 |
 | 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 2010Stone
My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". Is that right, or are only people weighed in stones?  SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I > described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". > > Is that right, or are only people weighed in stones? No, it's OK for cats. Also, flour and some other dry goods although this is uncommon now. I would have said "a stone" rather than "one stone". SignatureDavid > > My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I > > described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I would have said "a stone" rather than "one stone". Funny this should come up today, as I was toying with posting a query about 'why do we say "I want to lose three stone", not "three stones"?'. But then I didn't. DC -- >>> My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >>> described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Funny this should come up today, as I was toying with posting a query > about 'why do we say "I want to lose three stone", not "three stones"?'. This also happens with feet. - It was two foot off the ground. And there are others where it only works if you follow with the inferior measure. - Four pounds - Four pound three ounzes - Two pounds - Two pound fourteen and six. SignatureDavid > > > > My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I > > > > described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > - Two pounds > - Two pound fourteen and six. Hmm. Wossat all about, then? -- >>>> My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >>>> described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > - Two pounds > - Two pound fourteen and six. For me "stone" has always been invariant (more so than "foot"). In other words I treate "stone" as both singular and plural, and its only recently that I've noticed people saying "stones". Signatureathel >>>>> My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >>>>> described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > other words I treate "stone" as both singular and plural, and its > only recently that I've noticed people saying "stones". Thank you for that. I've always thought the same, but when I began seeing the plural I assumed the problem was my North American ignorance of BrE idiom. Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:37:59 -0500 from CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>: > > For me "stone" has always been invariant (more so than "foot"). > > In other words I treat "stone" as both singular and plural, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > seeing the plural I assumed the problem was my North American > ignorance of BrE idiom. Jerome K. Jerome, in /Three Men in a Boat/, gives Harris's weight in stone, not stones; and G&S in /Utopia, Limited/ give a typical English girl's weight in stone, not stones. That doesn't say anything about today's idiom, but in Victorian times it does seem that the plural of stone (in weights) was stone. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:37:59 -0500 from CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>: >>> For me "stone" has always been invariant (more so than "foot"). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That doesn't say anything about today's idiom, but in Victorian times > it does seem that the plural of stone (in weights) was stone. It's also true for inches if the number is used to qualify the type of the object rather than the size. Examples: Nine inch nails. Four inch by four inch lumber. However - this nail is nine inches long. T. > > Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:37:59 -0500 from CDB <bellema...@sympatico.ca>: > >>> For me "stone" has always been invariant (more so than "foot"). [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > However - this nail is nine inches long. That's true for all nouns used attributively after numbers: the hundred-meter dash, a tenpenny nail, a four-engine plane, etc. It's also true for many other attributive nouns: a toothbrush, the drug squad (at least in America), a bicycle race, a dog trainer, etc. -- Jerry Friedman > Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:37:59 -0500 from CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That doesn't say anything about today's idiom, but in Victorian > times it does seem that the plural of stone (in weights) was stone. And books, often from that era, are certainly where I would have learned about the 14-lb stone. But Athel, who is directly acquainted with today's BrE idiom, says it's recent, and that will do for me (tidy away my doubts, as you might say). > Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:37:59 -0500 from CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > stone, not stones; and G&S in /Utopia, Limited/ give a typical > English girl's weight in stone, not stones. If I'd read down three posts to this one, I wouldn't have just spent 5 minutes finding TMIAB. But I'm glad I did, as I can now point out that it was, in fact, George(!): "George and Harris and Montmerency are not poetic ideals, but things of flesh and blood - especially George, who weighs about twelve stone". Also an interesting historic slant on how much bigger we've got in 100 years. To comment on a fit man of 12 stone as though that was high would be seen as most odd these days. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:21:51 +0000 from Nick <3-nospam@temporary- address.org.uk>: > > Jerome K. Jerome, in /Three Men in a Boat/, gives Harris's weight in > > stone, not stones; and G&S in /Utopia, Limited/ give a typical [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "George and Harris and Montmerency are not poetic ideals, but things of > flesh and blood - especially George, who weighs about twelve stone". You're right! I was thinking of Harris, but the quote is: " Harris is what you would call a well-made man of about number one size, and looks hard and bony, and the man measured him up and down, and said he would go and consult his master, and then come back and chuck us both into the river." (from Chapter VIII, as quoted at http://www.forgottenfutures.com/game/boat/boat.htm ) At least I was right about G&S: "eleven stone two" (156 pounds!). SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:03:43 GMT from Django Cat <notareal@address.co.uk>: > Funny this should come up today, as I was toying with posting a > query about 'why do we say "I want to lose three stone", not "three > stones"?'. > > But then I didn't. In a Monty Python sketch, the speaker refers to a bed as "three foot wide". Americans, I think, would all say "three feet wide". SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:03:43 GMT from Django Cat > <notareal@address.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In a Monty Python sketch, the speaker refers to a bed as "three foot > wide". Americans, I think, would all say "three feet wide". I'd remembered Wordsworth going for the 'three foot' version, in what is probably the worst line of poetry ever written, but it looks like I was wrong: "I've measured it from side to side: 'Tis three feet long, and two feet wide." DC -- > Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:03:43 GMT from Django Cat > <notar...@address.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In a Monty Python sketch, the speaker refers to a bed as "three foot > wide". Americans, I think, would all say "three feet wide". I've heard non-attributive "three foot wide" often enough that it doesn't surprise me. I think it's uneducated or possibly rustic here. However, here's an example in (what's intended to be) formal American English: http://www.shelterworks.com/specs/structural.html Here's a less formal example: http://www.chooseyouritem.com/rvs/files/128000/128303.html -- Jerry Friedman > Django Cat: >> Funny this should come up today, as I was toying with posting a >> query about 'why do we say "I want to lose three stone", not "three [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In a Monty Python sketch, the speaker refers to a bed as "three foot > wide". Americans, I think, would all say "three feet wide". Well, it's a three-foot-wide bed, and it is three feet wide. That's what this Latvian-American says. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> Django Cat: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >That's what this Latvian-American says. It is also what I say, and I was born in America. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Django Cat: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's what this Latvian-American says. A point that many modern English speakers miss is that "three foot" is a use of the Anglo-Saxon genitive. The "three-of-fota" use, which I used to be able to find on Google but which has since become invisible - Google likes to suppress any thing more than five years old - used to be the standard for expressing distances. (Don't expect Google to discover anything older than your own lifetime.) In my father's speech "five mile up the road" used to be perfectly normal. Unfortunately our present search engines can no remember such cases. Our search engines cannot find anything that is not modern. Remember this, when talking about past useages. Our search engines eliminate the past. Personally I find "five mile up the road" perfey normal, but our search engines are determined to kill off persurages kuje tgus, SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:29:39 +1100 from Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>: > (Don't expect Google to discover > anything older than your own lifetime.) Since the Web is younger than I am, I don't. Is the Web older than you? :-) Obviously you don't mean what you seem to be saying here, but I don't understand what you do mean. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:29:39 +1100 from Peter Moylan > <gro.nalyomp@retep>: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Obviously you don't mean what you seem to be saying here, but I don't > understand what you do mean. As you might have noticed, that article finished with the sort of garbage that only occurs when one is posting far too late at night. Still, I'm sticking to what I wrote. A clearer expression of the thesis, perhaps, can be found a little further on: "Our search engines cannot find anything that is not modern." You might understand that pre-web information can't be found on the web, but many people don't. They expect any information known to humans to be findable by a web search. It never occurs to them that a great deal of what we know never found its way to a web page. The web is younger than most - possibly all - of the regulars in this newsgroup, but I suspect that a majority of all people now alive cannot remember a time when it did not exist. Some of those people probably think that it's been in existence for hundreds of years. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:29:39 +1100 from Peter Moylan >> <gro.nalyomp@retep>: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >remember a time when it did not exist. Some of those people probably >think that it's been in existence for hundreds of years. I would word your statement differently: "Our search engines cannot find anything that has not be published on the web." The modernness of ancientness of the content is irrelevant. It is certainly true that much modern material is published on the web as a matter of course, and that we are playing catch-up with older material. Much modern material is blocked from free availability on the web by copyright laws. We could get into a situation in which old material is more fully and freely accessible on the web than modern material. The poem Beowulf can hardly be called modern, it is well over a thousand years old, but it is published on the web. It is nor alone. For instance: http://www.beowulfepic.com/ SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >The poem Beowulf can hardly be called modern, it is well over a thousand >years old, but it is published on the web. It is nor alone. I suppose I could try to claim that "nor" is an obsolete alternative to "not" in "nor alone", but AUE is not the place to risk it. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> The poem Beowulf can hardly be called modern, it is well over a thousand >> years old, but it is published on the web. It is nor alone. > > I suppose I could try to claim that "nor" is an obsolete alternative to > "not" in "nor alone", but AUE is not the place to risk it. Nor it is. SignatureDavid Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:50:47 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) <mail@peterduncanson.net>: > >The poem Beowulf can hardly be called modern, it is well over a thousand > >years old, but it is published on the web. It is nor alone. > > I suppose I could try to claim that "nor" is an obsolete alternative to > "not" in "nor alone", but AUE is not the place to risk it. You could always plead altered word order for emphasis: "Not is IT alone." :-) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:50:47 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) <mail@peterduncanson.net>: > >The poem Beowulf can hardly be called modern, it is well over a thousand > >years old, but it is published on the web. It is nor alone. > > I suppose I could try to claim that "nor" is an obsolete alternative to > "not" in "nor alone", but AUE is not the place to risk it. You could always plead altered word order for emphasis. After all, "Nor is it alone" is perfectly good English, and perhaps you wanted to emphasize "it". :-) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:15:40 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) <mail@peterduncanson.net>: > I would word your statement differently: "Our search engines cannot > find anything that has not be published on the web." The modernness of > ancientness of the content is irrelevant. Precisely! That's what I was trying to point out. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >> Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:29:39 +1100 from Peter Moylan >> <gro.nalyomp@retep>: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >findable by a web search. It never occurs to them that a great deal of >what we know never found its way to a web page. Yes, one finds that in genealogy ngs. The thought of doing research in librariesd or archives is utterly alien to some people, and they don't seem to appreciate the fact that if information is to appear on the web someone must actually take the trouble to put it there, and that means a lot of had work in transcribing paper records. 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 [...] > The web is younger than most - possibly all - of the regulars in this > newsgroup, but I suspect that a majority of all people now alive > cannot remember a time when it did not exist. Some of those people > probably think that it's been in existence for hundreds of years. I think I'm indebted to Evan's sig-file collection for Homer Simpson's "The Internet? Is that thing still around?" SignatureMike. Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:18:06 +1100 from Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>: > As you might have noticed, that article finished with the sort of > garbage that only occurs when one is posting far too late at night. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You might understand that pre-web information can't be found on the web, I don't understand that, because it's not true. All sorts of documents that long predate the Web can be found on it. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... Peter Moylan: > The web is younger than most - possibly all - of the regulars in this > newsgroup, but I suspect that a majority of all people now alive cannot > remember a time when it did not exist. Nope, but we're getting close to that. The median age of the world's population is slowly rising and about 10 years ago it was between 26 and 27. (In the more developed countries where most of us here live, the median age is substantially higher.) > Some of those people probably think that it's been in existence for > hundreds of years. I imagine there's still a substantial fraction who aren't aware of it at all. SignatureMark Brader | "And remember, my friends, future events such as Toronto | these will affect you, in the future." msb@vex.net | -- Ed Wood, Plan 9 from Outer Space My text in this article is in the public domain. > A point that many modern English speakers miss is that "three foot" > is a use of the Anglo-Saxon genitive. The "three-of-fota" use, which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > such cases. Our search engines cannot find anything that is not > modern. In one of those, General Greville had apprized Mrs. Courtney, that his military duties would call him many hundred mile up the country, where he was likely to be stationed for some time. _Husband Hunting_, 1825 The clachan was five mile down the glen,--so that by lodging for the night wi' Duncan, we would be weel forrit on our return road. _Fraser's Magazine_, November, 1864 We overtook Hi about five mile down the road with his new shot gun; he was sitting on a log waiting for us. Fracis French, _Skid Puffer_, 1910 I use Google to find evidence for words and constructions back to the seventeenth century all the time. There aren't very many hits for this construction, though, so if it was considered an educated standard it must have been earlier. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It's gotten to the point where the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only place you can get work done is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |at home, because no one bugs you, |and the best place to entertain kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |yourself is at work, because the (650)857-7572 |Internet connections are faster. | Scott Adams http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I > > described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > David Horses too, I believe. And an English dog magazine uses stone for dog weights. >> > My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >> > described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Horses too, I believe. And an English dog magazine uses stone for dog >weights. A horse may weigh a particular number of stone, but it will stand so many hands high, he said witheringly. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >> > My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I > >> > described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > A horse may weigh a particular number of stone, but it will stand so > many hands high, he said witheringly. Do you know Bill Withers? -- Django Cat filted: >> A horse may weigh a particular number of stone, but it will stand so >> many hands high, he said witheringly. > >Do you know Bill Withers? Perhaps Bill should get a B-12 shot....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> >> > My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >> >> > described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Do you know Bill Withers? No, but looking him up I see he recorded "Grandma's Hands". Was Grandma high? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >>>>> described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Do you know Bill Withers? That's just a duck in a microwave. SignatureDavid > >>>On Jan 9, 10:12 am, the Omrud<usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > That's just a duck in a microwave. "Mummy, there's a man at the door with a bill!" "Don't be silly dear, that's a duck" -- >>>>> On Jan 9, 10:12 am, the Omrud<usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "Mummy, there's a man at the door with a bill!" > "Don't be silly dear, that's a duck" Hmmm. I prefer: - Don't be silly, dear. It must be a duck with a hat on. SignatureDavid > > > > > > On Jan 9, 10:12 am, the Omrud<usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Don't be silly, dear. It must be a duck with a hat on. Better, definitely. I've just this second sent off the last part of a huge project just inside the deadline. I think this calls for the putting up of feet and the cracking out of Christmas DVDs for the rest of the afternoon. DC -- >>>>>>> On Jan 9, 10:12 am, the Omrud<usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > putting up of feet and the cracking out of Christmas DVDs for the rest > of the afternoon. Yes, indeed. I too have just finished something ahead of a deadline and feel I deserve a treat. My best treat would be for all the snow to disappear but I'll have to make do with catching up with Nurse Jackie, following the Omrud recommendation. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > > > > > > > On Jan 9, 10:12 am, the > > > > > > > > Omrud<usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > to disappear but I'll have to make do with catching up with Nurse > Jackie, following the Omrud recommendation. Just as well, because it looks to be rubbish TV this afternoon, on our version of digital anyway. Time for me to get out that Marx Brothers box set... -- >> Yes, indeed. I too have just finished something ahead of a deadline >> and feel I deserve a treat. My best treat would be for all the snow [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > version of digital anyway. Time for me to get out that Marx Brothers > box set... Blimey, you actually consider watching the telly on a Sunday afternoon? How decadent. We've been trying to clear the drive of snow; Wife is summoned to college tomorrow. The motorways are clear, but the local roads are still deep in snow. SignatureDavid >>> Yes, indeed. I too have just finished something ahead of a deadline >>> and feel I deserve a treat. My best treat would be for all the snow [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > college tomorrow. The motorways are clear, but the local roads are > still deep in snow. Ours are too and there's still more than a foot of it along our close and in our drive. There's been a very slight thaw today but if it freezes overnight the side roads and pavements will be even more slippery than they were yesterday. We walked to the supermarket yesterday: this would normally take about 12 minutes, even at my slow ambling pace, but it took nearly three times as long. I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, apparently oblivious to the danger of it falling down over their windscreen. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these > conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, apparently > oblivious to the danger of it falling down over their windscreen. Right. We've cleared the rooves at the same time as the drive - it's easy with a broom. SignatureDavid >> I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these >> conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, apparently >> oblivious to the danger of it falling down over their windscreen. > > Right. We've cleared the rooves at the same time as the drive - it's > easy with a broom. OTOH, if the roads are slippery, stopping suddenly enough is possible only by running into something solid (the car in front, for example), in which case snow on the windscreen will be the least of your troubles. SignatureLes (BrE) >>> I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these >>> conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, apparently [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > by running into something solid (the car in front, for example), in which > case snow on the windscreen will be the least of your troubles. Our close lies off a road with speed humps. Just going over one of those, even slowly, is enough to shake off a good deal of snow. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these > > conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Right. We've cleared the rooves at the same time as the drive - it's > easy with a broom. I'd been keeping a broom in the back of the car to brush snow off - I knocked it against a wall to clear snow from the bristles and the head shattered off - the cold must have made the plastic handle brittle. DC -- >> I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these >> conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Right. We've cleared the rooves at the same time as the drive - it's > easy with a broom. Rooves, eh? SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these >>> conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Rooves, eh? I thought I would. It looks nice. SignatureDavid ... > I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these > conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, apparently > oblivious to the danger of it falling down over their windscreen. Or flying off and hitting the windshield of the car behind you, to the driver's annoyance or worse. But that's a different kind of danger. "Damn you, Jack--I'm in front." I'll admit that during my very recent visit to Cleveland, I committed another of the cardinal sins: not brushing the snow off my headlights before driving at night. Well, it was only two hours' worth. -- Jerry Friedman >> I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these >> conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > another of the cardinal sins: not brushing the snow off my headlights > before driving at night. Well, it was only two hours' worth. Seems there is a problem with the new LED traffic lights. They don't emit heat, so snow accumulations make them invisible. SignatureSkitt (AmE) if it isn't one thing ... Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:50:29 +0000 from LFS <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>: > Ours are too and there's still more than a foot of it along our close Is a close what Americans would call a cul-de-sac, namely a public street that has only one connection to any other street? > I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these > conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, apparently > oblivious to the danger of it falling down over their windscreen. There's little danger of that while they drive, though it's fun to watch it happen if they stop. The problem is that it blows off *behind* their vehicles, as a fine spray that hurts visibility or in chunks that are quite dangerous on their own. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:50:29 +0000 from LFS ><laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>: >> Ours are too and there's still more than a foot of it along our close > >Is a close what Americans would call a cul-de-sac, namely a public >street that has only one connection to any other street? Yes. >> I am horrified at the number of people who drive about in these >> conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, apparently [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >*behind* their vehicles, as a fine spray that hurts visibility or in >chunks that are quite dangerous on their own. I've seen police stop and book people driving with snow on the roofs of their cars. I'm not sure under what law -- maybe insecure load? SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:19:51 +0000 from Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com>: > I've seen police stop and book people driving with snow on the > roofs of their cars. I'm not sure under what law -- maybe insecure > load? "Reckless driving" would cover it IMHO. They're creating a hazard to themselves as well as to others. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:19:51 +0000 from Robin Bignall ><docrobin@ntlworld.com>: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"Reckless driving" would cover it IMHO. They're creating a hazard to >themselves as well as to others. Or at least negligent. Like if they brake and the whole lot slips to cover their windscreen, giving them zero visibility for a while. 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 >Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:19:51 +0000 from Robin Bignall ><docrobin@ntlworld.com>: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"Reckless driving" would cover it IMHO. They're creating a hazard to >themselves as well as to others. I suppose that the problem is too rare in some states, but I'm pretty sure that Pennsylvania has an explicit prohibition against driving with a pack of snow on your roof. So you would ticketed for that, without a chance to fight against definitions. -- Rich Ulrich >>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:19:51 +0000 from Robin Bignall >><docrobin@ntlworld.com>: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So you would ticketed for that, without a chance to fight >against definitions. This is called the Take a Load Off Fannie law, as described here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=712kRqri2No SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> Yes, indeed. I too have just finished something ahead of a deadline >>>> and feel I deserve a treat. My best treat would be for all the snow [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > conditions with a foot of snow on the roof of their vehicle, apparently > oblivious to the danger of it falling down over their windscreen. Do you have any who clear just enough of the window for the driver to peer through? That's a practice that seems to have died out around here. Perhaps all the practitioners are no longer capable of driving. SignatureCheryl >>>>> Yes, indeed. I too have just finished something ahead of a deadline >>>>> and feel I deserve a treat. My best treat would be for all the snow [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >That's a practice that seems to have died out around here. Perhaps all >the practitioners are no longer capable of driving. The windscreen (windshield) washer fluid in both my cars has frozen. This is the first time this has happened with any car that I've had. The mixture is too dilute. I would normally top up the containers with a more concentrated mixture as winter approaches, but both cars have recently been serviced and the containers were topped-up by the mechanics with a mixture that would be adequate in one of our normal winters. Each container now has a layer of ice on top of which I have poured concentrated fluid. The temperature is a few degrees above freezing so I hoping that things will normalise over a period of hours. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >>>> described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> No, it's OK for cats. Also, flour and some other dry goods >>> although this is uncommon now. And what about the demon weed? >>> I would have said "a stone" rather than "one stone". >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A horse may weigh a particular number of stone, but it will stand so > many hands high, he said witheringly. Fait' yer honour, and how would I be knowin' where to measure de hoight of sich a foine horse?" he wittered. >> My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >> described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". >> >> Is that right, or are only people weighed in stones? > No, it's OK for cats. Also, flour and some other dry goods although > this is uncommon now. > I would have said "a stone" rather than "one stone". Just as BrE says "a hundred" and AmE says "one hundred". Why? Useless fact: the use of stone as a unit of weight goes back to the wool-merchants of the Cotswold Hills, in whose shadow we live, in the Middle Ages. The wool was weighed against a standard (in theory, anyway) 14-pound lump of rock. With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk >> My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >> described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I would have said "a stone" rather than "one stone". But it is not right to describe a new born baby weighing 7 lbs as "weighing half-a-stone". It does not sound right. After three decades of half-hearted decimalisation, most British women of child-bearing age do not know how many pounds there are in a stone. Yet they insist on using the outdated unit of the pound for specifying weights, particularly of babies. This is all for the maximum confusion of the maximum number of people. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:12:43 GMT from the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>: > > My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I > > described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I would have said "a stone" rather than "one stone". Thanks for that last bit -- I had wondered about it. FWIW, I chose "one stone" because "a stone" seems like one out of many; but obviously I didn't get the idiom quite right. It will be moot soon -- he's on a diet and his weight will drop below a stone over the next four months. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >> My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >> described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I would have said "a stone" rather than "one stone". Used to be for fish, too. So I imagine we'd turn up all sorts if we looked...<does so>...yes, per OED, it seems pretty well anything, animal, vegetable, or mineral, has at one time or another been weighed in stone/s. The invariate plural seems rather more common than the one with -s. SignatureMike. >>> My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >>> described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > weighed in stone/s. The invariate plural seems rather more common > than the one with -s. But it may be different weights for different things and for the same thing: A stone of fish, in London 8 lbs., but in the country, commonly 14 lbs.--a stone of wool, 14 lbs.--the same for horseman's weight, hay, iron, shot, &c. Joseph Blunt, _The Shipmaster's Assistant and Commercial Digest_, 1837 A _stone_ of iron or lead = 14 lb.; 21 1/2 stone = 1 _pig_, and 8 pigs = 1 _fother_; a _stone_ of fish or butcher's meat = 8 lb.; a _stone_ of glass = 5 lb. A _seam_ of glass = 24 stone; a _truss_ of hay = 56 lb; a _truss_ of new hay, until the 1st of Sept. = 60 lb.; a _truss of straw = 36 lb. In weighing wool, 7 lb. = 1 _clove_; 2 cloves = 1 _stone_; 2 stones = 1 _tod_; 6 1/2 tods = 1 _wey_; 2 weys = 1 _sack_; 12 sacks = 1 _last_. A _pack_ of wool = 240 lb. In weighing cheese and butter, 8 lb. equal 1 _clove_. A _bale_ of cotton in Egypt weights 90 lb.; in America a commercial bale is 400 lb., though it varies in different localities from 280 to 720 lb. A bale of Sea Island cotton is 300 lb. Edward Brooks, _Normal Higher Arithmetic_, 1877 Note that in the latter, for wool, at least, the plural is "stones". I wasn't going to type that all in, but I was so enchanted by the notion that a truss of straw has a seasonal definition that I decided I had to share. I have to wonder whether a 1-stone cat would, in the nineteenth century, have been taken to weight 8 lbs. rather than 14 lbs. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > A _stone_ of iron or lead = 14 lb.; 21 1/2 stone = 1 _pig_, and 8 > pigs = 1 _fother_; a _stone_ of fish or butcher's meat = 8 lb.; a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > notion that a truss of straw has a seasonal definition that I decided > I had to share. Hay, of course, not straw. I didn't know about that difference in standard weight, but, to complicate matters, old hay is more valuable than new, as it's more nutritious. I've never entered a truss of hay in a show, and there must be a rule; but it seems to me that under that name modern judges expect no more than a good armful --a third of an oblong bale, say. SignatureMike. (ipsosuiterging, having met an obstacle to sending) Jerry Friedman wrote: [...] > That's true for all nouns used attributively after numbers: the > hundred-meter dash, a tenpenny nail, a four-engine plane, etc. It's > also true for many other attributive nouns: a toothbrush, the drug > squad (at least in America), a bicycle race, a dog trainer, etc. On tenpenny nails, I had thought the originals were ten a penny, but OED says they were tenpence a hundred: I daresay subtle mathematicians may perceive a difference. (A friend had some made by the local blacksmith-farrier in about 1971, and was charged ten pence each.) But OED has this curious quotation from Webster: "1890 WEBSTER, Penny.., denoting pound weight for one thousand;used in combination, with respect to nails; as, tenpenny nails, nails of which one thousand weigh ten pounds." In Brit English usage, nails four inches and upward in length are not, in the trade, "nails" at all, but "spikes". In the same very broad semantic area, readers will be pleased to learn that Sainsbury's have stopped printing out shelf labels saying "[n] pence per each". Unfortunately, the labels now read "[n] pence per unit". I managed not to weep openly. SignatureMike. <snip> >In Brit English usage, nails four inches and upward in length are not, >in the trade, "nails" at all, but "spikes". <snip> Then, too, are the railroad spikes most of us have seen, which have an L-shaped head and a square shank. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Stan Brown set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I > described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". > > Is that right, or are only people weighed in stones? ISTR having read of a butcher's stone being only 8 pounds not 14. Either way it's still a perfectly sensible unit of weight, one that we can all *understand* here in the UK. Don't forget there's a further unit of weight - the hundredweight - between the pound and the ton. We'll 'ave none o' those damn forrin kilowhatsits over yere mate. No intermediate unit of weight between the kilogram and the tonne, so (the raison d'être for the multiple units in the Imperial system) numbers get pretty big. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Stan Brown set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply The old London or butcher's stone began for pharmaceuticals and spices; the term "butcher's" got attached to it late in the 17th century -- long after Edward III declared stone to mean 14 pounds. There's a document from 1302 that mentions a 5-pound stone used for glass. The town of Burport used a 20-lb stone for hemp in the 16th century. According to sizes.com, there were a dozen or so different stone, as late as 1862! http://www.sizes.com/units/sack.htm Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:12:21 -0800 (PST) from Cece <ceceliaarmstrong@yahoo.com>: > According to sizes.com, there were a dozen or so different stone, as > late as 1862! > > http://www.sizes.com/units/sack.htm What an interesting site -- thanks for the URL! SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >> Stan Brown set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > http://www.sizes.com/units/sack.htm So how many stone did the scone stone weigh, and for a bonus point pronounce 'scone stone'. >>> Stan Brown set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >So how many stone did the scone stone weigh, 24 stone according to Wikipedia. >and for a bonus point pronounce 'scone stone'. An English way of saying it: The stone in scone lies mainly sub the throne. I believe that Scottish pronunciation of "scone" is "scoon". That just leaves us with "stone". Which Scots pronounce that as "stane"? How many of them speak of the "stane of scoon"? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >My cat Destructo the Visigoth weighs exactly 14 pounds, and I >described him to a UK colleague as weighing "one stone". > >Is that right, or are only people weighed in stones? No, certainly potatoes as well. However, the Weighing of Cats is a difficult matter, it isn't just one of your holiday games. SignatureIan D |
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.