decade), they were "retretes" or "sanitarios" and I believe I once got misled following a sign for "baños" to a room that only had sinks. I was taught in high school that the rooms with toilets were "retretes". Looking at the DRAE, they list two relevant senses for "baño", neither with a geographic restriction. The first is as a synonym for "cuarto de baño" which is specifically "in a home, a room with sink, toilet, tub and other facilities". The second is "retrete" (toilet), specifically as the fixture. > Still, "restroom" seems to be more common in commercial American > establishments. But I doubt very many people go there to rest > (although the ladies seem to get couches in theirs). Interestingly, in Spanish as well, "retrete" has an obsolete sense of "small room in a house or apartment, designed for relaxing". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Usenet is like Tetris for people 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |who still remember how to read. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Still, "restroom" seems to be more common in commercial American >> establishments. But I doubt very many people go there to rest >> (although the ladies seem to get couches in theirs). > >Interestingly, in Spanish as well, "retrete" has an obsolete sense of >"small room in a house or apartment, designed for relaxing". Ah! I get it: "retreat". Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> On Jan 14, 3:55 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > establishments. But I doubt very many people go there to rest > (although the ladies seem to get couches in theirs). Then there was that military place: the powder room, where explosive stories were exchanged. SignatureRob Bannister > On Jan 14, 3:55 pm, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But that's not how it's done, and the separation as actually done > seems fairly useless to me. The US practice almost certainly relates to building codes that have long required that the bath and the toilet be in rooms with a window or an exhaust fan. (I believe the trend is to require a fan, regardless, which makes sense to me.) The builder will have the toilet and bath share a fan rather than install two fans. Also, there's a trend to put two sinks in the bathroom, so here too it makes sense to put the sinks in a room to themselves. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>> I'm in two minds as to the hygiene of our common practice of placing >>> the water closet and the bath in the same room. ... If the toilet isn't next to the bath, where do you put down your book when you're in the bath and need to get your hands wet? Sheesh. >> In the US, there's a trend toward having large master bathrooms >> contain two rooms. The first small room contains the sink; the next, >> larger room contains the toilet and the bath/shower. >> >> I find this very odd. Agreed. Nobody should have to handle doors between using the toilet and washing their hands. > The US practice almost certainly relates to building codes that have > long required that the bath and the toilet be in rooms with a window > or an exhaust fan. ... The builder will have the toilet and bath > share a fan rather than install two fans. Fine, but what's the purpose of separating that room from the sink? > Also, there's a trend to put two sinks in the bathroom, so here too it > makes sense to put the sinks in a room to themselves. I can't see why. What might make sense in this arrangement is to put *one* sink in the bathroom proper and another one in the antebathroom. I think I've encountered that arrangement in some hotel rooms. SignatureMark Brader "Look, sir, we can't just do nothing." Toronto "Why not? It's usually best." msb@vex.net -- Lawrence of Arabia My text in this article is in the public domain. > >>> I'm in two minds as to the hygiene of our common practice of placing > >>> the water closet and the bath in the same room. ... > > If the toilet isn't next to the bath, where do you put down your book > when you're in the bath and need to get your hands wet? Sheesh. I have a cane-bottomed chair by the bath for that purpose, and please don't think there's any echo of English boarding-school in that phrase. -- franzi > >>> I'm in two minds as to the hygiene of our common practice of placing > >>> the water closet and the bath in the same room. ... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Agreed. Nobody should have to handle doors between using the toilet > and washing their hands. If necessary you can wash your hands in the tub. > > The US practice almost certainly relates to building codes that have > > long required that the bath and the toilet be in rooms with a window > > or an exhaust fan. ... The builder will have the toilet and bath > > share a fan rather than install two fans. > > Fine, but what's the purpose of separating that room from the sink? Elegance? Or because there are two sinks, as discussed below. > > Also, there's a trend to put two sinks in the bathroom, so here too it > > makes sense to put the sinks in a room to themselves. > > I can't see why. What might make sense in this arrangement is to put > *one* sink in the bathroom proper and another one in the antebathroom. > I think I've encountered that arrangement in some hotel rooms. I've seen that, too. I don't know about your household, but at ours I have a patch of bathroom counter real estate for my shaving gear and talc, and SWMBO has a larger patch of real estate with a zillion bottles and things. We don't have a two-sink bathroom, but if we did, because of all this gear each sink would be assigned to a principal user. If one user wants to use their sink while the other person wants to use the toilet, it would be convenient to have the toilet somehow isolated from the sinks, behind a partition if nothing else. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > The US practice almost certainly relates to building codes that have > long required that the bath and the toilet be in rooms with a window [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there's a trend to put two sinks in the bathroom, so here too it > makes sense to put the sinks in a room to themselves. I don't understand the appeal of having two sinks in the bathroom. You generally have only one person using a bathroom at a time. I suppose if you have two young children, it might be convenient for them to both be able to wash their hands or brush their teeth at the same time, but it hardly seems like you'd save much time having them do it at different sinks. SignatureCheryl > I don't understand the appeal of having two sinks in the bathroom. You > generally have only one person using a bathroom at a time. I suppose if > you have two young children, it might be convenient for them to both be > able to wash their hands or brush their teeth at the same time, but it > hardly seems like you'd save much time having them do it at different sinks. In the US, and I would think Canada as well, bathrooms have grown in luxury in the last couple of decades. The modern McMansion has a master bath with both a shower stall and a tub. The tub is often oversize with a whirlpool mechanism. Two sinks are de rigueur. Is it surprising that all that is split into two rooms? Some master suites have two separate full baths, one with a shower stall and the other with a tub. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> I don't understand the appeal of having two sinks in the bathroom. You >> generally have only one person using a bathroom at a time. I suppose if [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have two separate full baths, one with a shower stall and the other > with a tub. I've heard of such places, although I've never been in one. Like the person mentioned earlier in this thread who commented on the extra cleaning resulting from having two toilets, I keep thinking about the extra work as well as wondering about the usefulness of the arrangments. I mean, an extra toilet, that makes sense. If you have more than one person in the household, you might always have two people desperately needing a toilet at the same time. And it's nice to have one in the main living area so that guests and small children don't have to go to the main one. But two sinks in the one room? Weird. SignatureCheryl >>> I don't understand the appeal of having two sinks in the bathroom. >>> You generally have only one person using a bathroom at a time. I [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > living area so that guests and small children don't have to go to the > main one. But two sinks in the one room? Weird. It's for people who have to have "his" and "hers" stamped on every item in the house, so one basin has space for his razor and other shaving and grooming gear. The other basin has extra room for a zillion dollars worth of unguents and salves for her. SignatureRob Bannister >> The US practice almost certainly relates to building codes that have >> long required that the bath and the toilet be in rooms with a window [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I don't understand the appeal of having two sinks in the bathroom. You >generally have only one person using a bathroom at a time. As for two sinks, it can be very handy when you and your wife are both preparing to go otu for the evening. Or to work. >I suppose if >you have two young children, it might be convenient for them to both be >able to wash their hands or brush their teeth at the same time, but it >hardly seems like you'd save much time having them do it at different sinks. That's why they only put the double sinks in the bathroom off the master suite. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> The US practice almost certainly relates to building codes that have >>> long required that the bath and the toilet be in rooms with a window [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >As for two sinks, it can be very handy when you and your wife are >both preparing to go otu for the evening. Or to work. Unless your wife is very different from mine, you can complete everything you need to do at the sink while she is deciding which pair of shoes to wear...and have time left over. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> The US practice almost certainly relates to building codes that have >>> long required that the bath and the toilet be in rooms with a window [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > As for two sinks, it can be very handy when you and your wife are > both preparing to go otu for the evening. Or to work. But most people manage without that. >> I suppose if >> you have two young children, it might be convenient for them to both be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's why they only put the double sinks in the bathroom off the > master suite. I've seen them in the children's bathroom in those house makeover shows on TV. SignatureCheryl > I've seen them in the children's bathroom in those house makeover shows > on TV. I can certainly see the utility of multiple sinks in a house with multiple teenagers getting ready for school at the same time. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> I've seen them in the children's bathroom in those house makeover shows >> on TV. > > I can certainly see the utility of multiple sinks in a house with > multiple teenagers getting ready for school at the same time. Pity you're not allowed to just drive them through a modified sheep dip. SignatureRob Bannister >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:19:56 -0330, Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> >>> I don't understand the appeal of having two sinks in the bathroom. You >>> generally have only one person using a bathroom at a time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >But most people manage without that. Um. That's what "can be very handy" means. Not that it is a requirement. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> As for two sinks, it can be very handy when you and your wife are >> both preparing to go otu for the evening. Or to work. >But most people manage without that. Most people? Well, if you're counting everyone in the world, I believe most people still manage without any sort of indoor plumbing. I haven't seen a (full) bathroom built in the last three decades in the U.S. that didn't have two sinks; it is absolutely the normal and standard design. Most new houses will have two two-sink bathrooms and one half-bath (the latter having only one sink unless there's a laundry sink in it). -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >>> As for two sinks, it can be very handy when you and your wife are >>> both preparing to go otu for the evening. Or to work. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -GAWollman Then either US design is different from Canadian (which wouldn't really be surprising; different climates & cultures etc) or I haven't seen enough new high-end Canadian homes (also a good possibility). I've heard of new houses and apartments having two bathrooms and possibly a half-bath, and even of very large houses having multiple bedrooms with private bathrooms plus the main bathroom plus a half-bath. I haven't(aside from TV shows which seem to tend to the extreme) heard of one with any of the bathrooms having more than one sink. I think such an arrangement would be unusual enough to attract comment around here, although obviously not in your neck of the woods. SignatureCheryl >>>> As for two sinks, it can be very handy when you and your wife are >>>> both preparing to go otu for the evening. Or to work. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > attract comment around here, although obviously not in your neck of > the woods. Our house was built in 1957. The bathroom has a shower and a tub and two toilets and two sinks ("lavvies" we called them when I worked at American Standard, making toilets and lavvies). Strangely enough, half of the bathroom (with the shower, one sink, one toilet) is accessible only from the "master bedroom"; the other half opens off a hallway connecting the living-, dining-, and three bed-rooms. That may seem like two separate bathrooms, and in many ways it is, but they are each small enough that in modern construction they'd add up to about one good-sized one. Worked OK for three of us for twenty-some years, and for the two of us since daughter left, nineteen years ago. SignatureFrank ess >>> As for two sinks, it can be very handy when you and your wife are >>> both preparing to go otu for the evening. Or to work. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the U.S. that didn't have two sinks; it is absolutely the normal and >standard design. Never knew that I'm abnormal. My house is under three decades old. I designed it myself. A professional house plan firm did the blueprints necessary for the building codes, but the only change they made in my plans was the pitch of the stairway. There are two full-baths upstairs. Both have a shower stall and a bathtub. Both have single sinks. I saw no reason to put in double sinks, and - after 28 years - do not regret that decision. Even when the kids lived at home and went through their teenage years, one sink per bathroom sufficed. Neither my daughter nor my son would have shared a bathroom with the other. > Most new houses will have two two-sink bathrooms and >one half-bath (the latter having only one sink unless there's a >laundry sink in it). We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they are called "half-baths". "Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since there are three main features of a complete bathroom: toilet, sink and shower or tub. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:47:21 +0000 (UTC), woll...@bimajority.org > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > there are three main features of a complete bathroom: toilet, sink > and shower or tub. I think that all 4 of those items count toward the denominator: toilet, sink, shower, tub. I've certainly heard toilet + sink + shower (but no tub) referred to as a three-quarters bathroom. http://www.servicemagic.com/resources.dg.Bathrooms.4.4.html seems to indicate that 3/4 bathroom can also refer to toilet + sink + bathtub (but no shower). >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:47:21 +0000 (UTC), woll...@bimajority.org >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >indicate that 3/4 bathroom can also refer to toilet + sink + bathtub >(but no shower). Our bathrooms have a shower stall and a separate bathtub. Some bathrooms have a shower/bathtub combination. What's that do to the fractions? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they are >> called "half-bathso". "Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >indicate that 3/4 bathroom can also refer to toilet + sink + bathtub >(but no shower). Just wondering, in a purely theoretical way since UK bathrooms aren't divisible: would our "family bathroom", which has a toilet, basin (= AmE "sink", which in BrE is a kitchen fitment), and a bath (= AmE "tub") which has taps at one end and a shower at the other, and a swivellable shower screen, would count as a full or three-quarters bathroom? SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:15:28 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > swivellable shower screen, would count as a full or three-quarters > bathroom? The standard American full bath has a sink, a toilet, and a bathtub. The bathtub has a faucet for the tub and a shower head up high, so it's usable either as a bathtub or a shower.* In general, the tub is built into the room and has three tiled walls around it; the fourth side is the point of entry, and has a plastic or cloth shower curtain (or both--a plastic one inside the tub and a cloth one outside the tub) that slides closed to stop the shower from spraying the entire bathroom. Rather than shower curtains, other methods of closure are possible--sliding or swinging glass doors are both somewhat common alternatives, though curtains predominate. Standalone (non-built in) tubs, like the old claw-foot style, are pretty rare these days in the US. In broad terms (plumbing mechanism aside) it's similar to what you describe. The biggest layout difference is that the shower head and bath faucet are both at the same end of the typical American bath; because the taps are usually shared between the tub faucet and the shower head, putting the shower and bath heads at different ends of the tub would be awkward. At any rate, I'd call the setup that you describe a full bath. A "three-quarters" bath is usually a small shower stall, a toilet, and a sink. They often have small or no cabinets next to the sink, reduced storage areas, and are otherwise cramped compared to a full bath. The link I posted above mentions that a bathroom with a tub but no shower can also be call a 3/4 bath, but I've not run into that in practice--if you have the footprint to allow for a tub, putting a showerhead in doesn't usually take much extra space. *There are two about equally common tap setups in the US, both share the same taps between the tub faucet and the shower head: First is a single-tap setup that (internally) contains a hot/cold water mixer, so you turn one dial from cold to warm to hot. Cheaper ones don't allow pressure control past cold (they go "off" to "trickle of cold water" through "full blast cold water" to "full blast warm" to "full blast hot). Others may rotate to control temperature from cold to hot and swivel up and down (or push/pull in and out) to control the pressure from off through trickle to full blast. There's some control (a button or dial) to control whether the water goes to the shower head or the bath faucet. The second setup has a similar shower/bath control, but has separate hot and cold water taps; this requires manipulating a pair of knobs to set your temperature. It obviously allows for full pressure control of hot or cold water. Neither setup allows for both the shower and the bathtub faucet to be on at full blast; some of the mechanisms for selecting between the two are completely binary, while others allow for a middle setting where both the shower and bathtub are operating on partial pressure. A less common plumbing layout is completely separate taps for both the shower head and the tub faucet; there's no shower/both controller in these, just a single-tap with mixer or a pair of hot/cold taps for the tub faucet, and another independent mixer or pair of taps for the shower. >A less common plumbing layout is completely separate taps for both the >shower head and the tub faucet; there's no shower/both controller in >these, just a single-tap with mixer or a pair of hot/cold taps for the >tub faucet, and another independent mixer or pair of taps for the >shower. And in Lyndon Johnson's bathroom, there was a second showerhead pointed at his feet. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 > First is a single-tap setup that (internally) contains a hot/cold > water mixer, so you turn one dial from cold to warm to hot. Cheaper > ones don't allow pressure control past cold (they go "off" to "trickle > of cold water" through "full blast cold water" to "full blast warm" to > "full blast hot). ... Or in the hotel room I was staying in last week, from "off" to "trickle of warm water" to "full warm water" to "full cool water" to "full cold". That is, the "hot" water was only warm, and whoever plumbed the thing had managed to cross the pipes. SignatureMark Brader | "Forgive me if I misunderstood myself, but Toronto | I don't think I was arguing in favour of that..." msb@vex.net | -- Geoff Butler sjdevnull@yahoo.com filted: >> We have a half-bath downstairs. =A0I've never understood why they are >> called "half-bathso". =A0"Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >indicate that 3/4 bathroom can also refer to toilet + sink + bathtub >(but no shower). Hmm...my place seems to have 2¼ baths...the one off the "master suite" has a shower but no tub, and the one downstairs has neither of those....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? R wrote on 18 Jan 2010 13:03:52 -0800: > sjdevnull@yahoo.com filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> indicate that 3/4 bathroom can also refer to toilet + sink + >> bathtub (but no shower). > Hmm...my place seems to have 2¼ baths...the one off the > "master suite" has a shower but no tub, and the one downstairs > has neither of those....r I regard my 40-year old house as having three bathrooms tho' one only has just a shower and no bathtub. When the house was built we had the option of having an extra wash basin and counter top outside the bathroom off the main bedroom. We did not exercise the option but I wonder what the basin would have been; a quarter bathroom perhaps? SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:47:21 +0000 (UTC), woll...@bimajority.org >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > indicate that 3/4 bathroom can also refer to toilet + sink + bathtub > (but no shower). I think that would make over 90% of British bathrooms less than 100%. SignatureRob Bannister >> http://www.servicemagic.com/resources.dg.Bathrooms.4.4.html seems to >> indicate that 3/4 bathroom can also refer to toilet + sink + bathtub >> (but no shower). > >I think that would make over 90% of British bathrooms less than 100%. You think so? I bet a lot more than 10% of British bathrooms these days include a shower fitment over the bath. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> http://www.servicemagic.com/resources.dg.Bathrooms.4.4.html seems to >>> indicate that 3/4 bathroom can also refer to toilet + sink + bathtub [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You think so? I bet a lot more than 10% of British bathrooms these > days include a shower fitment over the bath. Yes, but I thought that was only 7/8ths. SignatureRob Bannister > We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they are > called "half-baths". "Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since > there are three main features of a complete bathroom: toilet, sink > and shower or tub. Ah, now I know what to call our downstairs cloakroom/downstairs shower room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is shorter and sounds more cosmopolitan. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they are >> called "half-baths". "Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is >shorter and sounds more cosmopolitan. Whenever I see "cloakroom" I am transported back to grade school in Indianapolis. Every classroom had a cloakroom. It was a long, narrow room wherein coats were hung from hooks and - in appropriate weather - galoshes were placed on the floor under the coats. Mittens, connected by a string of yarn and threaded up one sleeve and down the other, hung down. There were no necessary facilities. To the best of my knowledge, they were the only rooms designated as "cloakrooms" in the US. Coats were hung in closets at home. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >To the best of my knowledge, they were the only rooms designated as >"cloakrooms" in the US. Coats were hung in closets at home. The antechamber of a parliamentary body is typically called the cloakroom. The Speaker of the House might announce that "Members who wish to continue their conversations are asked to withdraw to the cloakroom." -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >>To the best of my knowledge, they were the only rooms designated as >>"cloakrooms" in the US. Coats were hung in closets at home. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >wish to continue their conversations are asked to withdraw to the >cloakroom." Yes, now that you mention it, that is another use of "cloakroom". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:40:28 +0000, LFS > > <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote: ... > >Ah, now I know what to call our downstairs cloakroom/downstairs shower > >room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > by a string of yarn and threaded up one sleeve and down the other, > hung down. There were no necessary facilities. My experience too. The cloakrooms in our school opened into the classrooms at both ends. By my time, mittens were usually connected to sleeves by elastic bands (=BrE bands of elasticised fabric?) with metal clips on the ends. I was very confused the first time or two that I saw the British euphemism "cloakroom". -- Jerry Friedman >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:40:28 +0000, LFS >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >to sleeves by elastic bands (=BrE bands of elasticised fabric?) with >metal clips on the ends. Just "elastic" in BrE. http://www.thread.co.uk/images/packelast.jpg from http://www.thread.co.uk/elastic.htm In BrE "elastic band" is a synonym for "rubber band" http://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/office-motes/elastic-bands-tweaked -DHD.jpg SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:40:28 +0000, LFS >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >In BrE "elastic band" is a synonym for "rubber band" >http://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/office-motes/elastic-bands-tweaked -DHD.jpg I know what Jerry is talking about. They were flat strips of elastic with an flat clip at each end. One end clamped on the coat, and the other on the mitten. http://www.babysafetravel.com/img/boutique-items/171-1.jpg SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:52:32 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > other on the mitten. > http://www.babysafetravel.com/img/boutique-items/171-1.jpg Precisely. I take it Tony's "flat strips of elastic" works in British English too? So I didn't have to worry about what to do with my "elastic band". -- Jerry Friedman > I take it Tony's "flat strips of elastic" works in British English > too? So I didn't have to worry about what to do with my "elastic > band". - What do you do with a rubber trumpet? - Join an elastic band. SignatureDavid >> I take it Tony's "flat strips of elastic" works in British English >> too? So I didn't have to worry about what to do with my "elastic >> band". > > - What do you do with a rubber trumpet? > - Join an elastic band. Then there's Mike Waterson's "Rubber Band": Chorus (after each verse) I'm the leader of the rubber band It's the finest band in all the land Isn't it grand being the only band in the land To play rubber band. Just like margarine our fame is spreading And our rise to stardom won't be slow. If we stretch our members to the limit, I'd like to see how far the band could go. We're the band to catapult to stardom, We'll never get wound up, we're never slack. You'll never keep us down, you'll never throw us, 'cause we're the band that keeps on bouncing back. (© 1972 Leading Note) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNhTWy5gbeE SignatureJames >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:40:28 +0000, LFS >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I was very confused the first time or two that I saw the British > euphemism "cloakroom". And Scandinavians are very confused by that usage, which seems to them more like a cacophemism: "kloak" means a sewer. SignatureJames >>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:40:28 +0000, LFS >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >And Scandinavians are very confused by that usage, which seems to them >more like a cacophemism: "kloak" means a sewer. From the Latin "cloaca" I presume. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:40:28 +0000, LFS >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > And Scandinavians are very confused by that usage, which seems to them > more like a cacophemism: "kloak" means a sewer. You have to remember that English gentlemen and women wore the cloaca..., I mean cloaks. SignatureRob Bannister >>> We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they are >>> called "half-baths". "Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >To the best of my knowledge, they were the only rooms designated as >"cloakrooms" in the US. Coats were hung in closets at home. The US Congress has cloakrooms... http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloakroom.htm Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they are >>> called "half-baths". "Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > To the best of my knowledge, they were the only rooms designated as > "cloakrooms" in the US. Coats were hung in closets at home. We had a cloakroom in the old building I attended from kindergarten to about grade 2 or 3. They closed the building down for a while, then renovated it in time for me to attend school there again in Grade 11 (I think). I seem to recall that the renovations removed the cloakroom as well as such nice features as the door directly to the outside in what was the kindergarten room originally. Originally, there was one common cloakroom for the building - it had hooks for coats and possibly low shelves near the floor for boots, but I may be confusing it with another school building. There was a small room off it with a sink and running water, but I think the toilets (and more sinks) were in another room. The newer school building had an open area in the basement with hooks for coats, and the toilets opened off that, as did some of the classrooms. I don't think we had lockers for our coats and boots and books lining the hallways to use until we reached the section of the building devoted to Grades 9-11 SignatureCheryl > Whenever I see "cloakroom" I am transported back to grade school in > Indianapolis. Every classroom had a cloakroom. It was a long, narrow > room wherein coats were hung from hooks and - in appropriate weather - > galoshes were placed on the floor under the coats. Mittens, connected > by a string of yarn and threaded up one sleeve and down the other, > hung down. Not a whole lot of mittens in New Orleans. Misbehaving little boys were sometimes sent into exile in the cloakroom. > There were no necessary facilities. I don't understand that last sentence. I wouldn't expect to find plumbing in a cloakroom. As long as we're doing nostalgia, do you remember window poles? It was an honor to be appointed to use the window pole. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > As long as we're doing nostalgia, do you remember window poles? It > was an honor to be appointed to use the window pole. I still have a window pole in my house. It's used to lower and raise the canvas awning on a west-facing window. (I don't know whether this is true elsewhere, but in Australia a west-facing window is a Bad Thing. It lets too much heat in.) SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Whenever I see "cloakroom" I am transported back to grade school in >> Indianapolis. Every classroom had a cloakroom. It was a long, narrow [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I don't understand that last sentence. I wouldn't expect to find >plumbing in a cloakroom. You would in Laura's house. >As long as we're doing nostalgia, do you remember window poles? It >was an honor to be appointed to use the window pole. Yes, but they stuck me on Ink Monitor duty refilling the ink wells on the desks. I do remember the window poles, though. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> Whenever I see "cloakroom" I am transported back to grade school in >>> Indianapolis. Every classroom had a cloakroom. It was a long, narrow [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yes, but they stuck me on Ink Monitor duty refilling the ink wells on > the desks. I do remember the window poles, though. You guys must have been real goody-goodies. I wasn't allowed anywhere near ink or clean nibs or chalk or dusters or windows or poles or anything interesting. One really vomit-inducing girl in my class was allowed to ring the handbell - life contains so many disappointments, but this was early training for my career as a grumpy old fart. SignatureRob Bannister > >> As long as we're doing nostalgia, do you remember window poles? It > >> was an honor to be appointed to use the window pole. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > allowed to ring the handbell - life contains so many disappointments, > but this was early training for my career as a grumpy old fart. Whoa there now. I only said it was an honor to be appointed to use the window pole. I never said that I myself ever got to use the window pole. It was Cooper who got to do the ink and hang out with the teacher. Beating blackboard erasers, now that was considered a punishment. You did, however, get to go out onto a balcony to do it. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>>> As long as we're doing nostalgia, do you remember window poles? It >>>> was an honor to be appointed to use the window pole. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the teacher. Beating blackboard erasers, now that was considered a > punishment. You did, however, get to go out onto a balcony to do it. In my school, it was a privilege to beat erasers. You got to leave the classroom, or at least lean out the window into the fresh air, to do it. If you were old enough, you got to use a machine I've never seen since, a kind of vacuum cleaner for erasers. You flipped the switch, it made a gratifyingly loud noise, and you rubbed the erasers back and forward across the opening at the top. I don't think we had any window poles. Perhaps eraser-cleaning was a substitute reward. SignatureCheryl >>>>> As long as we're doing nostalgia, do you remember window poles? >>>>> It was an honor to be appointed to use the window pole. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I don't think we had any window poles. Perhaps eraser-cleaning was a > substitute reward. If you are talking about the layered felt erasers, we got to clap them together and raise a real cloud of chalk dust. So, yes, it had to be done outdoors. Or, in winter, sometimes we could do it quietly in the waste-paper can, with a newspaper over the top to keep the dust under control. And we had the window poles, but in the schools where the windows were very high, (they were used to drag the upper sash downward to let upper air circulate and vent) we children couldn't use them for fear we would bang them on the window-glass. They were also used to open transoms for the same reason. Ok, maybe you all remember those cunning little brass "S" clips for hanging pictures on the picture rail. (That was like the "chair rail" being retro-installed in some new construction.) >And we had the window poles, but in the schools where the windows were >very high, (they were used to drag the upper sash downward to let [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >hanging pictures on the picture rail. (That was like the "chair rail" >being retro-installed in some new construction.) Erm, over here in Old Europe we still use these quaint primitive devices. We have a window pole here at home, for opening and closing the skylights. Picture-hooks, too. We even have blackboard rubbers (as we call them over here), though I don't think there's actually one in the house. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>And we had the window poles, but in the schools where the windows >>were [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I > don't think there's actually one in the house. I didn't want to use the "r" word, for fear of where the thread might go. (Had friend from Birmingham long, long ago who had awkward moments with her students, referring to those items, and asking whether the bell had gone.) And it didn't occur to me that skylights might have need of such poles (never having lived in a house that had them). As for the picture hooks, I think about 20 years ago I found some at a rummage sale, just after I had worked up a substitute. They may probably still be sold in some hardware stores, but looking for them or asking young clerks to find them gets to be rather tedious. >>>>> As long as we're doing nostalgia, do you remember window poles? It >>>>> was an honor to be appointed to use the window pole. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > gratifyingly loud noise, and you rubbed the erasers back and forward > across the opening at the top. Wow! That would have been classed as high magic back in my day. I might even have tried being good for a day to get that job. Wait... it occurs to me that we did have the magic pencil-sharpening devices that really sick^H^H^H^H good kids were allowed to use now and then. There obviously was a magic divide between primary and high school, because all high school teachers proclaimed the sharpeners broke the leads inside so that the machines were never allowed to be used, which was grossly unfair. SignatureRob Bannister > >>>> As long as we're doing nostalgia, do you remember window poles? It > >>>> was an honor to be appointed to use the window pole. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > gratifyingly loud noise, and you rubbed the erasers back and forward > across the opening at the top. You got to leave class to clap erasers! In my school eraser cleaning was done by children who were "kept in after school", which is what we called what is nowadays called "detention". You were there alone being punished, and as long as you were there you might as well go clap these erasers. > I don't think we had any window poles. Perhaps eraser-cleaning was a > substitute reward. Your school was evidently more modern than the ones some of us went to. Your school was probably all on one floor. Mine had three floors, counting the "basement" which was at ground level. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>>>>> As long as we're doing nostalgia, do you remember window >>>>>> poles? It was an honor to be appointed to use the window [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > being punished, and as long as you were there you might as well go > clap these erasers. Have epidemiologists found a higher-than-expected incidence of pulmonary talcosis among ex-detainees? SignatureJames [...] >> You got to leave class to clap erasers! In my school eraser cleaning >> was done by children who were "kept in after school", which is what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Have epidemiologists found a higher-than-expected incidence of > pulmonary talcosis among ex-detainees? Pulmonary plasterofparisosis, no? Talc is French chalk, and I don't think the real White-Cliff kind has often featured in classrooms --though one of my prep-school masters sometimes used a lump he'd picked up somewhere. SignatureMike. > You got to leave class to clap erasers! In my school eraser cleaning > was done by children who were "kept in after school", which is what > we called what is nowadays called "detention". You were there alone > being punished, and as long as you were there you might as well go > clap these erasers. When we were kept in, we had to sit silently in our desks. Or write lines. Now, THAT was miserable! > >> I don't think we had any window poles. Perhaps eraser-cleaning was a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to. Your school was probably all on one floor. Mine had three > floors, counting the "basement" which was at ground level. No...actually, yes. The main school building was on one floor, with a basement at one end where they stored...taught...some of the younger children. Later, they built on a two storey extension for the recently-discovered 'junior high' (we'd previously had 'Elementary' (including what, in other towns was called 'Primary' and 'High' school). And there was an old two-story building used from time to time, like the time I felt a bit dizzy after a vaccination, so the helpful nurse shoved my head out a window two stories above ground. I don't like heights much. But none of the buildings had windows that required a window pole. The high school classrooms in the old building had transoms, which the principal used to climb up and peer through to see how classes were going (honestly!) but they didn't open. We didn't have a PA system, either. I went back for a visit a few years ago, and there's nothing left. Just a bare patch of ground. They built a completely new school on a different site. I bet it doesn't have window poles either! SignatureCheryl >When we were kept in, we had to sit silently in our desks. Gosh, that must have been a bit cramped. Katy >> When we were kept in, we had to sit silently in our desks. > > Gosh, that must have been a bit cramped. > > Katy Not really, we had the all-in-one affairs with chairs attached. One version had an open wire basket to hold books; the better ones had drawers for that purpose. We had a principal with weird and very strict ideas about neatness. When I was very young, we had those sets of desks and chairs on runners that came attached to each other. SignatureCheryl >>> When we were kept in, we had to sit silently in our desks. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >drawers for that purpose. We had a principal with weird and very strict >ideas about neatness. I read it the same way as Katy. "in a desk" would mean in the storage part of the desk rather than sitting "at" a desk. The sort of desk I sat at atmy schools was a similar design to the one shown here, except that the desk and chair were separate. http://www.objectlessons.org/index.php?mod=PageMod.showComponent&component_id=124 >When I was very young, we had those sets of desks and chairs on runners >that came attached to each other. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> When we were kept in, we had to sit silently in our desks. >>> Gosh, that must have been a bit cramped. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the desk and chair were separate. > http://www.objectlessons.org/index.php?mod=PageMod.showComponent&component_id=124 I always sat in a desk, and I certainly didn't sit in the storage area! It must be a regional difference. I think I use "in" for school desks because they are (or were) all one piece; I sit at normal desks. Very early in school we had that type, although ours had rather fancy metal sides holding it together. I think the runners usually held more than one desk. They sometimes ended with a seat at the front with no desk; that's where the teacher made you sit if you weren't paying attention. http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2008/12/sitting_strateg.html Later, we got variations on this sort of model. The earlier ones were made entirely of wood, with a wooden drawer under the seat; later ones were like this, or had a wire basket under the seat. http://www.ehow.com/how_5029951_clean-school-desks.html Last time I was in a local school, they seem to have switched to these: http://hickory-northcarolina.olx.com/school-desks-and-chairs-for-sale-iid-51589305 SignatureCheryl >>>>> When we were kept in, we had to sit silently in our desks. >>>> Gosh, that must have been a bit cramped. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > these: > http://hickory-northcarolina.olx.com/school-desks-and-chairs-for-sale-iid-51589305 In the Latvian DP Camp in Germany (ca. 1947), I sat at a double-wide desk that looked something like this, except the seat was not split. http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_images/025/482025_091030110054_Baker_72_044.jpg I was the only one whose partner was a girl -- the prettiest one in class, to boot. I was the last to arrive in class when seats were assigned, and she was sitting all by herself at the back of the room. As I came in, she immediately called me to sit by her. At the time, I looked like this: http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/skitt15.jpg Maybe it was the fangs ... SignatureSkitt (AmE) didn't bite her >>>>>> When we were kept in, we had to sit silently in our desks. >>>>> Gosh, that must have been a bit cramped. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > assigned, and she was sitting all by herself at the back of the room. > As I came in, she immediately called me to sit by her. "Called"? Calling out was at least a death sentence offence, and anyway all seats were assigned by the teacher until we got to high school and even there, you waited to see which way the teacher would jump. In primary school, I often got sat next to the prettiest girls too in the fond hope that this would stop me from talking - all it did was tarnish the previously unblemished record of several demure damsels - I got moved around a lot. I think I've seen and sat at most of the desk types that have been shown so far. The main difference is that none of ours were all wood. SignatureRob Bannister >> In the Latvian DP Camp in Germany (ca. 1947), I sat at a double-wide >> desk that looked something like this, except the seat was not split. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I think I've seen and sat at most of the desk types that have been > shown so far. The main difference is that none of ours were all wood. The desk I was talking about was all wood. Oh, and what I described was in high school. We chose our own desk partners, but I was the only guy sharing a desk with a girl. I might add that our teachers were mostly professors. It was the highly educated part of the population that had to fear the Soviets the most, so the teaching jobs in the DP camp were filled by very qualified people. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > I might add that our teachers were mostly professors. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In most European languages apart from English, "professor" means high school teacher. SignatureRob Bannister >> I might add that our teachers were mostly professors. > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In most European languages > apart from English, "professor" means high school teacher. As you say, "apart from English". I was speaking English. In any case, what I meant was that they had previously taught at the University of Latvia (in Riga). SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> I might add that our teachers were mostly professors. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what I meant was that they had previously taught at the University of > Latvia (in Riga). Right. I should have read the bit about "DP camp" more carefully. SignatureRob Bannister >>> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In most European languages >>> apart from English, "professor" means high school teacher. >> >> As you say, "apart from English". I was speaking English. In any case, >> what I meant was that they had previously taught at the University of >> Latvia (in Riga). However in UK English, most people who teach in universities are not professors. So it's still not entirely clear. Katy >>>> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In most European languages >>>> apart from English, "professor" means high school teacher. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > However in UK English, most people who teach in universities are not > professors. So it's still not entirely clear. We're stuck with this problem, it seems. The title "professor" implies a very high status in England, and in a few other countries that follow the same tradition: Australia and New Zealand certainly, South Africa probably, Canada definitely not, and I'm not sure where else. I myself lie in the twilight zone: associate professors attract the title, as people who would have been appointed as professors had the chair been vacant. In any case, as a retired professor I'm no longer eligible, and have reverted to mere "Dr". In North America, though, academics become professors almost as soon as they have their PhDs. That might sound like a devaluation, but the situation is worse in some European countries. Germany has tough criteria, as I understand it: someone called "Prof Dr Dr" has two doctorates and is the head of an academic department. In Italy, I gather, "Dottore" means nothing more than that one has an undergraduate degree. My Swedish friends have told me that a doctorate takes at least seven years beyond a bachelor's degree, and that a professorate requires about twenty years beyond that. (The latter requirement being not too different from the Australian situation.) But that, I gather, has been the subject of changing rules. I have a brother-in-law who became an associate professor at about the same time as he was honoured by the King. In brief, the situation varies enormously between countries. The bottom line is that one should not use the term "professor" without specifying the country that awarded the title. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In most European languages >>>>> apart from English, "professor" means high school teacher. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > The bottom line is that one should not use the term "professor" without > specifying the country that awarded the title. Something happened in Sweden in the last decade, I think it was. There are now two kinds of professors. There's the old kind, known as "chair professors", where candidates apply in competition for a traditional chair. Then there's the new kind, a "promoted professor", where you apply for the title on your own and you are judged on your merits. A person who is deemed professorially competent in a competition for a chair but who is not ranked in first place can easily get the other kind of professorship. SignatureJames > Something happened in Sweden in the last decade, I think it was. There > are now two kinds of professors. There's the old kind, known as "chair [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > chair but who is not ranked in first place can easily get the other kind > of professorship. Is that that different from the "personal chair" situation in the UK? SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> Something happened in Sweden in the last decade, I think it was. There >> are now two kinds of professors. There's the old kind, known as "chair [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is that that different from the "personal chair" situation in the UK? In practice it's probably much the same but I don't know anything about the relative frequency. In a typical Swedish department there could be a real professor occupying the chair and any number of promoted professors in the same department. Is a UK professor surrounded by so many colleagues with personal chairs? SignatureJames >>> Something happened in Sweden in the last decade, I think it was. There >>> are now two kinds of professors. There's the old kind, known as "chair [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in the same department. Is a UK professor surrounded by so many > colleagues with personal chairs? Certainly not in my brief academic days 20+ years ago. Personal chairs were very rare - less than one per department. They did have the advantage over the actual chair in that they were awarded purely for research expertise and status, not on administrative competence. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> Something happened in Sweden in the last decade, I think it was. There >> are now two kinds of professors. There's the old kind, known as "chair [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is that that different from the "personal chair" situation in the UK? Laurie Taylor tells of a time in his early days as a university lecturer. An elderly colleague said "Dr Taylor, we shall keep an eye on you. I believe you are chair material." SignatureDavid Peter wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:40:03 +1100: > In North America, though, academics become professors almost > as soon as they have their PhDs. That might sound like a > devaluation, Generally, after some time as post-doctoral research associates elsewhere, most science "professors" at American universities begin as Assistant Professors (without tenure) and receive the title of Associate Professor on achieving tenure. In the fullness of time, they will probably become (Full) Professors. The title of "Professor" is really only appropriate in an academic context. More especially in the arts, university teachers may begin as "Instructors", however, newspapers tend to call all university teachers "Professors". The situation is even more complicated with some people having the title of "Adjunct Professor" where it is assumed they are appointed on a temporary basis. At one time, "Adjunct Professor" was awarded as a recognition of high ability but nowadays, one may even see "Adjunct Associate Professor". There are some rare individuals who achieve full professorships below the age of 30, even at places like Harvard. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Peter wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:40:03 +1100: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Assistant Professors (without tenure) and receive the title of Associate > Professor on achieving tenure. Sure, but my point is that even the Assistant Professors are addressed by the students as "Professor". In the Australian system, a newly appointed academic with a PhD will gain tenure fairly quickly - say, within 3 years - but will take another 15-30 years to reach the rank of Associate Professor. In fact, most won't get there before retirement. They'll get stuck at the level of Lecturer or Senior Lecturer, and will definitely never be addressed as "Professor". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >In the Australian system, a newly appointed academic with a PhD will >gain tenure fairly quickly - say, within 3 years - but will take another >15-30 years to reach the rank of Associate Professor. Your academics still get tenure?? SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> In the Australian system, a newly appointed academic with a PhD will >> gain tenure fairly quickly - say, within 3 years - but will take another >> 15-30 years to reach the rank of Associate Professor. > > Your academics still get tenure?? The concept still exists, but the practical meaning has changed. (And fewer people have tenure.) Tenure still means that you can't be dismissed except for good cause. In the earlier part of my career, "good cause" was widely held to mean "making love to the Vice-Chancellor's wife on the library steps in broad daylight". Various test cases had established that a tenured academic couldn't be fired for things like criticising the government. When I lost my job a few years ago, the "good cause" was that I was older than many of my colleagues, and therefore more expensive in terms of salary and so on. I had had tenure for many years, but that didn't save me from the year of the long knives. In fact, having tenure was part of the reason I had to go. I was replaced by contract employees, whose conditions of employment were much harsher. The tenured people were entitled to things like sick leave and long service leave and annual leave. A contract can be worded in such a way as to omit such luxuries. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > In fact, having tenure was part of the reason I had to go. I was > replaced by contract employees, whose conditions of employment were much > harsher. The tenured people were entitled to things like sick leave and > long service leave and annual leave. A contract can be worded in such a > way as to omit such luxuries. All employees get those rights (well, not long-service leave) under UK law. Real "contractors" are not employees, but if you work for the same business for 2 years under the direction of that business's staff (i.e. you don't get to decide where and when you work), then the Inland Revenue can declare you an employee, no matter what the contract says. SignatureDavid >>> In the Australian system, a newly appointed academic with a PhD will >>> gain tenure fairly quickly - say, within 3 years - but will take another [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >long service leave and annual leave. A contract can be worded in such a >way as to omit such luxuries. Interesting. When I was still employed by one, UK universitiies wouldn't have been able to get rid of tenured people on the grounds that they were older or more expensive. That wouldn't have counted as "good cause". From the universities' point of view, they got in to a Catch 22 situation when they started to abolish tenure, affecting new appointees and also tenured people once they were promoted (eg from lecturer to senior lecturer). After a while they realised that they could sack their good people, who'd all been promoted out of tenure, but not sack any of the time-servers and incompetents, who hadn't. There must be very few, if any, tenured people left in UK universities by now. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ Peter wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:34:27 +1100: >> Peter wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:40:03 +1100: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> and receive the title of Associate Professor on achieving >> tenure. > Sure, but my point is that even the Assistant Professors are > addressed by the students as "Professor". Not really true; "Doctor" is much more likely and, last time I looked, the Cornell catalog used Mr. and Ms. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not On Jan 25, 12:27 pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote: > Peter wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:34:27 +1100: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Not really true; "Doctor" is much more likely and, last time I looked, > the Cornell catalog used Mr. and Ms. I think it depends on who a student is addressing. If they're outside of class, they're likely to ask "are you taking Professor Smith's class this fall?", whereas if they're talking to the Professor they're likely to say "Doctor Smith, I don't understand blah blah blah...". > On Jan 25, 12:27 pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > class this fall?", whereas if they're talking to the Professor they're > likely to say "Doctor Smith, I don't understand blah blah blah...". Also on region. I don't think I've ever heard 'Professor Smith' here - well, except in lists of faculty or some address honouring Professor Smith's long career. It's always 'Doctor', although as others have noted, many go by their first name with students, particularly graduate students. That still sounds odd to me. It's funny which old habits die hard. I sometimes end up doing all kinds of verbal adjustments to avoid using the name because I've been told by the professor in question to use his first name, and it doesn't quite sound right. Not when the professor is older than I am. It's not so hard with the ones who look like they're barely out of school themselves, but of course, they are usually mere Lecturers or Assistant Professors. SignatureCheryl Peter Moylan: >>>> Sure, but my point is that [in North America] even the Assistant >>>> Professors are addressed by the students as "Professor". James Silverton: >>> Not really true; "Doctor" is much more likely and, last time I looked, >>> the Cornell catalog used Mr. and Ms. "S.J.": >> I think it depends on who a student is addressing. If they're outside >> of class, they're likely to ask "are you taking Professor Smith's >> class this fall?", whereas if they're talking to the Professor they're >> likely to say "Doctor Smith, I don't understand blah blah blah...". Cheryl Perkins: > Also on region. I don't think I've ever heard 'Professor Smith' here - > well, except in lists of faculty or some address honouring Professor > Smith's long career. It's always 'Doctor', although as others have > noted, many go by their first name with students... My goodness. My experience, from when I was at Waterloo in the 1970s, agrees with Peter's original statement. Nobody was called "Dr. Smith". In the university catalog, where the teaching staff of each department were listed, they were "John Q. Smith, B.Sc. (Toronto), Ph.D. (Waterloo), Assistant Professor" or some closely similar style. In other writings I'd expect a bare "John Q. Smith", and "Smith" on second reference. To the man's face, I'd say "you" or "Professor" or "Professor Smith". (I was never comfortable using their first names, even with those who didn't mind it.) To another student, I'd say "Smith" or "John Smith" or "Professor Smith". Other students spoke similarly, but some would say "John" (or a nickname, of course) if it was obvious who they meant. That applies, as Peter said, to the ranks of assistant professor and up. Some lectures were given by lower-ranked people, lecturers and instructors, and I'm not sure if I ever called them anything other than "you" to their face. I have the feeling that I might have said "Professor" if speaking to them in class, as a sort of courtesy title. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Jargon leakage is getting to be a real problem; msb@vex.net | sb should do sth about it." --R.H. Draney My text in this article is in the public domain. >Sure, but my point is that even the Assistant Professors [in the >U.S.] are addressed by the students as "Professor". By some students. Most younger faculty I know aren't sticklers for protocol and generally go by given name just like the rest of us. But most undergraduates won't know their teachers well enough to be comfortable with that, unless the professor in question is their boss. Graduate students are considered fully adult and will frequently be on a first-name basis with their academic advisor, the members of their thesis committee, and other faculty members in their department. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 > Peter wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:40:03 +1100: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >There are some rare individuals who achieve full professorships below >the age of 30, even at places like Harvard. For example, the Australian child prodigy Terry Tao at 24 became a full Professor of mathematics at UCLA. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>>>> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In most European languages >>>>> apart from English, "professor" means high school teacher. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > about twenty years beyond that. (The latter requirement being not too > different from the Australian situation.) But that, I gather, has been A doctorate is not a necessary requirement for becoming a professor in Sweden, actually. The best candidate should simply be chosen for the position. Maybe there are no suitable doctors available. In the last decade or so, however, you can be given the title of professor on merits even if there is no new "chair" available. This is a weaker form of professor than the traditional one. > the subject of changing rules. I have a brother-in-law who became an > associate professor at about the same time as he was honoured by the > King. In brief, the situation varies enormously between countries. > > The bottom line is that one should not use the term "professor" without > specifying the country that awarded the title. >>>>> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In most European >>>>> languages apart from English, "professor" means high school [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > The bottom line is that one should not use the term "professor" > without specifying the country that awarded the title. OK. The title I mentioned was awarded by Latvian rules, and it has a very high status. Our teachers happened to be "the cream of the crop". That was my point. The unfortunate part was that our professors were used to teaching disciplined adults, not mischievous juveniles, so student control was a bit lacking in some classes. Our Latin professor, who for some strange reason always wore a long black robe, suffered the brunt of the abuse, poor guy. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >probably, Canada definitely not, and I'm not sure where else. I myself >lie in the twilight zone: associate professors attract the title, as >people who would have been appointed as professors had the chair been >vacant. At MIT at least, there are a number of named chairs which rotate every five years or so -- so there are always people who have held a chair but have since become non-chair professors. (And usually they will have been so prior to holding the chair as well.) Having a named chair (whether permanent or rotating) is supposed to be an honor, but it doesn't confer any kind of rank. (At best, it may provide a bit more job security.) We do have a rank more senior than "full" professor, but these positions are limited to a handful throughout the whole Institute. (I work with two of them, which is very unusual.) We also have lecturers, but that's a title generally only used for senior people who teach a class but whose primary duties are not academic. They are not considered faculty, if I remember correctly. >In North America, though, academics become professors almost as soon as >they have their PhDs. It's considered normal to do a postdoc for a year before taking an academic job, although not everyone is able to do so. (There are both postdoctoral associates, who are paid by the research project they work for, and postdoctoral fellows, who are funded independently, usually by something like a "young scholars" grant.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> I read it the same way as Katy. "in a desk" would mean in the storage >> part of the desk rather than sitting "at" a desk. The sort of desk I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > desks > because they are (or were) all one piece; I sit at normal desks. Ours were something like this: http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/IMP/IMP141/Antique_school_desk.jpg (but a bit wider, two-seaters) and I would definitely say I sat "in" one of those. Rather than a shelf underneath, they had a box, and the two desk lids were hinged. Co-ordinated banging of desk lids was a very useful way of driving teachers to distraction. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>> I read it the same way as Katy. "in a desk" would mean in the storage >>> part of the desk rather than sitting "at" a desk. The sort of desk I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > were hinged. Co-ordinated banging of desk lids was a very useful way of > driving teachers to distraction. Never understood why they made them that way. At primary school, we didn't have anything of our own - everything, including pens and pencils were dished out and taken back by the teacher as required. In high school, we carried immensely heavy satchels, briefcases or bags from room to room containing whatever we needed for that part of the day. There was no way anyone was ever going to put anything inside a desk unless it was chewing gum (a hanging offence). Banging desk lids involved weeks of detention without trial plus a variety of tortures. Only the very oldest classrooms had those desks with shelves - the shelf was potentially useful, but I can't remember what for as I don't associate any capital offence with that. The main purpose of the all-in-one (or rather one-size-fits-all) desk was to have a piece of furniture that was uncomfortable for everyone: the little ones couldn't touch the ground; the tall ones had their knees squashed up underneath the desk top. Some of our desks were so old that not even the sharpest compass point to carve one's initials and there were some elegant carvings with dates in the 1800s that must have taken hours. SignatureRob Bannister [school desks] >> Ours were something like this: >> http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/IMP/IMP141/Antique_school_desk.jpg [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > day. There was no way anyone was ever going to put anything inside a > desk unless it was chewing gum (a hanging offence). At primary school we had all our own books and the desk was where we kept them. I can remember it being very difficult to shut the lid sometimes. The only things that were provided were ink and art materials. High school was different, because we had lockers to keep our books in and went from room to room for different classes. The most you would have to carry at a time was what was needed for two periods, so the desks had little in them. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > [school desks] >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > kept them. I can remember it being very difficult to shut the lid > sometimes. The only things that were provided were ink and art materials. Yes, I could be misremembering here - primary school was a long time ago, and I do remember that 'can't close the lid' feeling. > High school was different, because we had lockers to keep our books in > and went from room to room for different classes. I had a locker, but not everyone did and not everyone used them even when they had one. In many schools, including mine, we sometimes had to carry books for three lessons and, depending on the geography of your school and exactly which lessons you had, it was sometimes easier to take books for up to five periods. The most you would > have to carry at a time was what was needed for two periods, so the > desks had little in them. And mostly, it was wise not to investigate what that little was. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> I read it the same way as Katy. "in a desk" would mean in the storage >>>> part of the desk rather than sitting "at" a desk. The sort of desk I [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > were some elegant carvings with dates in the 1800s that must have taken > hours. I don't think we could have kept anything in our desks in the very earliest years. I know pencils were handed out by the teacher. She had an old box with holes punched in it to hold the pencils, one per hole, and you would go up in turn an pick one out to use. Have you seen the lists they give parents of primary school children now? Tons of stuff, from markers to kleenex, and sometimes it has to be a specific name brand. We almost invariably stayed in our classroom until the end of high school; the teachers moved around from room to room. So we had our own desks to keep things in. Marking (or heaven help us! carving!) on the desks was absolutely forbidden. Boys who committed these offences were sometimes kept in after school and forced to scrub the desks - I can't imagine they had to re-finish them, but I expect the teachers would have liked to make them do that too. Girls, of course, didn't do things like that, or at least, we didn't seem to get caught so often. I was a bit shorter than the other children until I was nearly an adult, and spent many a year with my feet dangling over the floor since my legs were too short for the desk. SignatureCheryl >>> When we were kept in, we had to sit silently in our desks. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When I was very young, we had those sets of desks and chairs on runners > that came attached to each other. It's still an interesting use of "in". I think all of us over a certain age had desks more or less like that, but I don't ever sitting *in* one. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> When we were kept in, we had to sit silently in our desks. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > certain age had desks more or less like that, but I don't ever > sitting *in* one. At the ages I was sitting at a desk like those, I was frequently told I should be in my place, which I would quickly slide into. (Or was that slide-in to?) Then I was in place at my desk. SignatureFrank ess LFS filted: >> We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they are >> called "half-baths". "Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is >shorter and sounds more cosmopolitan. It's been many years, and I don't know that it was ever explained to my satisfaction even at the time, but I *have* heard of a seven-eighths bath....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > > We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they are > > called "half-baths". "Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is > shorter and sounds more cosmopolitan. On the east coast of the US, a half bath on the main floor of the home is sometimes called a "powder room"--presumably that's because it winds up being the bathroom used by guests, and there's no need for the host to imply that the guests might ever have to relieve themselves when he or she could merely offer them a chance to freshen up and powder their noses. >>> We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they are >>> called "half-baths". "Two-thirds" bath seems more reasonable since [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > themselves when he or she could merely offer them a chance to freshen > up and powder their noses. Now that does surprise me. I have never heard the expression used outside the UK and these days it's fairly unusual. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>> We have a half-bath downstairs. I've never understood why they >>>> are called "half-baths". "Two-thirds" bath seems more [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Now that does surprise me. I have never heard the expression used > outside the UK and these days it's fairly unusual. Old sea dogs would be amused at the way the expression "a leak in the powder room" has changed its meaning over the centuries: "determining to take in water for a longer voyage, and to stop a leak in the powder room" SignatureJames >> On the east coast of the US, a half bath on the main floor of the >> home is sometimes called a "powder room"--presumably that's because [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now that does surprise me. I have never heard the expression used > outside the UK and these days it's fairly unusual. My family has always called the downstairs bathroom in my parents' house in Illinois the "powder room". It was apparently just the normal term for such a bathroom without bathing facilities when we moved in in '77. (Neither our old house nor any other I can recall earlier than that had such a room.) I don't believe I've heard the term used out here in California. We certainly don't call our downstairs (half) bathroom that. 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 > >> On the east coast of the US, a half bath on the main floor of the > >> home is sometimes called a "powder room"--presumably that's because [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > term used out here in California. We certainly don't call our > downstairs (half) bathroom that. That may have to do with real estate advertising: "2 1/2 baths" is far more economical of classified advertising space than "2 baths and powder room". SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >> On the east coast of the US, a half bath on the main floor of >> >> the home is sometimes called a "powder room"--presumably that's [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > far more economical of classified advertising space than "2 baths > and powder room". No, what we had built had 2 1/2 baths, but the half was a powder room. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring |bankers. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Ah, now I know what to call our downstairs cloakroom/downstairs shower >>> room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is >>> shorter and sounds more cosmopolitan. Jumping in to an earlier bit of the thread...... I think in the UK a "cloakroom" does usually include a place to hang coats, and indeed in public buildings such as theatres that is all it's for. It's just that in English houses it is common to find a downstairs room which combines coat-hanging with toilet and handwashing arrangements. Others may differ; but I don't think I would call a room a cloakroom if it had no coat hooks. (The answer to the next question is probably "downstairs loo".) But this may vary regionally. Katy >>>> Ah, now I know what to call our downstairs cloakroom/downstairs shower >>>> room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >no coat hooks. (The answer to the next question is probably "downstairs loo".) >But this may vary regionally. I agree. I think, though, that the downstairs loo in recently-built houses is unlikely to be big enough to double as a cloakroom, and that this coat-hook arrangement is likely in Victorian and Edwardian houses but not in those much newer than that. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>>> Ah, now I know what to call our downstairs cloakroom/downstairs shower >>>>> room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > this coat-hook arrangement is likely in Victorian and Edwardian houses > but not in those much newer than that. We have coathooks in ours (house built 1984). Two lots, in fact. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>>>> Ah, now I know what to call our downstairs cloakroom/downstairs shower >>>>>> room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >We have coathooks in ours (house built 1984). Two lots, in fact. Do you? Oh well, I must be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>>> Ah, now I know what to call our downstairs cloakroom/downstairs shower >>>>> room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >this coat-hook arrangement is likely in Victorian and Edwardian houses >but not in those much newer than that. Well, our house is a boring 1960's estate house, and our downstairs loo is indeed where we hang our coats. So you can push that to post-WWII, at any rate. Katy >I think, though, that the downstairs loo in recently-built >>houses is unlikely to be big enough to double as a cloakroom, and that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >indeed where we hang our coats. So you can push that to post-WWII, >at any rate. It seems to be my day fo getting things wrong. All this, though, suddenly reminds me of the way that "garderobe" similarly started out as a place to hang one's cloak, and later came to mean a privy. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>>>> Ah, now I know what to call our downstairs cloakroom/downstairs shower >>>>>> room/downstairs bathroom - all a mouthful, whereas "half bath" is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >indeed where we hang our coats. So you can push that to post-WWII, >at any rate. Mine is a 1960s estate semi, and like many of this design the downstairs loo is built under the stairs. The only practical place to hang clothes is on hooks attached to the door. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >> Jumping in to an earlier bit of the thread...... I think in the UK a >> "cloakroom" does usually include a place to hang coats, and indeed in public [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > this coat-hook arrangement is likely in Victorian and Edwardian houses > but not in those much newer than that. My parents put a cloakroom in the house they designed and had built in 1953. It had a loo, a sink and a row of hooks for cloaks, coats, scarves, etc. IIRC it was a good size, perhaps six times the size of the downstairs loo we have now. Interestingly, the house was right at the end of the "navigable" sewer system in the town; the room had to to have its floor raised by about 6" to give enough head for the toilet flush to work. SignatureDavid > In message > <7459cd06-b9c5-41cd-8cbb-385949f57a63@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the map points to a place called "Bogside". I'm assuming that the Scots > had to make do with the next-best thing. The British were worried about washing off their woad so they drank the stuff instead. You'll find more place names with "Wells". SignatureRob Bannister >Last year in Marienbad taught me a game played with matchsticks. But did you understand what tme frame each scene was in? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:15:39 -0800 (PST), franzi > > <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >Last year in Marienbad taught me a game played with matchsticks. > > But did you understand what tme frame each scene was in? No. I understood very little of the film, as far as I can remember. I'd like to see it again though. I might refer you to the thread about literality, myth and allegory in scriptures at this point, and suggest that in both cases the authors were appealing to the imaginations of their audience for the deeper meanings, if any, of their works. -- franzi >Given the Roman penchant for planting colonies of ex-legionaries here >and there in the provinces and subjugated lands, to bring some >gravitas to those natives who needed to be overlooked, it's surprising >that there aren't as many Colognes in the old empire as there are >Alexandrias in Greater Macedonia. I would suppos that the "Colonia" got dropped with time in most of them. Rather the way "Our Lady the Queen of the Angels" got rduced to just "Los Angeles" [*] [*] "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciúncula" ("The Town of Our Lady the Queen of Angels of the Little Portion") although its official name was simply "El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles." http://www.laalmanac.com/history/hi03a.htm Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Given the Roman penchant for planting colonies of ex-legionaries here > and there in the provinces and subjugated lands, to bring some > gravitas to those natives who needed to be overlooked, it's surprising > that there aren't as many Colognes in the old empire as there are > Alexandrias in Greater Macedonia. Lincoln (in Lincolnshire!) is one of them. It's from "Lindum" (the old name for the place) and "Colonia", as in Köln merged together. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >>>>>>When we went to Germany for a couple of weeks a few years back >>>>>>when we spent the summer in Finland,we stayed largely Ibis hotels [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Americans or the Germans, I don't know which, coined after WWWII, >handy for dummkophs who couldn't handle umlauts. Don't Austrians avoid the umlaut? Are they dummkopfs? Is someone who misspells "dummkopf" a dummkopf? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>>When we went to Germany for a couple of weeks a few years back >>>>when we spent the summer in Finland,we stayed largely Ibis hotels [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I'd spell it that way, too, if "ö" were easier to type on my >computer. I find Microsoft's Character Map to be a quick and easy method. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> On 05 Jan 2010, John Varela wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? They do? Cows and country people vary little from country to country, from what I've seen, so I look to the cities for whatever it is that makes a particular country unique. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the > cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? Let me try again. England and Japan both industrialized ahead of their neighbors. Both had imperial ambitions. Both think the people on the nearby continent are wogs. What else? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email John Varela filted: >> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >had imperial ambitions. Both think the people on the nearby >continent are wogs. What else? They had very different records when it comes to being invaded from without...England seems to get a new wave of foreigners every few hundred years, and each time from a different direction...Japan has done much better at staving off unwanted outside influence, and in the most striking instance, chased off a bunch of Europeans out who already had their big feet in the door....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >John Varela filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >off unwanted outside influence, and in the most striking instance, chased off a >bunch of Europeans out who already had their big feet in the door....r Yes. Unless the Japanese have become more accepting of foreigners since I was there, outside some Tokyo bars and nightclubs you'll find the sign "Japanese only". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >had imperial ambitions. Both think the people on the nearby >continent are wogs. What else? Countries don't "think". Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the > >> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Countries don't "think". The container for the thing contained, in this case the country for the inhabitants. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >> >> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The container for the thing contained, in this case the country for >the inhabitants. So tell me, since during the Viet Nam war the government was doing all sorts of things most people didn't like, are you saying America, as a whole, thought the Viet Nam war was a good thing? Do you consider the inhabitants of a country to constitute a same-thinking bloc? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> >> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the > >> >> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > doing all sorts of things most people didn't like, are you saying > America, as a whole, thought the Viet Nam war was a good thing? Don't make up straw men. It ill becomes you. > Do you consider the inhabitants of a country to constitute a > same-thinking bloc? You're trying to put words in my mouth. My remark that the peoples of Japan and England, as represented by the names of their countries, "both think the people on the nearby continent are wogs", was intended to be mildly humorous and you damned well know it. What's your problem? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >> >> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the >> >> >> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You're trying to put words in my mouth. Whereas saying that "the inhabitants" of "England" "think the people on the nearby continent are wogs" isn't putting words into mine? ! SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > >> >> >> Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the > >> >> >> cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > ! Don't wogs start at Calais? Christ! It was intended as a humorous allusion. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> > You're trying to put words in my mouth. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Don't wogs start at Calais? Christ! It was intended as a humorous >allusion. Of course not. The Wogs live a long way south. It's the Frogs who start at Calais. As you travel down, on the left are the Krauts. Eventually, you reach the Dagos and the Wops. Further south still, across the sea, and past the Yids, live the Fuzzy-Wuzzies and the Wogs. Every true blue-blooded Englishman knows this. SignatureIan >>> > You're trying to put words in my mouth. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >and past the Yids, live the Fuzzy-Wuzzies and the Wogs. Every true >blue-blooded Englishman knows this. Sorry - I overlooked the Spigs. No, offence, I hope. SignatureIan >>>> > You're trying to put words in my mouth. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Sorry - I overlooked the Spigs. No, offence, I hope. What about the Belgians? SignatureJames >>>>> > You're trying to put words in my mouth. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >What about the Belgians? Indeed. The Belgians. I'm not really sure how to offend Belgians. SignatureIan On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote >>>>>>> You're trying to put words in my mouth. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Indeed. The Belgians. I'm not really sure how to offend > Belgians. Monty Python addressed precisely that problem, and wound up with "Those fat bloody Belgian bastards"; can't find the reference on- line, though, which is a bit odd -- I'm pretty sure I'm remembering it correctly. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > line, though, which is a bit odd -- I'm pretty sure I'm remembering > it correctly. "Miserable Fat Belgian Bastards" will find it for you. SignatureJames On 12 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >> On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > "Miserable Fat Belgian Bastards" will find it for you. Aha; thanks. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed HVS filted: >On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >line, though, which is a bit odd -- I'm pretty sure I'm remembering >it correctly. Google time: "those fat bloody belgian bastards" 1 hit "miserable fat belgian bastards" 2700 hits (This is merely an exercise in how to make a search engine do what you want...I have no problems with the Belgians myself; my mousepad even has a picture of a man in a bowler hat with a huge green apple obscuring his features)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? On 12 Jan 2010, R H Draney wrote > HVS filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "those fat bloody belgian bastards" 1 hit > "miserable fat belgian bastards" 2700 hits Guess I've remembered it wrong for all these years; thanks. > (This is merely an exercise in how to make a search engine do > what you want...I have no problems with the Belgians myself; my > mousepad even has a picture of a man in a bowler hat with a huge > green apple obscuring his features)....r Oh, neither do I -- in fact, AFAICT my ancestors appear to have been Flemish. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 12 Jan 2010, R H Draney wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Oh, neither do I -- in fact, AFAICT my ancestors appear to have >been Flemish. Of course. I forgot. The Belgians are the Phlegms and the Wallies. SignatureIan >> (This is merely an exercise in how to make a search engine do >> what you want...I have no problems with the Belgians myself; my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh, neither do I -- in fact, AFAICT my ancestors appear to have > been Flemish. I believe you can get a cough medicine to help with that, these days. SignatureDavid On 12 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote >>> (This is merely an exercise in how to make a search engine do >>> what you want...I have no problems with the Belgians myself; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I believe you can get a cough medicine to help with that, these > days. Is a "flem" something that the Queen posts on Usenet? SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >HVS filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "those fat bloody belgian bastards" 1 hit > "miserable fat belgian bastards" 2700 hits EU-huggers should get a few. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> > You're trying to put words in my mouth. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >and past the Yids, live the Fuzzy-Wuzzies and the Wogs. Every true >blue-blooded Englishman knows this. When I was in the UK I was told that wogs start south of the Trent. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>> > You're trying to put words in my mouth. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>Don't wogs start at Calais? Christ! It was intended as a humorous >>>allusion. Fortunately the teenage Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) is "known" to have visited England in the company of Joseph of Arimathea[1], so although born a wog he became an honorary Brit of the English variety. >>Of course not. The Wogs live a long way south. It's the Frogs who start >>at Calais. As you travel down, on the left are the Krauts. Eventually, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >When I was in the UK I was told that wogs start south of the Trent. Only to those north of the Trent. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thepassion/articles/joseph_of_arimathea .shtml Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy Jewish man who buried the body of Jesus Christ after the Crucifixion. There are many legends about him, including one that he visited Britain with the young Jesus, and another that after the Crucifixion he brought the Holy Grail to Glastonbury in Somerset and established the first Christian church there. .... .... SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Fortunately the teenage Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) is "known" to > have visited England in the company of Joseph of Arimathea[1], so > although born a wog he became an honorary Brit of the English variety. Did someone say mattress to Mr Lambert? Brian SignatureDay 344 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project >>> > You're trying to put words in my mouth. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and past the Yids, live the Fuzzy-Wuzzies and the Wogs. Every true > blue-blooded Englishman knows this. I think you should have a blood check. It's well over 30 years since I lived in England, but I knew that the true England was protected by two trusty ramparts called the North Circular and South Circular. The latter was admittedly somewhat less trustworthy, and I believe they've both now been decorated with an "M", but tradition stands: those outside the circle are foreign, whether wog, frog or bog; those within are true blue, whether they were born in Trinidad, Cyprus or Battersea. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >>The Wogs live a long way south. It's the Frogs who start at Calais. >>As you travel down, on the left are the Krauts. Eventually, you reach [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >outside the circle are foreign, whether wog, frog or bog; those within >are true blue, whether they were born in Trinidad, Cyprus or Battersea. Your knowledge does you credit. One minor correction: the decoration has gone not to the Circulars but to the upstart 25. The Circulars aren't even completely dualled or grade-separated. I live too far away to be able to tell you where the dividing line between the capital and the provinces now lies. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > I think you should have a blood check. It's well over 30 years since I > lived in England, but I knew that the true England was protected by two [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > circle are foreign, whether wog, frog or bog; those within are true > blue, whether they were born in Trinidad, Cyprus or Battersea. You've got it slightly confused and the wrong way around. It's those inside the barrier who are the Not English. We stay away from them as much as possible. And, since we couldn't now fit them all into the zone controlled by the North and South Circulars (which is not M'd), we built a new limit, known to many as "M25". Outside is England. Inside is Something Else. SignatureDavid >> I think you should have a blood check. It's well over 30 years since I >> lived in England, but I knew that the true England was protected by two [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a new limit, known to many as "M25". Outside is England. Inside is > Something Else. Offa didn't go far enough. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> > You're trying to put words in my mouth. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >circle are foreign, whether wog, frog or bog; those within are true >blue, whether they were born in Trinidad, Cyprus or Battersea. I think that applies more to the Boulevard Peripherique around Paris. When we told our French landlady that we were going to buy a house about 35 km outside Paris she looked at us with scorn. A weekend cottage maybe, but to actually want to live in the sticks was beyond comprehension. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > Why do so many people think the people in the country and not the > cities are the true representatives of a nation's culture? Because a lot of people think that the countryside is full of all the noble virtues of the ...I want to say race, here...culture which have gotten lost or abandoned by the hedonistic lot who moved to the city, took up various vices, and forgot the old ways. Naturally, if you want to describe your culture, you'll pick the 'good' bits, even if you do labour in a cubicle in a big-city high-rise and left your rural hometown as soon as you finished high school. Also, because all really big cities tend to look a lot alike, especially at street level, where you can't see the famous mountain/waterfront/historic buildings. In my experience, people who actually live in rural areas don't have too many illusions about the virtue and traditional practices of their neighbours, but people who live in cities often get extraordinarily nostalgic about the safe, friendly life in rural areas with all the old customs preserved intact, like in a living history museum. Then they visit their rural relatives and complain that no one sells lattes, and there's nothing to do in the evenings. SignatureCheryl >In my experience, people who actually live in rural areas don't have too >many illusions about the virtue and traditional practices of their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Then they visit their rural relatives and complain that no one sells >lattes, and there's nothing to do in the evenings. Ah, yes, what we might call "Liz Jones" syndrome. >On 05 Jan 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >awareness of living on an island struck me as one of the main >differences between Canada and England when I moved here. Quite. When I lived in Britain for a while, they talked about "ports of entry" where we talked about "border crossings". That's an insular mentality as opposed to a continental one. Perhaps the Channel tunnel will change that. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >half the world not so long ago. Quite the opposite, whatever the >opposite of insular is: cosmopolitan, I suppose. I thought the opposite of "insular" was "continental". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>>Hello: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I thought the opposite of "insular" was "continental". Wouldn't open-minded be closer, looking at the dictionary definition of insular? Why "continental", since a people can be insular without living on an island, I believe? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>Hello: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I thought the opposite of "insular" was "continental". That sounds like a geographical distinction rather one based on the transferred usage of "insular". OED: 4.a. Pertaining to islanders; esp. having the characteristic traits of the inhabitants of an island (e.g. of Great Britain); cut off from intercourse with other nations, isolated; self-contained; narrow or prejudiced in feelings, ideas, or manners. Just two of the quotations: 1849 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. ix. II. 427 They were a race insular in temper as well as in geographical position. 1870 LOWELL Study Wind. 252 Without ceasing to be English, he has escaped from being insular. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>Hello: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >That sounds like a geographical distinction rather one based on the >transferred usage of "insular". Oh dear, one can't even make puns any more. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk On 06 Jan 2010, Steve Hayes wrote >>>>>> Hello: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Oh dear, one can't even make puns any more. Hmmm....I guesss I missed the pun, too. (I thought you were just being dead accurate with the original/non-transferred meaning of "insular"...and I agreed entirely with that pedantry...) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 06 Jan 2010, Steve Hayes wrote > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >being dead accurate with the original/non-transferred meaning of >"insular"...and I agreed entirely with that pedantry...) Well its circular, isn't it. The British live on islands, which makes them insular. Their environment affects them in such a way that being insular is also transferred to their worldview etc. So they are insular because they are British because they are insular because they are British. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>>>> Hello: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Oh dear, one can't even make puns any more. Although Peter's OED quote about "cut off from intercourse" was tempting. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>Hello: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > 1870 LOWELL Study Wind. 252 Without ceasing to be English, he has > escaped from being insular. When Joyce complained that the Irish were insular, I believe the OED's "cut off from intercourse with other nations, isolated" was what he had in mind. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >Hello: > >Would a British person ever say of himself/herself, when trying to >present in opposition to the Americans, and as part of Europe, that he/ >she is "a Continental?" I would say not. "Continental" is definitely used for the geographical continent of Europe, as distinct from the islands off the edge (though I suspect most English people would count the Mediterranean islands as Continental). It's useful to be able to distinguish "the Continent" from "Europe", since we are all Europeans now. Katy >> Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > suspect most English people would count the Mediterranean islands as > Continental). I've often wondered about Denmark, many of whose inhabitants live on an island? Many English people probably don't realize that Copenhagen is on an island, so they probably regard all of Denmark as a continental country. But what about Danes, who assuredly do know: do they regard Copenhagen as a continental city? Do people from Copenhagen refer to Jutland as the Continent? I know that people in the Canary Islands sometimes get annoyed with visitors who ask (as apparently very often happens) how far away they are from Spain. If they need to make a distinction between their bit of Spain and the rest they usually refer to the mainland as the Peninsula (maybe sometimes the Continent, but I think I've heard Peninsula more often). What about Tasmanians: do they refer to the rest of Australia as the Continent? If not, what? Signatureathel >>> Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >What about Tasmanians: do they refer to the rest of Australia as the >Continent? If not, what? Not-so-wild guess: "The Mainland". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> Hello: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Not-so-wild guess: "The Mainland". This Tasmanian uses that phrase: http://www.nla.gov.au/events/firstperson/papers/First_Person-Bowden.pdf Tasmania: the testicle of Australia Tim Bowden Tasmania is the testicle of Australia—suffusing the Mainland with strength and vigour. What a pity there is only one of them. .... but the sad reality is that in testicular terms, we Tasmanians are geographically detached from ‘the mainland’, hanging there alone, last stop before Antarctica. .... Mainland and even overseas writers are drawn to what Tim Herbert once described ‘the heart-shaped island with a brutal history’ that ‘has become everybody’s favourite narrative site’. Then he gives a litany of works and authors: First-time novelist Chloe Hooper ... her psychological thriller, A Child’s Book of True Crime. Britain’s poet laureate Andrew Motion...fictional biography, Wainwright the Poisoner, ... [The] location for the quest for Eden in Matthew Kneale’s English Passengers, Tom Gilling’s curious fantasy about a Hobart woman giving birth to a seal, The Sooterkin. British writer Nicholas Shakespeare ... a book titled In Tasmania, etc. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > [ ... ] > This Tasmanian uses that phrase: > http://www.nla.gov.au/events/firstperson/papers/First_Person-Bowden.pdf > > Tasmania: the testicle of Australia > Tim Bowden Almost certainly a relation of mine. Other than South Devon and Greater Manchester (which are almost certainly independent foci), Tasmania is one of the places where the name Bowden occurs most frequently. Signatureathel >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Manchester (which are almost certainly independent foci), Tasmania is >one of the places where the name Bowden occurs most frequently. The late Lord Bowden was from Chesterfield. He spent the latter part of his life in Greater Manchester, specifically in Bowdon. Many people confused the spellings and assumed that he was Baron Bowdon rather than Baron Bowden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._V._Bowden,_Baron_Bowden SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > What about Tasmanians: do they refer to the rest of Australia as the > Continent? If not, what? The mainland. They are quite disparaging about it. SignatureRob Bannister > What about Tasmanians: do they refer to the rest of Australia as the > Continent? If not, what? The North Island. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > > What about Tasmanians: do they refer to the rest of Australia as the > > Continent? If not, what? > > The North Island. And us Kiwis of course refer to West Island. -- Errol Cavit | If you took the whole of Norway, scrunched it up a bit, shook out all the moose and reindeer, hurled it 10,000 miles around the world and filled it with birds then you'd be wasting your time because it looks very much like someone has already done it. Douglas Adams, describing Fiordland, _Last Chance to See_ > Hello: > > Would a British person ever say of himself/herself, when trying to > present in opposition to the Americans, and as part of Europe, that he/ > she is "a Continental?" <lunatic laughter, unable to type> from Brussels, but definitely not a continental, that would be impossible, Stephanie |
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.