 |
 | 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 / British English / January 2004ten-foot pole
Recently I came across this sentence: I wouldn't get near one of the new programs in this country with a ten-foot pole. I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a slang? What does it account for? > Recently I came across this sentence: I wouldn't get near one of the new > programs in this country with a ten-foot pole. > > I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a slang? > What does it account for? It's a cliche. The standard phraseology is "I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole," meaning that the speaker finds "it" (whatever "it" is) so offensive that he or she would stay at least ten feet away from it and even then would not want to make any sort of contact with it. In most contexts you'll find it a lot easier just to say something like "I consider it very offensive."  SignatureBob Lieblich Whose mother was a five-foot Pole >> Recently I came across this sentence: I wouldn't get near one of the >> new programs in this country with a ten-foot pole. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > contact with it. In most contexts you'll find it a lot easier just > to say something like "I consider it very offensive." ... or "scary", or otherwise "to be avoided". I've never seen the proverbial Ten-Foot Pole, but the NBA has a Seven-and-a-Half-Foot Yugoslav. (Slavko Vranes of the Portland Trail Blazers) SignatureJack Gavin "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote... > > I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a > > slang? What does it account for? > > It's a cliche. [...] Is this some new usage of "cliché"? Matti > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote... > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Is this some new usage of "cliché"? Are you asking about the accent? M-W gives "cliche" as a variant spelling of "cliché". They don't date variants. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote... > > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Are you asking about the accent? M-W gives "cliche" as a variant > spelling of "cliché". They don't date variants. No -- that was my spellchecker keeping me sufficiently foreign. I was wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche. Matti > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > > > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No -- that was my spellchecker keeping me sufficiently foreign. I was > wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche. "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is definitely a cliche in the US. I believe this thread has said that the British equivalent is "I wouldn't touch that with a barge-pole." (However that last may be spelled -- open, closed, or hyphenated?) SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... >>> > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > wouldn't touch that with a barge-pole." (However that last may be > spelled -- open, closed, or hyphenated?) I think Matti is under the impression that a cliché is nothing but a dysfunctional metaphor. There is nothing metaphorical about "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole". It is a trite, hackneyed phrase, however, which the NSOED grants may be called a cliché. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > There is nothing metaphorical about > "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole". Hmmmmmmm... SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker > > There is nothing metaphorical about > > "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole". > > Hmmmmmmm... Right you are. "I am strongly disgusted by X, to such an extent that if X were a tangible object, and I were called upon for some reason to touch X, I would be so averse to doing so that even the seemingly safe remove granted by a ten-foot pole would be insufficient to mitigate my disgust." That's a metaphor, where: Tenor is disgust. Vehicle is pole. SignatureCheers, Jody jodybilyeu@smsu.edu > I think Matti is under the impression that a cliché is nothing > but a dysfunctional metaphor. There is nothing metaphorical about > "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole". Typically it's used to refer to a topic, not an actual object. This seems highly metaphorical to me, as it treats a topic as an object that can be touched, and also as one to which physical proximity would be unpleasant. Anybody else familiar with "Stanley Kowalski, the proverbial ten-foot Pole"? 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/ > > I think Matti is under the impression that a cliché is nothing > > but a dysfunctional metaphor. There is nothing metaphorical about [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Anybody else familiar with "Stanley Kowalski, the proverbial ten-foot > Pole"? Wasn't he a friend of Tennessee Williams's? Gary > Anybody else familiar with "Stanley Kowalski, the proverbial ten-foot > Pole"? No, but I've occasionally attempted to popularize, as an opposite for "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot Pole," "I wouldn't sell that for a five-hundred-pound Czech." -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is definitely a cliche in > the US. I believe this thread has said that the British equivalent is "I > wouldn't touch that with a barge-pole." (However that last may be > spelled -- open, closed, or hyphenated?) Chambers and I write it as one word: bargepole. I have an image of a bargepole being about 10 feet long, so I guess both poles refer to the same item. Adrian > > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > > > > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > wouldn't touch that with a barge-pole." (However that last may be > spelled -- open, closed, or hyphenated?) My biology teacher (1970s London) once said, "I wouldn't touch it with a forty-foot, plastic, sterilised barge-pole". Jeremy |-) > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > > > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No -- that was my spellchecker keeping me sufficiently foreign. I was > wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche. Your posts suggest that you consider it a sparkling newly minted phrase. I'm here to tell you that it's been around for long enough to be called a cliche. Gary "Gary Vellenzer" <nycram@seznam.cz> wrote... > matti-nospam@totally-official.com says... > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No -- that was my spellchecker keeping me sufficiently foreign. I was > wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche. Your posts suggest that you consider it a sparkling newly minted phrase. I'm here to tell you that it's been around for long enough to be called a cliche. I'm not claiming that it's new. So is a cliché just a phrase that's been around a long time? Matti > "Gary Vellenzer" <nycram@seznam.cz> wrote... [...] > I'm not claiming that it's new. So is a cliché just a phrase that's > been around a long time? Look in the dictionary. Hackneyed phrase (which "10-foot pole" undoubtedly is), dead metaphor, whatever: all clichés. SignatureSimon R. Hughes "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... > > "Gary Vellenzer" <nycram@seznam.cz> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Look in the dictionary. Hackneyed phrase (which "10-foot pole" > undoubtedly is), dead metaphor, whatever: all clichés. What is a "dead metaphor"? How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"? NB: I'm looking for something a little more objective than "over-used" here. Matti > "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... >>> "Gary Vellenzer" <nycram@seznam.cz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"? NB: I'm looking for something a > little more objective than "over-used" here. Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost its _je ne sais pas_? SignatureSimon R. Hughes [...] > Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" > lost its _je ne sais pas_? Quoi. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/contents13.html > [...] > >> Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" >> lost its _je ne sais pas_? > > Quoi. Oh, I don't know... SignatureSimon R. Hughes > > "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... > >>> "Gary Vellenzer" <nycram@seznam.cz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost > its _je ne sais pas_? Mais qu'est ce que tu dis la? Je ne ne sais quoi. Gary >>Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost >>its _je ne sais pas_? > > Mais qu'est ce que tu dis la? Je ne ne sais quoi. Posting in ISO-8859-15 leaves you no excuse for omitting the grave :-) Michael > >>Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost > >>its _je ne sais pas_? > > > > Mais qu'est ce que tu dis la? Je ne ne sais quoi. > > Posting in ISO-8859-15 leaves you no excuse for omitting the grave :-) It's my way of saying that I'm old, but not ready for the grave. Gary >>>>Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost >>>>its _je ne sais pas_? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > It's my way of saying that I'm old, but not ready for the grave. An acute pun ;-) SignatureEnrico C | 40tude Dialog - www.40tude.com/dialog | freeware newsreader with multilingual GUI in English, Italian, | French, German, Dutch, Croatian, Greek and Polish "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... > > "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... > >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost > its _je ne sais pas_? I'd go along with Partridge, who described the following types: * "fly-blown phrases" (good cliché material in itself!), eg "explore every avenue" * "soubriquets that have lost all point and freshness", eg "The Iron Duke" * "debased quotations", eg "cups that cheer but not inebriate" "empty formulas", eg "far be it from me to ..." and "metaphors that are now pointless", which I take it is your "dead metaphor". He gives no example of this, but I assume that it describes a metaphor whose referent is now unfamiliar to most people. I expect you'll propose that a ten-foot pole, or a bargepole, is now an unfamiliar object and hence gives rise to a dead metaphor. All I can say is that I've used the object many many times, and the metaphor upconjures a very effective image. So, at the end of the day, when all's said and done the bottom line is that long-established and frequently-used phrases are not for those reasons alone cliché candidates, unless you wish to dilute the label beyond utility. Matti > "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... > > > "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > say is that I've used the object many many times, and the metaphor > upconjures a very effective image. Less effective in discourse for being fly-blown, I'm afraid. There are presumably people for whom "throw the baby out with the bathwater" conjures up a vivid image, but that doesn't make it any less a cliche. I suppose the metaphor is technically "dead" when the vehicles of the metaphor are no longer words in common speech, and survive only in the phrase, as in the case of pitard hoisting, but between the birth and death of a common metaphor there's a long stretch of torpor, which at some early point becomes well-covered by the term <cliche>. > So, at the end of the day, when all's said and done the bottom line is > that long-established and frequently-used phrases are not for those > reasons alone cliché candidates, unless you wish to dilute the label > beyond utility. Oft-repeated metaphors wear even less well than other set phrases, maybe because of their suspect nature as, well, borrowed originality. SignatureCheers, Jody jodybilyeu@smsu.edu >> "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... >>>> "Gary Vellenzer" <nycram@seznam.cz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost > its _je ne sais pas_? For a start, is it "cliche" or "chliché"? Merriam-Webster online has both, but the accented word comes first, the non accented term follows as a variant Other dictinaries choose one form or another. What about usage? Anglophone keyboards haven't got accented vowels, have they? So, writing down the original French term could spell some headache, I guess :) Of course, the "e acute" is available by key combinations. Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s, so counting them would be useless My impression is that they are more or less evenly matched on web pages, but I could dead wrong. It seems to me that the plural is usually non accented, "cliches", but it's just my rough estimate. Encarta has "cliché, clichés", though. Then, looking for to the exact meaning and usage of the word, I came across this sort of cliché acid test. It's on the "Cliché Finder" site | I have my own test to see if a phrase is a cliche or not | I read the first half of the sentence, then I ask myself, | "do I just know (because everyone knows) | how the sentence ends?" I agree with that only to a point, as a cliche is a trite, overused remark. And there are many idioms and sayings you know how they end, but they are not necessarely cliches, in my opinion At least they are not cliches in the strict, negative sense of the word. cliché (plural clich?s) noun 1 overused expression: a phrase or word that has lost its original effectiveness or power from overuse 2 overused idea: an overused activity or notion [Mid-19th century From French, the past participle of clicher "to stereotype," imitative of the sound made when a mold is dropped into molten metal to produce a stereotype plate] *Encarta* On the other hand, there are fixed combinations of words that are not idioms or sayings, i.e. they haven't any traditional or metaphorical meaning, but they are cliches just because they are overused. SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker > For a start, is it "cliche" or "chliché"? > Merriam-Webster online has both, but the accented word comes first, > the non accented term follows as a variant > Other dictinaries choose one form or another. Really? Which dictionary lists only the unaccented form? > What about usage? "cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent. > Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s, Since when can't it? Adrian > Enrico C <enrico.c@spamcop.net> wrote i > > Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s, > > Since when can't it? I will assume you mean to say that it can tell them apart. How do you know this? When I search on <cliché> with an accent, the results include some pages that only have "cliche" without an accent. Vicing the versa, a search on <cliche> turns up some pages that only have "cliché" with an accent. I even checked the HTML Source, to make sure it wasn't finding a hidden "cliche". For example, this page: http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0786866748.asp I don't know what would account for the above except for Google disregarding the presence of the accent sign. SignatureBest wishes -- Donna Richoux > When I search on <cliché> with an accent, the results include some pages > that only have "cliche" without an accent. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -- Not only for Google searches, but with e-mail addresses as well. I have a friend in France, surname Godé. Both e-mail addresses work as below:- xxx.gode@yyyy.co.fr xxx.godé@yyyy.co.fr (The use of "xxx" and "yyyy" to protect the innocent). Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >> When I search on <cliché> with an accent, the results include some pages >> that only have "cliche" without an accent. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >(The use of "xxx" and "yyyy" to protect the innocent). In what way is xxx innocent, and what is poor Godé guilty of? SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >> Enrico C <enrico.c@spamcop.net> wrote i > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I don't know what would account for the above except for Google > disregarding the presence of the accent sign. Google on cliche - 313,000 hits cliché - 310,000 [cliche -cliché] 224,000 hits [cliché -cliche] 187,000 hits No, I have no idea what it means. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > > Enrico C <enrico.c@spamcop.net> wrote i > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I will assume you mean to say that it can tell them apart. How do you > know this? I searched for English-language webpages containing accented Hungarian words, eg. béka, pók, and the accented/unaccented results were quite different. Adrian Enrico C: > > > Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s, Adrian Bailey: > > Since when can't it? Donna Richoux: > When I search on <cliché> with an accent, the results include some pages > that only have "cliche" without an accent. That's because you forgot to use "allintext:" (or equivalently, to specify "in the text of the page" via the advanced search form). You were getting pages containing "cliche" that were *linked to* from pages contaning "cliché". > Vicing the versa, a search on <cliche> turns up some pages that only > have "cliché" with an accent. Mutatis mutandis. Try a case where a relatively rare French word has an accent and has a spelling that also differs in another way from the corresponding English, and you don't need to use allintext: to see that Google does indeed respect accents. elegiac 68,300 elégiac 5 élegiac 0 élégiac 8 elegiaque 2,140 elégiaque 410 élegiaque 32 élégiaque 5,620 I was surprised by the number of "elegiaque" hits. Looking at the synopses for the top 20, most of them are non-French text quoting a title that's in French, exactly when you'd expect accents to vanish. I expect the "elégiaque" hits are the same thing with the French word misspelled, but I haven't checked. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Domine, defende nos msb@vex.net | Contra hos motores bos!" -- A. D. Godley My text in this article is in the public domain. > Enrico C: >>> > Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You were getting pages containing "cliche" that were *linked to* from > pages contaning "cliché". >> Vicing the versa, a search on <cliche> turns up some pages that only >> have "cliché" with an accent. > > Mutatis mutandis. Thank you for this useful tip and sorry if I gave an incorrect bit of information :) Anyway, even searching only for "allintext: cliche" , Google gives surprisingly similar numbers: "cliche" ( 234,000+) and "cliché" (248,000+). > Try a case where a relatively rare French word has an accent and has > a spelling that also differs in another way from the corresponding [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I expect the "elégiaque" hits are the same thing with the French > word misspelled, but I haven't checked. I also tried a search for the Italian word "poiché" (as / because), and the results seem even odder to me! allintext: poiché 344,000+ (correct accent) allintext: poichè 343,000+ (wrong form) allintext: poiche 343,000+ (wrong form) I suspect that Google guys are trying to distinguish between accented and non accented forms, but they don't always completely succeed doing so, yet, due to some technical reason. SignatureEnrico C | 40tude Dialog Italy Cafe Screenshots | http://www.lillathedog.net/dialog/screenshots.html > > Enrico C: > >>> > Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > élegiaque 32 > > élégiaque 5,620 What I get for those is way different. (Preference set to All languages) elegiac 45,800 elégiac 49.600 élegiac 46,600 élégiac 46,600 elegiaque 5,280 elégiaque 5,530 élegiaque 5,300 élégiaque 5,290 So, (a) I'm getting counts that show essentially no difference from one to another, and (b) the differences between yours and mine might be do to the wild geographic variations we've been seeing the last year. I noticed that this same hit came up the last four times, and there are no accents anywhere on the "elegiaque"s, including Viewing Source. http://classical.onino.co.uk/classical/ rachmaninov_trios_elegiaque_1.html Google is calling up results with no accents, when accents are asked for. And vice versa. > > I was surprised by the number of "elegiaque" hits. Looking at the > > synopses for the top 20, most of them are non-French text quoting a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and non accented forms, but they don't always completely succeed > doing so, yet, due to some technical reason. I repeated your poiche search, Enrico, just on the words themselves without any allintext. As long as I had the Preferences set to All Languages, I got nearly the same results you did" 343,000, 341,000, and 345,000. If I switched to English Only, I got 6810, 6830, and 6810. We've never had to determine what "the same" meant for Google counts, when two numbers weren't identical, but I'd say these are damned close to illustrating "the same." What is "allintext" supposed to do, anyway... The Help pages say Starting a query with the term "allintext:" restricts the results to those with all of the query words in only the body text, ignoring link, URL, and title matches. Okay, so that's a quick way to reduce the effect of the Key Words section or words that might be part of HTML. As I said, it seemed to make only a slight difference. By the way, quite a few of your <poiche> hits turn out to be <poiche'>. The person knew it had an accent, but only had the apostrophe to make it with. There are more things we can test, but so far this supports the hypothesis "Google treats accented letters the same as unaccented," with the possibility that its count estimation formulas (which we know to be unreliable) appear to try to take them into account. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux [ . . . ] > [...] (b) the differences between yours and mine might > be [*]do[*] to the wild geographic variations we've been > seeing the last year. I did that a few years ago, used "do" for "due". A poster found it interesting because it showed him that my "do" and "due" are homophones, as opposed to his "doo" and "dyoo". I guess we can similarly infer that you say "doo" rather than "dyoo", as I due. > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I guess we can similarly infer that you say "doo" rather > than "dyoo", as I due. do be due be dew Ol' Blew Eyes. Donna Richoux a écrit: [...] > There are more things we can test, but so far this supports the > hypothesis "Google treats accented letters the same as unaccented," > with the possibility that its count estimation formulas (which we > know to be unreliable) appear to try to take them into account. I've found that typing a <+> just before the word makes Google definitely want to behave nicely with accents. The problem is that it still behaves badly with capital letters, so that I get very similar results for <+Élégiaque> and <+élégiaque> on the one hand, and for <+Elégiaque> and <+elégiaque> on the other. The point being that whereas <elégiaque> is faulty, <Elégiaque> isn't on the same level: after all, many French-speakers have been taught not to accent capital letters. SignatureIsabelle Cecchini > I've found that typing a <+> just before the word makes Google > definitely want to behave nicely with accents. The problem is that it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <elégiaque> is faulty, <Elégiaque> isn't on the same level: after all, > many French-speakers have been taught not to accent capital letters. The reason for the latter goes back to the introduction of Linotype typecasting machines into newspaper production in the C19th. Before that date, majuscules in printing were created complete with diacritics, and used by printers. The fact that the Linotype matrix provided insufficient headspace to accommodate accents meant that capital letters were not cast with them, and the habit spread to other printing and even to handwriting. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 Brian {Hamilton Kelly} a écrit: [...] > The reason for the latter goes back to the introduction of Linotype > typecasting machines into newspaper production in the C19th. Before [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > capital letters were not cast with them, and the habit spread to > other printing and even to handwriting. Very interesting. Thank you! I had always been told that it was a habit inherited from typewriters. SignatureIsabelle Cecchini > Donna Richoux a écrit: > [...] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > <elégiaque> is faulty, <Elégiaque> isn't on the same level: after all, > many French-speakers have been taught not to accent capital letters. What does the " + " sign exactly do in this case? I am getting 661,000 <+poiché> but only 340,000 <poiché> ! Google Help says | " + " Searches | [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | | Star Wars Episode +I SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker Enrico C a écrit: >> Donna Richoux a écrit: >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I am getting 661,000 <+poiché> but only 340,000 <poiché> ! [...] The results I'm getting tonight are: <poiché>: 473,000 with quite a lot of results containing in fact <poichè>, and <poiche> (many of those seem to be in fact <poiche'>) <poichè>: 480,000 --same thing, lots of "false" results <poiche>: 475,000 --same thing, lots of "false" results When I use the <+>, the difference in use between the correct and incorrect spellings becomes very striking: <+poiché>: 955,000 <+poichè>: 195,000 <+poiche>: 78,300 (with lots and lots actually being <poiche'>, as noted by Donna, and as such not qualifying as a spelling mistake) What's interesting is that I've been unable to find false positives in the results given by searches using <+>, whereas they were immediately noticeable in the very first pages I got when not using <+>. I must admit I'm flummoxed by the difference in proportion that we both get (disregarding the difference in numbers, but I don't think that's what that matters) when typing <poiché> and <+poiché>. I think that using the second type of search gives us a more accurate idea of the spellings actually used on the Web, and also allows us to have a better opinion about the spelling abilities of our contemporaries. I really don't know how it works, though. But I think it works! SignatureIsabelle Cecchini Isabelle Cecchini a écrit: [about putting a <+> before a word in order to make Google take account of accents] > I really don't know how it works, though. But I think it works! Right. I've finally found it on the French Google help page. Here it is: "Par défaut, les recherches Google ne tiennent pas compte des accents ou autres signes diacritiques (cédille, tilde espagnol, umlaut allemand, etc.). Ainsi, les termes [FRANÇAIS] et [FRANCAIS] retrouvent les mêmes pages. Pour indiquer que ces deux termes ont une signification différente, utilisez un signe plus ( + ), soit les termes de recherche [+FRANÇAIS] et [+FRANCAIS]." I've looked for the same advice in the English Google, which gives many tips absent from the French one, but with no success. SignatureIsabelle Cecchini I told you it worked >Right. I've finally found it on the French Google help page. Here it is: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >différente, utilisez un signe plus ( + ), soit les termes de recherche >[+FRANÇAIS] et [+FRANCAIS]." For those who don't speak French: By default, Google searches take no account of accents or other diacritic signs (cedilla, Spanish tilde, German umlaut etc.). Thus, the terms [FRANÇAIS] and [FRANCAIS] retrieve the same pages. To indicate that these two terms have a different significance, use a plus sign {+}, as in the search terms [+FRANÇAIS] and [+FRANCAIS]. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > Isabelle Cecchini a écrit: > [about putting a <+> before a word in order to make Google take account [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I've looked for the same advice in the English Google, which gives many > tips absent from the French one, but with no success. Nice shot! Now that you said it, I looked into the Italian Google Help, and it's right there | Per impostazione predefinita, Google non riconosce accenti | o altri segni diacritici. In altre parole, se si digita [Muenchen] | e [München] si ottengono sempre gli stessi risultati. | Per fare una distinzione tra le parole, anteporre il segno +; | ad esempio [+Muenchen] rispetto a [+München]. I didn't read that before as I usually go for the English Google, and I assumed the Help pages had more or less the same content in all languages. Well, the ones using the Latin alphabet at least! I guess Google people think English speakers are not interested in distringuishing between accented and non accented letters. SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker > Enrico C a écrit: > > What does the " + " sign exactly do in this case? > > > > I am getting 661,000 <+poiché> but only 340,000 <poiché> ! > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > get (disregarding the difference in numbers, but I don't think that's > what that matters) when typing <poiché> and <+poiché>. I get exactly the same for that as Enrico, well, within a few thousand. Very strange. If the plus sign is supposed to mean "exactly that" and without-the-plus-sign is supposed to include all variations, then that number should be *bigger* than the first. But this pair works the way I'd expect: +poiche 56,100 poiche 348,000 Well, not only are we getting different quantities in different cities, we know we've also seen other errors in the way Google estimates, at other times. I think there is something about a plus sign that causes it to count more carefully, in a way. > I think that using the second type of search gives us a more accurate > idea of the spellings actually used on the Web, and also allows us to > have a better opinion about the spelling abilities of our > contemporaries. > > I really don't know how it works, though. But I think it works! Yes, thanks for finding the instructions about the plus sign. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux << [Mark Brader] Try a case where a relatively rare French word has an accent and has a spelling that also differs in another way from the corresponding English, and you don't need to use allintext: to see that Google does indeed respect accents. elegiac 68,300 elégiac 5 élegiac 0 élégiac 8 elegiaque 2,140 elégiaque 410 élegiaque 32 élégiaque 5,620 [end quote >> << [Donna Richoux] What I get for those is way different. (Preference set to All languages) elegiac 45,800 elégiac 49.600 élegiac 46,600 élégiac 46,600 elegiaque 5,280 elégiaque 5,530 élegiaque 5,300 élégiaque 5,290 So, (a) I'm getting counts that show essentially no difference from one to another, and (b) the differences between yours and mine might be do to the wild geographic variations we've been seeing the last year. I noticed that this same hit came up the last four times, and there are no accents anywhere on the "elegiaque"s, including Viewing Source. http://classical.onino.co.uk/classical/ rachmaninov_trios_elegiaque_1.html Google is calling up results with no accents, when accents are asked for. And vice versa. [end quote >> My results are similar to Mark's. Similar numbers and the correct word is highlighted in the abstracts. Maybe the difference is in the character encoding of your browser. Here is what the URL returned for <"elégiac">, <"élégiaque">, http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_qdr=all&q=+%22el% E9giac%22&btnG=Google+Search http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_qdr=all&q=+%22%E9 l%E9giaque%22&btnG=Google+Search You might want to try these to see what is the number of hits. Then again, it may be the different server. Or Google knows what. -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For a start, is it "cliche" or "chliché"? >> Merriam-Webster online has both, but the accented word comes first, >> the non accented term follows as a variant >> Other dictinaries choose one form or another. > > Really? Which dictionary lists only the unaccented form? lookwayup.com , for instance. Main dictionaries show both forms, anyway. >> What about usage? > > "cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the I see some clichés on the net, actually, but a very few cafés :) > word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent. But if you always write cafe and cliche on the keyboard you get used to that, don't you? :) >> Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s, > > Since when can't it? That was my impression trying some searches, and I read of others having similar experiences, for instance: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/12724.htm SignatureEnrico C | 40tude Dialog Italy Cafe Screenshots | http://www.lillathedog.net/dialog/screenshots.html > "cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the > word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent. Excuse? We're speaking English here. 26 letters, no accents. SignatureMark Brader | "But [he] had already established his own reputation Toronto | as someone who wrote poetry that mentioned the el." msb@vex.net | --Al Kriman > > "cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the > > word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent. > > Excuse? We're speaking English here. 26 letters, no accents. That's a bit riche. Mike. >>"cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the >>word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent. > > Excuse? We're speaking English here. 26 letters, no accents. What form of English is that? 7-bit usenet English, perhaps? SignatureRob Bannister > >>"cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the > >>word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent. > > > > Excuse? We're speaking English here. 26 letters, no accents. > > What form of English is that? 7-bit usenet English, perhaps? Correct: it's the ONLY form of English permissible under the current standards for Usenet. (After all, I'm seeing all those e-acutes as thetas.) Until such time as USEFOR eventually completes its long drawn-out gestation, and newsreaders are written to conform to its requirements (which will probably be for UTF) then one can make NO GUARANTEES about any glyph appearing on the reader's screen in the form in which the author wrote it, unless it's one of the 94 printing characters of ASCII. (Certainly such abominations as "Latin-1 Windows" are non-portable.) SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 > In article <btvet5$rds$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au> robban@it.net.au "Robert > Bannister" writes: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > (Certainly such abominations as "Latin-1 Windows" are > non-portable.) Well, yes, but in the meantime there is plenty of newsreaders that could help you in reading and writing e-acutes "é" , umlauts "ö", or other "forgotten" French, Italian, German or Finnish letters, just to name a few :) And I don't mean using the "Latin-1 Windows" abomination, good heavens no! ISO charsets would be a good choice in many cases, they are usually recommended on European Usenet groups. If you want to be sure to catch all the commonest accents in European languages, and that can be sometimes useful on an English speaking group too, you might want setting your reader to iso-8859-1 or iso-8859-15, for instance. iso-8859-1 "covers most West European languages, such as French (fr), Spanish (es), Catalan (ca), Basque (eu), Portuguese (pt), Italian (it), Albanian (sq), Rhaeto-Romanic (rm), Dutch (nl), German (de), Danish (da), Swedish (sv), Norwegian (no), Finnish (fi), Faroese (fo), Icelandic (is), Irish (ga), Scottish (gd), and English (en), incidentally also Afrikaans (af) and Swahili (sw), thus in effect also the entire American continent, Australia and much of Africa." from http://czyborra.com/charsets/iso8859.html "ISO-8859 Alphabet soup" iso-8859-15 includes the Euro currency sign too. Much depends on the newsreader, of course. I - for one - am happy with 40tude Dialog (see sign). It automatically switches to the simpliest charset including all of the characters in the message. If you just write the 26 letters in English alphabet, Dialog will set a simple US-Ascii. But if you have under your nose more exotic chars, then it will turn to ISO charsets or to Unicode (UTF-8) if needed. Anyway, even if you don't want writing those chars yourself, you would read them fine at least :) SignatureEnrico C | 40tude Dialog - www.40tude.com/dialog | freeware newsreader with multilingual GUI | and Unicode character support >> "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... >>>> "Gary Vellenzer" <nycram@seznam.cz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost > its _je ne sais pas_? Hey, Bobby, what's the French for 'va-va-voom'? -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"? Perhaps the unrepealed English law that requires the driver of a "Hackney Carriage" to convey with him a bale of hay (in case the horse is hungry). As a concession, the law also permits said driver to urinate _in public_ against the rear off-side wheel of his vehicle, but only /in extremis/. ??? :-) SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 >> How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"? > Perhaps the unrepealed English law that requires the driver of a "Hackney > Carriage" to convey with him a bale of hay (in case the horse is hungry). > As a concession, the law also permits said driver to urinate _in public_ > against the rear off-side wheel of his vehicle, but only /in extremis/. I thought it was the rear nearside wheel. Perhaps that's why the police are always stopping when I........ >> How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"? > >Perhaps the unrepealed English law that requires the driver of a "Hackney >Carriage" to convey with him a bale of hay (in case the horse is hungry). >As a concession, the law also permits said driver to urinate _in public_ >against the rear off-side wheel of his vehicle, but only /in extremis/. A couple of years ago I was chatting to a London taxi driver, and I asked him where his bale of hay was. After a rather curious conversation trying to overcome the confusion this caused, he gave me a copy of the book of regulations covering London cabbies. I searched through it carefully, and there was no mention of keeping bales of hay for the horse, or for using the rear off-side wheel. The booklet claimed to be comprehensive. Either it was mistaken, or the two laws have been repealed. SignatureGraeme Thomas >A couple of years ago I was chatting to a London taxi driver, and I >asked him where his bale of hay was. After a rather curious [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >claimed to be comprehensive. Either it was mistaken, or the two laws >have been repealed. Or perhaps the whole thing is an urban legend? SignatureJohn Hall "One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other." From "Emma" by Jane Austen (1775-1817) >>>How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > claimed to be comprehensive. Either it was mistaken, or the two laws > have been repealed. Some time in the 60s, I recall. SignatureRob Bannister >"Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... >> > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >No -- that was my spellchecker keeping me sufficiently foreign. I was >wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche. Because it is, er, a cliche. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net "Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... > >[...] I was > >wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche. > > Because it is, er, a cliche. I expect by now you've read my apologia for the phrase, so please explain what makes it a cliché for you. If you think it's overused, then I'll be asking you how many times it's appeared (as something other than a topic _per se_) in AUE or UCLE over the last few years. Matti > "Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > appeared (as something other than a topic _per se_) in AUE or UCLE over > the last few years. Matti, I don't get what all these questions are about. But here's a count of *all* newsgroups via Google Advanced Groups Search: "touch that with a ten-foot pole" 687 "touch that with a six-foot pole" 4 "touch that with a seven-foot pole" 0 I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old phrase I've heard all my life. The snigger factor might be driving it out, though. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux <snip> >> I expect by now you've read my apologia for the phrase, so please >> explain what makes it a cliché for you. >> If you think it's overused, then I'll be asking you how many times it's >> appeared (as something other than a topic _per se_) in AUE or UCLE over >> the last few years. > Matti, I don't get what all these questions are about. But here's a > count of *all* newsgroups via Google Advanced Groups Search: > "touch that with a ten-foot pole" 687 > "touch that with a six-foot pole" 4 > "touch that with a seven-foot pole" 0 > I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old > phrase I've heard all my life. I decided to pop back and have a look at UCLE after a gap of a good few months, and see the discussions are as esoteric as ever! :-) I would concur with DR that popular useage seems to have variations of a common theme, although IME of many years in the UK 'ten foot barge pole' has been the most common. The one thing I've never heard, but which would arguably be the most correct, is 'I wouldn't touch that with a quant pole'! :-) "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > > "Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > The snigger factor might be driving it out, though. What I'm getting at is that, for me, the phrase is familiar, evocative, unhackneyed: in short -- not a cliché. You and others (not exclusively Americans) seem to take it for granted that it IS one, but no-one has explained what in their view qualifies it for that pejorative label. I'm wondering whether a cliché has simply come to mean a "well-known phrase". Matti > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > > > > I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an > > old phrase I've heard all my life. > > > > The snigger factor might be driving it out, though. > What I'm getting at is that, for me, the phrase is familiar, > evocative, unhackneyed: in short -- not a cliché. You and others > (not exclusively Americans) seem to take it for granted that it IS > one, but no-one has explained what in their view qualifies it for > that pejorative label. > I'm wondering whether a cliché has simply come to mean a "well-known > phrase". Isn't "a well-known phrase" a cliche? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/23cct-0.htm 2 Curd Cheese Tart Recipes > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... >>> "Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I'm wondering whether a cliché has simply come to mean a "well-known > phrase". In my opinion, it is hackneyed, and therefore a cliché. Hackneyed is not something that can be measured, so we're not going to get any further. SignatureSimon R. Hughes "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... > >>> > >[...] I was > >>> > >wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is not something that can be measured, so we're not going to get > any further. NSOED: hackneyed: 1. trite, uninteresting, or commonplace through familiarity or indiscriminate or frequent use. How does this apply to the phrase in your view, then? Matti > "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... >>>>> > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How does this apply to the phrase in your view, then? It is trite (a synonym for hackneyed, note), it is uninteresting, and it is commonplace. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >"Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no> wrote... >> >>> > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >How does this apply to the phrase in your view, then? It applies because the phrase is, er, trite, uninteresting, and commonplace through familiarity, indiscriminate use, and frequent use. (How do you like *dem* commas?) Is Cardiff English related to ordinary Earth English, I'm beginning to wonder? No poles, no feet either, or just a paucity of clichés, is it? SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old >phrase I've heard all my life. > >The snigger factor might be driving it out, though. I'm reminded of the man who went to his doctor with severe flatulence. The doctor got out a long pole with a hook at the end. "What are you going to do to me?" wailed the man. "I don't know yet", replied the doctor, "but first I'm going to open some windows". An oldie but goodie. Zero Relevance Corner. The phrase "had a ten foot willy" gets a mere 17 Google hits, BTW. A pretty poor show for such a fine piece of lyric poetry. "Tenpole Tudor", for those with long memories, clocks up over 2000 hits. No? Just me then. SignaturePhil C. >>I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old >>phrase I've heard all my life. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >doctor, "but first I'm going to open some windows". An oldie but >goodie. I wonder how many readers saw any humor to the above. I did, but that's because the windows in one of my grade school classes were those tall, narrow, double-sash ones. I can't quite visualize how they worked, but I do remember being assigned to take a long pole with a hook-like thing at the end of it and use it to lift up the lower sashes. Anyone that does not have any experience with such windows would be completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would be....50?...60? tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > >>I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old > >>phrase I've heard all my life. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would > be....50?...60? Certainly not in the UK. Window poles were common in the end of the 1970s to my knowledge, and I doubt that my school has since installed electrical devices to make them redundant. SignatureDavid ===== In uk.culture.language.english, in <gje000tbempb6go4jpp4oitvjoeievv4bj@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote: [...] >>I'm reminded of the man who went to his doctor with severe flatulence. >>The doctor got out a long pole with a hook at the end. "What are you >>going to do to me?" wailed the man. "I don't know yet", replied the >>doctor, "but first I'm going to open some windows". An oldie but >>goodie. [...] > Anyone that does not have any experience with such windows would be > completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would > be....50?...60? In the US, perhaps. The UK is another matter entirely - I'm 24, understood the joke perfectly and suspect that the same could be said for most people I know of a similar (and probably younger) age. Adam Signature"...an initial underscore already conveys strong feelings of magicalness to a C programmer." -- Larry Wall in <1992Nov9.195250.23584@netlabs.com> << [Tony Cooper] I wonder how many readers saw any humor to the above. I did, but that's because the windows in one of my grade school classes were those tall, narrow, double-sash ones. I can't quite visualize how they worked, but I do remember being assigned to take a long pole with a hook-like thing at the end of it and use it to lift up the lower sashes. Anyone that does not have any experience with such windows would be completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would be....50?...60? [end quote] >> << [Adam D. Barratt] In the US, perhaps. The UK is another matter entirely - I'm 24, understood the joke perfectly and suspect that the same could be said for most people I know of a similar (and probably younger) age. [end quote] >> I would say age 6. I know I saw the pole used last month in the auditorium of a grammar school; and when I recently revisited one of my own grammar schools, the windows looked the same. -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > << [Tony Cooper] > I wonder how many readers saw any humor to the above. I did, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a hook-like thing at the end of it and use it to lift up the lower > sashes. > Anyone that does not have any experience with such windows would be > completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would > be....50?...60? > [end quote] >> > << [Adam D. Barratt] > In the US, perhaps. The UK is another matter entirely - I'm 24, > understood the joke perfectly and suspect that the same could be said > for most people I know of a similar (and probably younger) age. > [end quote] >> > I would say age 6. I know I saw the pole used last month > in the auditorium of a grammar school; and when I recently revisited > one of my own grammar schools, the windows looked the same. This is new to me. I never knew that they had grammar schools in the USA. Are they much the same as grammar schools in England? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ << [Richard Maurer ] I would say age 6. I know I saw the pole used last month in the auditorium of a grammar school; and when I recently revisited one of my own grammar schools, the windows looked the same. [end quote] >> << [David] This is new to me. I never knew that they had grammar schools in the USA. Are they much the same as grammar schools in England? [end quote] >> For me (in the US) grammar school means grades 1 to 6, for others it means grades 1 to 8 (starting about age 6). Other terms are nudging it out of currency. I am sure we have done this before in a.u.e., and more completely, -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > << [Richard Maurer ] > I would say age 6. I know I saw the pole used last month > in the auditorium of a grammar school; and when I recently revisited > one of my own grammar schools, the windows looked the same. > [end quote] >> > << [David] > This is new to me. I never knew that they had grammar schools in the > USA. Are they much the same as grammar schools in England? > [end quote] >> > For me (in the US) grammar school means grades 1 to 6, > for others it means grades 1 to 8 (starting about age 6). > Other terms are nudging it out of currency. > I am sure we have done this before in a.u.e., and more completely, You might have done it in aue but in the real world "grades 1 to 8" doesn''t mean quite as much as giving the ages of the children. Once again, I have to cry US-centric! "Grades"? My grammar school (founded 1392, 100 years before Columbus rediscovered Brasil), educated children from the ages of 11 to 18. Most left at the age of 16; the few made it to 18 and to university (For British readers: when a degree meant more than A-levels, and A-levels meant a little more then the 11-plus). Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/8sco-0.htm Scorpio (October 24th - November 22nd) Images, Associations, Qualities, Careers, Health >><< [Richard Maurer ] >>I would say age 6. I know I saw the pole used last month [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Once again, I have to cry US-centric! "Grades"? Be careful on whose foot you tread. In my part of Australia, we have 'grades' in primary school (K-7, where 'K', once kindergarten, now represents 'pre-school') and 'years' in high school (8-12). SignatureRob Bannister | > Once again, I have to cry US-centric! "Grades"? | | Be careful on whose foot you tread. In my part of Australia, we have | 'grades' in primary school (K-7, where 'K', once kindergarten, now | represents 'pre-school') and 'years' in high school (8-12). They have now spread to the UK. My daughter Clare uses them at work in a local school. In uk.culture.language.english Dave Fawthrop <hyphen@hyphenologist.co.uk> wrote: > | Be careful on whose foot you tread. In my part of Australia, we have > | 'grades' in primary school (K-7, where 'K', once kindergarten, now > | represents 'pre-school') and 'years' in high school (8-12). > They have now spread to the UK. My daughter Clare uses them at work in a > local school. It is now standard usage in English schools, enforced by the Department of Education. Matthew Huntbach >> I'm reminded of the man who went to his doctor with severe >> flatulence. The doctor got out a long pole with a hook at the end. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would > be....50?...60? I must have had some experience with those kinds of windows, then. I could picture what was meant when I was reading the joke. My best guess is one of the grade schools I went to, but it could have been an old office building downtown where I worked for a while forty years ago. (Can you imagine working in an 8th-floor office [one large room]where the windows were open any time the weather permitted?) I wish more of today's office buildings had windows that actually open. I don't suppose that would be too healthy these days, though. SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. > >> I'm reminded of the man who went to his doctor with severe > >> flatulence. The doctor got out a long pole with a hook at the end. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > (Can you imagine working in an 8th-floor office [one large room]where > the windows were open any time the weather permitted?) I can recall a number of schools with such windows and poles. I cannot, however, recall any in which the woodwork or the poles were of any light-colored wood. They were always dark. I suppose smaller windows (lower ceilings), and light woodwork in institutions and the like are all post-WWII developments >"Charles Riggs" <CHANGE@aircom.net> wrote... >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I expect by now you've read my apologia for the phrase, so please >explain what makes it a cliché for you. Simple: I've heard it ten zillion times -- who hasn't? -- and it has lost all zest by now. >If you think it's overused, then I'll be asking you how many times it's >appeared (as something other than a topic _per se_) in AUE or UCLE over >the last few years. Life, as I know it, does not revolve around AUE. I haven't seen my two uncles in twenty years -- one I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole even if he weren't well dead -- and I can't comment on UCLEs at all. Let's stick with clichés. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > It's a cliche. The standard phraseology is "I wouldn't touch it > with a ten-foot pole," meaning that the speaker finds "it" (whatever > "it" is) so offensive that he or she would stay at least ten feet > away from it and even then would not want to make any sort of > contact with it. In most contexts you'll find it a lot easier just > to say something like "I consider it very offensive." I don't think it means "offensive", rather something like "to be avoided". A co-worker makes a proposal that the boss is sure to dislike if she hears it, and you say, "I wouldn't touch that one..." or someone makes an unintended double entendre that could be sexist, and you say, "I wouldn't touch that one..." SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. >> It's a cliche. The standard phraseology is "I wouldn't touch it >> with a ten-foot pole," meaning that the speaker finds "it" (whatever [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > double entendre that could be sexist, and you say, "I wouldn't touch that > one..." There is an example on Wayne Magnuson English Idioms "If anyone in your audience asks a question about religion, don't touch it with a ten-foot pole." In this case, you are not saying that you find offensive questions on religion, or religion itself. You are just suggesting that one should avoid answering questions on that subject. SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker > Recently I came across this sentence: I wouldn't get near one of the new > programs in this country with a ten-foot pole. > > I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a slang? > What does it account for? Hi Jeremy, I am not an English native speaker, anyway I came across this idiom a few times. I think it's usually said as "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole". As I understand it, it means you advise against getting involved in something, because you distrust it or just because that would get you into trouble. http://www.knls.org says it is an American idiom: "A fun American idiom is I WOULDN'T TOUCH THAT WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE The speaker is usually saying he doesn't want to get involved The pole refers to the long poles used to push barges down a canal or river You might hear an American say, 'Charlie, I don't have a clue how you get yourself involved in these situations, but I wouldn't touch that one with a ten-foot pole' Here's another example 'That salesman doesn't seem very honest I wouldn't touch one of his contracts with a ten foot pole I WOULDN'T TOUCH THAT WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE" Hope that helps :) SignatureEnrico C | http://www.lillathedog.net/icling/dizionari_inglese.html >> Recently I came across this sentence: I wouldn't get near one of the new >> programs in this country with a ten-foot pole. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I think it's usually said as "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot >pole". Or in Britain, with a "barge pole". SignatureDave OSOS#24 dswindell.gerbil@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one http://dswindell.members.beeb.net > http://www.knls.org says it is an American idiom: > > "A fun American idiom is I WOULDN'T TOUCH THAT WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE > The speaker is usually saying he doesn't want to get involved The pole > refers to the long poles used to push barges down a canal or river In fact the British equivalent is simply "I wouldn't touch that with a barge-pole". Cheers, Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org > Recently I came across this sentence: I wouldn't get near one of the new > programs in this country with a ten-foot pole. > > I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a slang? > What does it account for? Often given as "10-foot bargepole". (A long pole with a hook on the end used for pulling canal boats to the bank of the canal.) HTH. >Often given as "10-foot bargepole". (A long pole with a hook on the >end used for pulling canal boats to the bank of the canal.) No, the long pole and the boathook are completely different implements. The boathook is usually no more than about six feet long. The long pole (or bargepole, although that term is not much used because most canal craft are now narrowboats rather than barges) is indeed around ten foot long, and plain at both ends. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > Often given as "10-foot bargepole". (A long pole with a hook on the > end used for pulling canal boats to the bank of the canal.) Well, I've been into canal boating for over 30 years and into Thames Barges for over 20 and have never come across anything called a bargepole. I think it's essentially a term used by landspeople about a piece of equipment they only vaguely recognise. A working narrow-boat would have a long shaft and a (short) cabin shaft (which had a hook on the end). Sailing barges have various things called "poles" and "hooks",but no "bargepoles". "Bargee" is another word only ever used by landsmen. People who get saddled with that name usually call themselves "boaters", "boatmen", "sailormen", "lightermen", "wherrymen" or one of quite a few other terms depending on what kind of vessel they work. Incidentally on a working narrowboat, a long shaft would be considerably more than 10 foot and a cabin shaft considerably less. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk "Million-to-one chances come up nine times out of ten." (Terry Pratchett) > I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a slang? > What does it account for? It is a mis-quote. The correct term is "a ten-foot barge pole." 100 years ago they used barges in England to convey good via the British canals. Barges were a common form of public transport. Slow, but cheaper than a coach, but both were horse-drawn. The barge workers used a 10-foot pole to push the barge away from the canal bank, to steer the barge under bridges, through tunnels and to fender off other canal traffic. The barge pole was a usefull tool for keeping things at bay. On 09 Jan 2004, Can you still buy "Spangles"? wrote >> I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it >> a slang? What does it account for? > > It is a mis-quote. The correct term is "a ten-foot barge pole." Not really a "mis-quote": the US and UK versions are different. In the US, it's "...with a ten-foot pole"; in the UK the wording is "...with a barge-pole". I've never heard "...with a ten-foot barge pole"; sounds redundant to my ear. SignatureCheers, Harvey Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years; Southern England for the past 21 years. (for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs) > On 09 Jan 2004, Can you still buy "Spangles"? wrote > >> I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a > >> slang? What does it account for? > > > > It is a mis-quote. The correct term is "a ten-foot barge pole." > Not really a "mis-quote": the US and UK versions are different. > In the US, it's "...with a ten-foot pole"; in the UK the wording is > "...with a barge-pole". > I've never heard "...with a ten-foot barge pole"; sounds redundant > to my ear. Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure again -- by two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/07-0.htm ...can you tell me what is the correct time to boil an egg? > > On 09 Jan 2004, Can you still buy "Spangles"? wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure again -- by > two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain. Never mind that: I wouldn't touch her (nobody here) with yours! Mike. > > Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure again > > -- by two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain. > Never mind that: I wouldn't touch her (nobody here) with yours! I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. It sounds insulting, especially terminated by the exclamation mark. I can assure you though that if "her" is yours, I certainly wouldn't even dream of touching her with my pole. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/06-0.htm I have this extremely large growth on my lower chest > > > Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure again > > > -- by two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I can assure you though that if "her" is yours, I certainly wouldn't > even dream of touching her with my pole. My dear chap, feel free! I try not to be possessive. (As if. Or If only.) Mike. > > > > Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure > > > > again -- by two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I can assure you though that if "her" is yours, I certainly > > wouldn't even dream of touching her with my pole. > My dear chap, feel free! I try not to be possessive. (As if. Or If > only.) My sympathies. Actually, it's the Peyronie's which stops me vaulting. They always say, "Well, that'll take care of the wine and women but what about the song?" O Sole Mio.... Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/12vp-0.htm 12 Vegan Parkin Recipes > > On 09 Jan 2004, Can you still buy "Spangles"? wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure again -- by > two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain. Oh, and didn't somebody once say that Roman Polanski was the original five-foor Pole you wouldn't touch anything with? Mike. > > > On 09 Jan 2004, Can you still buy "Spangles"? wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Mike. Nah, it was Alexander Graham Belsky. He was the first telephone pole. [with no apologies to my Polish friends...after all, it wuz they what told me!] SignatureBest, Erick Andrews delete bogus to reply > > > > On 09 Jan 2004, Can you still buy "Spangles"? wrote > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Nah, it was Alexander Graham Belsky. He was the first telephone pole. > [with no apologies to my Polish friends...after all, it wuz they what told me!] Surely as we centimetre our way toward metric usage, it should be updated to a 3.048 metre pole, or rounded out at three metres. [...] > Surely as we centimetre our way toward metric usage, it should be updated to > a 3.048 metre pole, or rounded out at three metres. Interesting. I recall met in England, 1978 I think, who remarked at our dinner table during a discussion of Napoleon's Measure, that we should "bring back the rod, the pole, and the perch". (I don't know "perch"). Anyways, what expressions are there in metric that would be comparable? And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)? SignatureBest, Erick Andrews delete bogus to reply Erick Andrews: > Interesting. I recall met in England, 1978 I think, who remarked at our > dinner table during a discussion of Napoleon's Measure, that we should > "bring back the rod, the pole, and the perch". (I don't know "perch"). ... > And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)? Rod, pole, and perch are all the same thing. 16.5 feet, 5.5 yards, 1/4 chain, 1/40 furlong, or 1/320 mile. "Perch" is unknown to me as an English word having a meaning related to rods or poles, but not so in French. At least, the French term for a boom operator (the movie/TV crew member who holds the microphone near the actors' heads using a long boom, rod, or pole) is "perchiste", and the same word also means a pole vaulter. SignatureMark Brader | "The problem with waiting for a 'smoking gun' is Toronto | that it means the gun has already been fired." msb@vex.net | --Michael Chance My text in this article is in the public domain. > Erick Andrews: >> Interesting. I recall met in England, 1978 I think, who remarked at [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > near the actors' heads using a long boom, rod, or pole) is > "perchiste", and the same word also means a pole vaulter. Perhaps it was no more than a bad pun: One uses a fishing rod (aka fishing pole) to catch perch. SignatureJack Gavin > > Erick Andrews: > >> Interesting. I recall met in England, 1978 I think, who remarked at [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Perhaps it was no more than a bad pun: One uses a fishing rod (aka fishing > pole) to catch perch. I decided to suss out the OED. After all the first references to 'fish', we get on to "...pole, rod, stick, or stake, used for various purposes, e.g. for a weapon, a prop, etc.' However, several OED columns later...'A rod of definite length for measuring land, etc. ; hence a. A measure of length, esp. for land, palings, walls, etc. ; in Standard Measure equal to 5 1/2 yards, or 16 1/2 feet, but varying locally...' There are more odd definitions, but I don't feel like doing the math. SignatureBest, Erick Andrews delete bogus to reply > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)? Exactly the same as a rod or pole. SignatureRob Bannister > > And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)? > > > Exactly the same as a rod or pole. Gawd, are you still on about that? We'd finished with all that historical nonsense circa 1955 and, although it was still printed in the backs of our exercise books, had moved on to working out the relationship between Imperial and metric. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/gay/11-0.htm The Voices Die In uk.culture.language.english David <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote: >> > And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)? >> Exactly the same as a rod or pole. > Gawd, are you still on about that? We'd finished with all that > historical nonsense circa 1955 and, although it was still printed in > the backs of our exercise books, had moved on to working out the > relationship between Imperial and metric. I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few years after 1955. Matthew Huntbach > I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few years > after 1955. Rods (which is a lineal measure)? Or roods (which measure areas)? 1 rood == 0.25 acres == 1210 sq.yds SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 >>I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few years >>after 1955. > > Rods (which is a lineal measure)? Or roods (which measure areas)? > > 1 rood == 0.25 acres == 1210 sq.yds I never knew this one until it came up in a crossword last week. I only knew 'rood' to mean 'cross'. I'm surprised they didn't add it on to the innumerable tables we learnt at primary school. SignatureRob Bannister > >>I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few years > >>after 1955. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > knew 'rood' to mean 'cross'. I'm surprised they didn't add it on to the > innumerable tables we learnt at primary school. I only know it from If I were what I never can be, The master or the Squire: If you gave me the hundred from here to the sea, Which is more than I desire: Then all my crops should be barley and hops, And did my harvest fail, I'd sell every rood of mine acres I would For a belly-full of good Ale. Hilaire Belloc, from <http://www.wheatsheet.co.uk/W3page2.htm>. It might be missing a couple of commas. Some people here might be interested in the dialect jokes on that page. Maybe. SignatureJerry Friedman In uk.culture.language.english Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote: > I only know it from > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Hilaire Belloc, from <http://www.wheatsheet.co.uk/W3page2.htm>. It > might be missing a couple of commas. From Belloc's "The Four Men". Was reading it just the other day, having been inspired by a thread in UCLE to look up Belloc's account of the battle between Kent and Sussex. Somewhere in it there was also an account of why so many Sussex placenames have the stress on the last syllable, which I thought of just yesterday when to my great annoyance I heard my home town of Portslade being mispronounced by the station announcements at London Bridge station. Matthew Huntbach >Somewhere in it there was also an account >of why so many Sussex placenames have the stress on the last syllable, >which I thought of just yesterday when to my great annoyance I heard >my home town of Portslade being mispronounced by the station announcements >at London Bridge station. Have I ever mentioned that Portslade is an anagram of Adlestrop? http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1192.html SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) In uk.culture.language.english Molly Mockford <nospam@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote: >>Somewhere in it there was also an account >>of why so many Sussex placenames have the stress on the last syllable, >>which I thought of just yesterday when to my great annoyance I heard >>my home town of Portslade being mispronounced by the station announcements >>at London Bridge station. > Have I ever mentioned that Portslade is an anagram of Adlestrop? > http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1192.html Yes, I was aware of this, though if a train had stopped inadvertently at Portslade, the passenger would have been impressed by the whiff of gasworks rather than bucolic sensations. It is a little more bucolic in the northern parts where I grew up and where no-one goes unless they have to because it isn't on the way to anywhere, right up against the Downs, however it's about the bleakest stretch of the South Downs there is. Also the bits I particualrly remember for willow herb and grass and meadowsweet are now buried under the Brighton bypass. Matthew Huntbach >if a train had stopped inadvertently >at Portslade, the passenger would have been impressed by the whiff >of gasworks rather than bucolic sensations. Indeed. Going along the coast road, it's amazing how abrupt the transition is from grimy, industrial Portslade to posh Hove. SignatureJohn Hall "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626) In uk.culture.language.english John Hall <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote: >>if a train had stopped inadvertently >>at Portslade, the passenger would have been impressed by the whiff >>of gasworks rather than bucolic sensations. > Indeed. Going along the coast road, it's amazing how abrupt the > transition is from grimy, industrial Portslade to posh Hove. To be fair, the gasworks went when we switched to natural gas, and many people get an unfair image of Portslade from the little bit by the coast which is all most passers-by know about. Most of Portslade is north of the A27 and never gets seen by outsiders. Also a lot of the big houses in "posh Hove" have actually been converted into a maze of squalid bedsits, so it isn't quite as posh as it looks. Matthew Huntbach >To be fair, the gasworks went when we switched to natural gas, and >many people get an unfair image of Portslade from the little bit by the >coast which is all most passers-by know about. Most of Portslade is >north of the A27 and never gets seen by outsiders. Also a lot of the >big houses in "posh Hove" have actually been converted into a maze >of squalid bedsits, so it isn't quite as posh as it looks. Way back in the days when I was calculating such things for Social Services (based on the 1981 census) bits of Hove scored very highly indeed on the Urban Deprivation Scale. Nicholas the Stamp Collector had a lot to answer for. (To ucle only, as before) SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >Yes, I was aware of this, though if a train had stopped inadvertently >at Portslade, the passenger would have been impressed by the whiff [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Downs, however it's about the bleakest stretch of the South Downs there >is. Even the bleakest stretch of the South Downs is still far superior to most of the rest of the country! > Also the bits I particualrly remember for willow herb and grass and >meadowsweet are now buried under the Brighton bypass. Not all of it. And within half-an-hour of my Lewes home I can (at the right time of year) stroll amongst Viper's Bugloss and Pyramid Orchids. With the Ram Inn at Firle or the Trevor Arms at Glynde at the end of the walk. Heaven! (ucle only, by the way. I'm getting really fed up with these cross-posts to aue/aeu - they just don't know when to stop) SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >>Yes, I was aware of this, though if a train had stopped inadvertently >>at Portslade, the passenger would have been impressed by the whiff [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Downs, however it's about the bleakest stretch of the South Downs there >>is. > Even the bleakest stretch of the South Downs is still far superior to > most of the rest of the country! Sure, although the bit between the Adur and the Ouse was described by one of the 18th century writers (Defoe?, Johnson? can't remember) as so depressing that it would make a man want to hang himself if only he could find a tree to do it from. And that was in the days before most of it was ploughed up for agri-business. They didn't seem to have a taste for bleakness in the 18th century, the 19th century romantics invented it. Seriously though, I love it, and my heart beats faster and I know I am coming home when I travel southwards and see those green hills looming ahead of me. >> Also the bits I particualrly remember for willow herb and grass and >> meadowsweet are now buried under the Brighton bypass. > Not all of it. And within half-an-hour of my Lewes home I can (at the > right time of year) stroll amongst Viper's Bugloss and Pyramid Orchids. > With the Ram Inn at Firle or the Trevor Arms at Glynde at the end of the > walk. Heaven! Ah, but I was talking not about the South Downs in general but those particular parts immediately bordering the north of Portslade where I used to play when I was young but which have now had the Brighton by-pass driven slap-bang through them. When I grew older but before I moved to London, I sued to go much further, and knew practically every square inch of the Downs within ten miles of Portslade. Also, isn't it funny how the beer tastes better after a long walk, so although the Shepherd and Dog at Fulking or the Royal Oak at Poynings were bog standard Watney's pubs, a swift hike across the Downs to them was worthwhile. Matthew Huntbach >>>Yes, I was aware of this, though if a train had stopped inadvertently >>>at Portslade, the passenger would have been impressed by the whiff [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >and my heart beats faster and I know I am coming home when I travel >southwards and see those green hills looming ahead of me. There's an interesting general point there about how reactions to nature and landscape have changed. What seem to us natural aesthetic responses are greatly influenced by time and culture. Our ancestors lived one harvest away from starvation so beauty was seen in rich, productive land. I suspect the romantic movement flourished because, with the agricultural and industrial revolutions, improved roads and increasing wealth, the elite could begin to explore nature more easily and be more frivolous about it - their wealth was depending less and less on what the land produced. SignaturePhil C. >>Somewhere in it there was also an account >>of why so many Sussex placenames have the stress on the last syllable, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Have I ever mentioned that Portslade is an anagram of Adlestrop? It's nice to see the old Anglo-Saxon "trop" or "throp" form surviving in a place name. A lot of them seem to have been "corrected" in imitation of Norse "thorp/e". SignaturePhil C. > >Have I ever mentioned that Portslade is an anagram of Adlestrop? > > It's nice to see the old Anglo-Saxon "trop" or "throp" form surviving > in a place name. A lot of them seem to have been "corrected" in > imitation of Norse "thorp/e". Such as Althorp; which nonetheless is still pronounced Althrop, leaving some people confused. ----------- GC >>> Have I ever mentioned that Portslade is an anagram of Adlestrop? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Such as Althorp; which nonetheless is still pronounced Althrop, > leaving some people confused. Is that where Bret Favre's ancestors hailed from? (Pronounced "Farve" (one syllable), for non-fans of US football.) SignatureJack Gavin > >>> Have I ever mentioned that Portslade is an anagram of Adlestrop? > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > (Pronounced "Farve" (one syllable), for non-fans of US football.) No. I think that's across a narrow stretch of water from here (aka La Manche). ----------- GC > > It's nice to see the old Anglo-Saxon "trop" or "throp" form surviving > > in a place name. A lot of them seem to have been "corrected" in > > imitation of Norse "thorp/e". > > Such as Althorp; which nonetheless is still pronounced Althrop, leaving some > people confused. This used to be the case; if you find recordings of Charles (Earl Spencer) at or before Princess Diana's funeral, you'll find he does indeed say "Althrop" (or even "Altrop"). However, the fact that Diana is buried there, with hoi polloi having visited in their thousands, has resulted in him and the locals having now decided to pronounce the name as it is written, since that's what all the gawpers do. Sad to lose a little bit of tradition to the great unwashed. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 >>>It's nice to see the old Anglo-Saxon "trop" or "throp" form surviving >>>in a place name. A lot of them seem to have been "corrected" in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sad to lose a little bit of tradition to the great unwashed. Isn't it being lost to the washed? Or at least to the literate. SignatureFrances Kemmish Production Manager East Coast Youth Ballet www.byramartscenter.com [Althorp being pronounced as it is written] > > Sad to lose a little bit of tradition to the great unwashed. > > Isn't it being lost to the washed? Or at least to the literate. There's nothing literate about pronouncing a word phonemically; Fowler wrote "The Received Pronunciation has always been to some extent conventional; the spelling of a word is not necessarily a safe guide as to its sound". To pretend to an understanding of how to read words,and yet be ignorant of their conventional pronunciation exposes a lack of education. Now you might cavill at pronouncing "forehead" as "forrid"; but how do you say "knowledge"? SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 > [Althorp being pronounced as it is written] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > yet be ignorant of their conventional pronunciation exposes a lack of > education. It might just expose a lack of conversation. To be ignorant of the local pronunciation of the name of an insignificant hamlet is hardly an indication of lack of education. > Now you might cavill at pronouncing "forehead" as "forrid"; but how do > you say "knowledge"? Taxi-driver training? SignatureFrances Kemmish Production Manager East Coast Youth Ballet www.byramartscenter.com > [Althorp being pronounced as it is written] > > > Sad to lose a little bit of tradition to the great unwashed. > > > > Isn't it being lost to the washed? Or at least to the literate. > > There's nothing literate about pronouncing a word phonemically; This conversation only makes sense if you realize that the two of you are using different definitions of the word "literate." One meaning is "able to read and write." The other is "educated, cultured." (Is the difference pondal? Frances having a foot on both shores.) Plenty of people are able to read well enough (first definition) to pronounce a word as spelled, without being educated and cultured enough (second definition) to know that it is not supposed to be pronounced as spelled. I think that it's excusable not to know how the locals pronounce the name of a tiny village and is not some mark of deficient education. (Quick, everybody, revise textbooks around the world, get Althorp in there!) But it *is* a sign that people now acquire the pronunciation through reading, not through hearing it from natives, which is how I read the remark. >Fowler > wrote "The Received Pronunciation has always been to some extent [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now you might cavill at pronouncing "forehead" as "forrid"; but how do > you say "knowledge"? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > This conversation only makes sense if you realize that the two of you > are using different definitions of the word "literate." One meaning is > "able to read and write." The other is "educated, cultured." > > (Is the difference pondal? Frances having a foot on both shores.) Ouch! Nemmine ... SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >This conversation only makes sense if you realize that the two of you >are using different definitions of the word "literate." One meaning is >"able to read and write." The other is "educated, cultured." Many years ago, I was a lay prosecutor in the magistrates' courts (vehicle excise offences). Occasionally a defendant actually turned up to argue his case. One such case was called, and the defendant was shown into the witness stand. The clerk said, as usual, "Take the book in your right hand and read aloud the words written on the card." The court usher, a nice lady, spoke up: "Your Worships, I happen to know that this gentleman is illiterate. Shall I recite the oath for him to repeat after me?" Defendant: "Illiterate? I'm not illiterate!" Usher: "I'm very sorry, sir, I thought you told me ten minutes ago that you couldn't read and write." Defendant: "I can't - but I'm not bloody illiterate!" SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) In uk.culture.language.english Molly Mockford <nospam@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote: > Many years ago, I was a lay prosecutor in the magistrates' courts > (vehicle excise offences). Occasionally a defendant actually turned up [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Defendant: "Illiterate? I'm not illiterate!" I thought it was: Defendant: "Illiterate? I'm not illiterate! I'll have you know my ma and pa were properly married before I was born" Matthew Huntbach >> I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few years >> after 1955. > Rods (which is a lineal measure)? Or roods (which measure areas)? > > 1 rood == 0.25 acres == 1210 sq.yds No, rods. I think the system was that there was a standard width of allotment plot, but varying length. I seem to recall you could have a 5 rod or a 10 rod allotment. I note that a rood is 40 square rods. Matthew Huntbach > In uk.culture.language.english David <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few years > after 1955. Another odd one is 'chains'. I never ever saw this measure used in England, but even in the 70s, signs could be seen in Australia saying "Water 10 chains". SignatureRob Bannister > > I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few years > > after 1955. > Another odd one is 'chains'. I never ever saw this measure used in > England, but even in the 70s, signs could be seen in Australia saying > "Water 10 chains". In the 70s, I was for a short time a "chainman" (actual job title) with the Borough Engineers in a southern town. And yes, the chain was used for measuring would be roads and other areas, although, I must add, it was by then a "metric chain". Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/11mp-0.htm Microwave Parkin >>> I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few years >>> after 1955. >> Another odd one is 'chains'. I never ever saw this measure used in >> England, but even in the 70s, signs could be seen in Australia saying >> "Water 10 chains". > In the 70s, I was for a short time a "chainman" (actual job title) with > the Borough Engineers in a southern town. And yes, the chain was used > for measuring would be roads and other areas, although, I must add, it > was by then a "metric chain". Yup, I can remember acting as chainman for an overhead line surveyor during my apprenticeship. That was also a chain, and by the time I'd dragged it across several very muddy fields, it was bloody heavy! >>>> I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few >>>> years after 1955. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > during my apprenticeship. That was also a chain, and by the time I'd > dragged it across several very muddy fields, it was bloody heavy! I spent a couple of summers working as a head chainman, but we used steel tape. Besides, when doing precision surveying, the tape is supposed to be under a certain amount of tension, measured by a tension scale attached to one end. A muddy chain just wouldn't do at all. My work did not involve the extreme of using a scale, but there is a "feel" to the proper tension of the tape. An experienced head chainman knows that feel. The heavy part of the head chainman's job is carrying the bucket of stakes and nails, as well as the stake-driving implement, used also for the nails, of his choice. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> > I recall council allotments being measured in rods quite a few years >> > after 1955. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >for measuring would be roads and other areas, although, I must add, it >was by then a "metric chain". There is presumably a standard link length in a metric chain, as there is in a "proper" Gunter's chain. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) > There is presumably a standard link length in a metric chain, as > there is in a "proper" Gunter's chain. Be a bloody odd chain with different sized links, wouldn't it? Not really linked but I have a wooden chain which I made myself and each of its links are also very much equal. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/quiz/ Tricky Teasers - Freakish Facts > Another odd one is 'chains'. I never ever saw this measure used in > England, but even in the 70s, signs could be seen in Australia saying > "Water 10 chains". It is hard to remember back to pre-metric times, but I think chains were the basic unit used in forestry surveying. The water access points were probably marked at the same time for use in fire-fighting. The same probably applies to surveying of farmland and stock routes, where the water access would be for watering stock. Those were signs intended for people who were specialists of some sort; ordinary road signs for the general public usually had distances in miles or yards. Most people, though, would have known what a chain was as the length of a cricket pitch. -- Regards John >> Another odd one is 'chains'. I never ever saw this measure used in >> England, but even in the 70s, signs could be seen in Australia saying [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >miles or yards. Most people, though, would have known what a chain was >as the length of a cricket pitch. Chains were the standard unit for lengths of railway track right up to metrication (also canals, I think). A table of lengths was a "chainage chart", as it still can be, even if the lengths are not expressed in chains. See http://www.nhai.org/nh8.htm SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". > Chains were the standard unit for lengths of railway track right up to > metrication (also canals, I think). A table of lengths was a "chainage > chart", as it still can be, even if the lengths are not expressed in > chains. See http://www.nhai.org/nh8.htm Just to clarify, you'd only see chains used alone for distances up to a mile; after that it'd be mixed units. 393 miles 39 chains, not 31,479 chains. These chains are the ones 66 feet long, or 4 rods, or 1/80 mile. SignatureMark Brader | "The job of an engineer is to build systems that Toronto | people can trust. By this criterion, there msb@vex.net | exist few software engineers." --John Shore My text in this article is in the public domain. >> Chains were the standard unit for lengths of railway track right up to >> metrication (also canals, I think). A table of lengths was a "chainage [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mile; after that it'd be mixed units. 393 miles 39 chains, not 31,479 > chains. These chains are the ones 66 feet long, or 4 rods, or 1/80 mile. More to the point, a chain is 1/10 of a furlong. Futhermore, the chain is divided into 100 links (a link is 7.92 inches). Yes, it's an early example of decimalisation - before the French, of course. The chain is a surveyor's measure, and was, of course, an actual chain with actual links. SignatureJohn Briggs "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > More to the point, a chain is 1/10 of a furlong. Futhermore, the chain is > divided into 100 links (a link is 7.92 inches). Yes, it's an early example > of decimalisation - before the French, of course. The chain is a surveyor's > measure, and was, of course, an actual chain with actual links. Noting that in mediaeval times a chain (4 poles, or 4 wooden goads for whacking oxen) by a furlong (furrow long, or how far oxen would plough a furrow before needing a rest) is an acre, I assume that the metal surveyor's chain came rather later. Cheers! Gilbert > Noting that in mediaeval times a chain (4 poles, or 4 wooden goads for > whacking oxen) by a furlong (furrow long, or how far oxen would plough a > furrow before needing a rest) is an acre, I assume that the metal surveyor's > chain came rather later. Now, does Gilbert refer to a chain used by a surveyor who is made of metal? If so that sounds rather tobotc and very modern. Or perhaps he means a chain used by somebody surveying to find metal. Or perhaps he means a surveyor's metal chain. Or perhaps a metal surveying-chain. Fun thing, word-order :-) -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk "I'm not an old fart, and I'm not an old bore, Or a grumpy old b*gg*r like Evelyn Waugh" (Christopher Matthew) > > Noting that in mediaeval times a chain (4 poles, or 4 wooden goads for > > whacking oxen) by a furlong (furrow long, or how far oxen would plough [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Or perhaps he means a surveyor's metal chain. Or perhaps a metal > surveying-chain. Perhaps a little slow, but you got there in the end! And finally, can you answer the question? :O) Gilbert >"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >furrow before needing a rest) is an acre, I assume that the metal surveyor's >chain came rather later. And each ploughed ridge of typical size was exactly half an acre. I guess this was because they preferred to plough two ridges at a time, one outbound and another a distance away on the return, to make turning easier for a huge, heavy ox team. Thus an acre was a single ploughing job. SignaturePhil C. > >"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >plough a furrow before needing a rest) is an acre, I assume that the > >metal surveyor's chain came rather later. > And each ploughed ridge of typical size was exactly half an acre. I > guess this was because they preferred to plough two ridges at a time, > one outbound and another a distance away on the return, to make > turning easier for a huge, heavy ox team. Thus an acre was a single > ploughing job. Must be a myth, this story of a furlong being the distance oxen would plough (unless, of course the plough referred to is Ursa). A furlong (of 1790 inches in length) is 1/8 of a mile and a mile is 1/7920 the diameter of the Earth at the latitude of England. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/6vir-0.htm Virgo (August 24th - September 23rd) Kanya - the Maiden Aset (The Virgin Isis) >>> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > (of 1790 inches in length) is 1/8 of a mile and a mile is 1/7920 the > diameter of the Earth at the latitude of England. You mean 7920 inches in a furlong. Although the Earth indubitably existed before the mile, one should not assume a direct connection between the two. SignatureJohn Briggs > > Must be a myth, this story of a furlong being the distance oxen > > would plough (unless, of course the plough referred to is Ursa). A > > furlong (of 1790 inches in length) is 1/8 of a mile and a mile is > > 1/7920 the diameter of the Earth at the latitude of England. > You mean 7920 inches in a furlong. Yes, of course. Fingers not in tune with mind. > Although the Earth indubitably existed before the mile, one should > not assume a direct connection between the two. I assume nothing. I merely note the correspondence, along with that of the Attic stadion (7290 inches in length) of 600 feet being 1/600 of a degree of latitude at about the latitude of Greece. We know the metre was calculated to be a fraction of the Earth's polar circumference. We don't know that these other two, earlier measures were so calculated but they do correspond quite precisely. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/wfolly/2hs0-0.htm Hoober Stand: The Southern Door | We know the metre was calculated to be a fraction of the Earth's polar | circumference. We don't know that these other two, earlier measures | were so calculated but they do correspond quite precisely. Yes but the French got it a bit out :-( So now the metre is the distance between two marks on a platinum bar. SignatureDave Fawthrop <dave@hyphenologist.co.uk> uk.local.yorkshire.moderated has now been created. A place to discuss Yorkshire things without many interruptions. > | We know the metre was calculated to be a fraction of the Earth's > | polar circumference. We don't know that these other two, earlier > | measures were so calculated but they do correspond quite precisely. > Yes but the French got it a bit out :-( So now the metre is the > distance between two marks on a platinum bar. Just goes to show: the ancients did know more than us! :-) Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y01-0.htm Saltburn-by-the-Sea The old North Riding resort deserted and moody in a wet August > | We know the metre was calculated to be a fraction of the Earth's polar > | circumference. We don't know that these other two, earlier measures > | were so calculated but they do correspond quite precisely. > > Yes but the French got it a bit out :-( > So now the metre is the distance between two marks on a platinum bar. That was a -long- time ago, Jan Dave Fawthrop spake thus: > | We know the metre was calculated to be a fraction of the Earth's polar > | circumference. We don't know that these other two, earlier measures > | were so calculated but they do correspond quite precisely. > > Yes but the French got it a bit out :-( > So now the metre is the distance between two marks on a platinum bar. Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. SignatureDavid ===== >Dave Fawthrop spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in >vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. Let's hope that the second is not defined, directly or indirectly, in terms of the time taken for light in a vacuum to travel one metre! SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) Peter Duncanson spake thus: > >Dave Fawthrop spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Let's hope that the second is not defined, directly or indirectly, in terms > of the time taken for light in a vacuum to travel one metre! OK, OK, I knew somebody would ask. The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K - this rider was added later to make it clear that the definition of the SI second is based on a Cs atom unperturbed by black-body radiation, that is, in an environment whose temperature is 0 K, and that the frequencies of primary frequency standards should therefore be corrected for the shift due to ambient radiation, as stated at the meeting of the CCTF in 1999. Which means, of course, it's impossible to measure in the real world. SignatureDavid ===== > The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation > corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Which means, of course, it's impossible to measure in the real world. Of course it doesn't mean that. It means that a correction (one more) has to be applied. And 'measuring a second' is nonsense anyway: the second is whatever the standard clock(s) read, after application of all the necessary corrections. There is no platonic ideal second which we can measure, somewhere out there, Jan J. J. Lodder spake thus: > > The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation > > corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Of course it doesn't mean that. > It means that a correction (one more) has to be applied. But that correction has to be estimated as it can never be verified. SignatureDavid ===== > J. J. Lodder spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > But that correction has to be estimated as it can never be verified. Of course. And in the way agreed upon. The practice defines the second, not the other way round. Jan > Dave Fawthrop spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in > vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. Very clever of Nature, to make the speed of light exactly an integer number of metres a second, isn't it? Jan J. J. Lodder spake thus: > > Dave Fawthrop spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > an integer number of metres a second, > isn't it? It could just be foresight on the part of the (French?) standardisers who introduced the metre in the first place. SignatureDavid ===== > J. J. Lodder spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It could just be foresight on the part of the (French?) standardisers > who introduced the metre in the first place. LOL Indeed, just like the furlong fits the earth by foresight, Jan > > J. J. Lodder spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It could just be foresight on the part of the (French?) > > standardisers who introduced the metre in the first place. > LOL Indeed, just like the furlong fits the earth by foresight, Hindsight. Do not presume that we always know more than our forerunners. Eratosthenes supposedly computed the size of the Earth using the stadion, a measure that itself was determined by the size of the Earth. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/ The Yorkshire Dialect Society - information, publications and forthcoming events > Eratosthenes supposedly computed the size of the Earth using the > stadion, a measure that itself was determined by the size of the Earth. You're trying to keep the same joke going, aren't you? Eratosthenes knew what a stadion was. A stadion was 6 plethrons. A plethron was 100 podes. (pous) A pous was about l modern foot. It does appear that the length of a pous differed in different eras. Herodotus (three hundred years before Eratosthenes) wrote in his History, Book II, 149. Thus the pyramids are 100 orguia high, and 100 orguia equal 1 stadion or 600 pous... The stadion was best known for being the length of a standard foot-race. The 1911 Britannica describes Eratosthenes' calculation as: Being informed that at Syene (Assuan), on the day of the summer solstice at noon, a well was lit up through all its depth, so that Syene lay on the tropic, he measured, at the same hour,the zenith distance of the sun at Alexandria. He thus found the distance between Syene and Alexandria (known to be 5000 stadia) to correspond to -1115th of a great circle, and so arrived at 250,000 stadia (which he seems subsequently to have corrected to 252,000) as the circumference of the earth... SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > Eratosthenes supposedly computed the size of the Earth using the > > stadion, a measure that itself was determined by the size of the > > Earth. > You're trying to keep the same joke going, aren't you? Eratosthenes > knew what a stadion was. No joke. > A stadion was 6 plethrons. > A plethron was 100 podes. (pous) 600 feet to the stadion, 600 stadia to the degree of latitude at about latitude 40 degrees (the so called Attic stadion of 7290 English inches equivalence). > A pous was about l modern foot. It does appear that the length of a > pous differed in different eras. > Herodotus (three hundred years before Eratosthenes) wrote in his > History, Book II, 149. > Thus the pyramids are 100 orguia high, and 100 orguia equal 1 > stadion or 600 pous... > The stadion was best known for being the length of a standard > foot-race. > The 1911 Britannica describes Eratosthenes' calculation as: > Being informed that at Syene (Assuan), on the day of the summer > solstice at noon, a well was lit up through all its depth, so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 250,000 stadia (which he seems subsequently to have corrected > to 252,000) as the circumference of the earth... And Syene never was on the tropic; it's too far north. What does make sense is the concept of a well deep into the desert in the nome of Syene which is, or was on the tropic. With reference to maps (and without seeing the ground), Bir Abu Hashim seems to fit the bill. However, neither Syene nor B.A.H. are due south of Alex, so the maths become rather more complicated. Eratosthenes had access to all the books of the Al Iskandarian Library before they were burnt by those damned Christians. I think the stories of his computations (especially the one about fifty camels taking fifty days to get from Sy to Alex) are blinds to what he was really doing, and that he already knew from his reading about the relationship between the stadion and the length of a degree of latitude. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y13-0.htm Roseberry Topping on the Cleveland Way > > > Eratosthenes supposedly computed the size of the Earth using the > > > stadion, a measure that itself was determined by the size of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > A pous was about l modern foot. It does appear that the length of a > > pous differed in different eras. [snip evidence of the existence of the stadion as a measurement] > > The 1911 Britannica describes Eratosthenes' calculation as: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Eratosthenes had access to all the books of the Al Iskandarian Library > before they were burnt by those damned Christians. Christians? That's disputed; see for example The Mysterious Fate of the Great Library of Alexandria http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm#top and the linked second paper >I think the stories > of his computations (especially the one about fifty camels taking fifty > days to get from Sy to Alex) are blinds to what he was really doing, > and that he already knew from his reading about the relationship > between the stadion and the length of a degree of latitude. Degree of latitude? Longitude and latitude were inventions of Ptolemy (parallels and meridians). Much later. The book "The Mapmakers" notes the problems you mention with Eratosthenes' measurements -- that Syrene is not on the tropic, that it is not due south of Alexandria, and the inaccurate estimate of 5,000 stadia. When people marvel at how close his estimate was of the size of the earth, they forget that he made these errors, which just happened to cancel either out. However, none of that deals with your original point. He did not need to know the size of the earth before he could deal in stadia and degrees. He *calculated* the size of a degree, essentially, by calculating the circumference of the globe. You're sure you're not mixing this up with the later confusion (by Columbus, for example) between the size of a degree as calculated by Eratosthenes and the size of a degree as calculated by Ptolemy? That had some real consequences (like leading Columbus to think the world was smaller than it is). And somewhere, although I never have been able to find it again, I remember that later scholars had problems knowing which "stadion" the Greeks were using, for some project. I'd like to know when that occurred. It doesn't seem to be this venture. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > > > Eratosthenes supposedly computed the size of the Earth using the > > > > stadion, a measure that itself was determined by the size of the [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > Greeks were using, for some project. I'd like to know when that > occurred. It doesn't seem to be this venture. Hi, Donna I recently posted a message lamenting your absence. Delighted to discover that I was wrong. Regards, Izzy [Snip] My apologies for the direction of this thread which has little to do with English. > >I think the stories of his computations (especially the one about > > fifty camels taking fifty days to get from Sy to Alex) are blinds > > to what he was really doing, and that he already knew from his > > reading about the relationship between the stadion and the length > > of a degree of latitude. > Degree of latitude? Longitude and latitude were inventions of Ptolemy > (parallels and meridians). Much later. Curious then that a degree of latitude at about (maybe exactly) 40 degrees computed using the International Ellipsoid of Reference is precisely 600 stadia (of 7290 inches), each of 600 feet. The fact of a measure being 1/600 of a degree is readily dismissed as coincidence; that this measure is in turn defined as 600 smaller units in length suggests some design. > The book "The Mapmakers" notes the problems you mention with > Eratosthenes' measurements -- that Syrene is not on the tropic, that > it is not due south of Alexandria, and the inaccurate estimate of > 5,000 stadia. When people marvel at how close his estimate was of the > size of the earth, they forget that he made these errors, which just > happened to cancel either out. > However, none of that deals with your original point. He did not need > to know the size of the earth before he could deal in stadia and > degrees. He *calculated* the size of a degree, essentially, by > calculating the circumference of the globe. And my point would appear to be that he didn't need to had he known that the stadion was based on the polar circumference. My point also would seem to be that if such knowledge were available, almost certainly it would have been in the library at Alex and that Eratosthenes would have known of it. In fact, my point really is not so much that he did know of the relationship between the stadion and the Earth but that he used the knowledge to concoct a fairy tale incorporating certain information. He did not need a sunlit well in Syene province; all he needed was a couple of pillars at a known distance, set on a north-south line. The main features of the fairy-tale are Alexandria (planned in grain dropped from a cart by Alexander himself), Pharos (the lighthouse on the island seven stadia offshore), and the well (shining golden from the solstitial sun). And those features are also key features in the Greek story of Palamedes, inventor of (among many other things) lighthouses, who found grain for the army, and because of which was lured to his death by stoning in a deep well searching for treasure. These elements also seem to feature highly in the story of the Jewish culture hero, Joseph. There seems much information hidden in these myths (and many other myths connecting wells, stones, grain, floods, earth measures and the like). The fact (if it is) that the stadion was already determined as a fraction of the Earth's circumference seems incidental (unless the meaning of the fairy-tale is that whatever we dig up, Palamedes was there before). > You're sure you're not mixing this up with the later confusion (by > Columbus, for example) between the size of a degree as calculated by > Eratosthenes and the size of a degree as calculated by Ptolemy? That > had some real consequences (like leading Columbus to think the world > was smaller than it is). It is smaller than that now! No, whatever charts Columbus had don't seem to come into this - well, not at this stage of the deliberations, any way. > And somewhere, although I never have been able to find it again, I > remember that later scholars had problems knowing which "stadion" the > Greeks were using, for some project. I'd like to know when that > occurred. It doesn't seem to be this venture. Yes, lots of local stadia - as, I suppose, there were lots of local furlongs, miles, and the like. Wasn't the ten-foot pole the cane of six cubits (121.5 inches)? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/baqu-0.htm Aquarius (January 21st - February 19th) Khumba - the Water-Pot Anuket (Anukis) "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > [...] > The book "The Mapmakers" notes the problems you mention with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the size of the earth, they forget that he made these errors, which > just happened to cancel either out. [...] Did you mean "cancel each other out"? I've never seen the pattern you used there, Donna. Matti > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > > [...] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Did you mean "cancel each other out"? I've never seen the pattern you > used there, Donna. Right, that's what I meant. Odd mistake. But even "each other" doesn't work perfectly with three errors, does it? One of those between/among problems. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >>> J. J. Lodder spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Hindsight. Do not presume that we always know more than our forerunners. You know, that figurative use of 'forerunner' is rather uncommon. And it would be reasonable to presume we know more than our forerunners: otherwise they wouldn't be our forerunners, we would be their epigones SignatureJohn Briggs > > Hindsight. Do not presume that we always know more than our > > forerunners. > You know, that figurative use of 'forerunner' is rather uncommon. > And it would be reasonable to presume we know more than our > forerunners: otherwise they wouldn't be our forerunners, we would be > their epigones Well, if we're struggling to catch up.... Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/30-speak2.htm No-one can follow; Of nought do I speak... >> Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in >> vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >an integer number of metres a second, >isn't it? It would have been even cleverer had the figure been exactly 300,000,000. (To be serious, I imagine that the figure quoted by David is an approximation, but one good enough for most practical purposes.) SignatureJohn Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat The subjects of the King, And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton: Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers" John Hall spake thus: > >> Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in > >> vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (To be serious, I imagine that the figure quoted by David is an > approximation, but one good enough for most practical purposes.) Nope, it's a definition and therefore exactly correct. SignatureDavid ===== > >> Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in > >> vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It would have been even cleverer had the figure been exactly > 300,000,000. Alas, there is backwards compatibility to consider. It would be cleverer still to abolish the metre altogether, make the figure 1 , and to measure distances in (nano)seconds. But there is backwards compatibility to consider. > (To be serious, I imagine that the figure quoted by David is an > approximation, but one good enough for most practical purposes.) It's exact by definition. The speed of light defines the metre, these days. Jan >>>> Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in >>>> vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > make the figure 1 , and to measure distances in (nano)seconds. > But there is backwards compatibility to consider. Do you realise that light travels nearly a foot in a nanosecond? :-) SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>> Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in > >>>> vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Do you realise that light travels nearly a foot in a nanosecond? > :-) Indeed, it would be a very convenient unit in every day use. And so would the nano as a unit of volocity: just over one km/h. Unfortunately those stupid English kings lacked the foresight to have feet of 29,9792458 cm, exactly. Jan >>>>>>Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in >>>>>>vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Unfortunately those stupid English kings > lacked the foresight to have feet of 29,9792458 cm, exactly. Surely it is only American royalty that still uses feet? SignatureRob Bannister > Do you realise that light travels nearly a foot in a nanosecond? Admiral Grace Hopper USN used to hand out pieces of copper wire in some of her lectures, saying that each was a nanosecond long. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 > > Do you realise that light travels nearly a foot in a nanosecond? > > Admiral Grace Hopper USN used to hand out pieces of copper wire in > some of her lectures, saying that each was a nanosecond long. She used to hand out picoseconds, too. Ground black pepper. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands |to yourself. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Admiral Grace Hopper USN used to hand out pieces of copper wire in >> some of her lectures, saying that each was a nanosecond long. > >She used to hand out picoseconds, too. Ground black pepper. Not when I heard her speak. She did have a microsecond with her, though. David > It's exact by definition. > The speed of light defines the metre, these days. And didn't I read somewhere a few months ago that the Michel/Morley result about the constancy of the speed of light is now under some doubt? -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk No man is an island. So is Man. > > >> Not now it's not. It's the length of the path travelled by light in > > >> vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jan Exact by definition? Of course, as long as you understand and define the measurement environment, too, which is just a weeny bit of an art! SignatureBest, Erick Andrews delete bogus to reply > > >"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > (of 1790 inches in length) is 1/8 of a mile and a mile is 1/7920 the > diameter of the Earth at the latitude of England. No, gilbert was right, if I'm counting attributions correctly. You don't want to confuse etymology with modern standards. (If you were joking, sorry.) M-W.com says: Etymology: Middle English, from Old English furlang, from furh furrow + lang long To compare it to another measurement. A "second" has some God-awful technical definition these days, in terms of the radiation of a cesium atom. That doesn't affect how it was defined originally, nor why we call that thing a "second." SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux [ . . . ] > A "second" has some God-awful technical definition these > days, in terms of the radiation of a cesium atom. Sometime in the past fifty years or so I've read that an eminent scientist whose name I don't remember questioned the validity and wisdom of defining the second that way. He opined that we have no way to be sure that the physical phenomenon the definition depends upon will really remain constant over the centuries. > That doesn't affect how it was defined originally, nor why > we call that thing a "second." A minute (pronounced "MIN it") is minute (pronounced "my NEWT"). A "second minute" (later shortened to "second") is minuter (pronounced "my NEUter") yet. | [ . . . ] | [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | phenomenon the definition depends upon will really remain | constant over the centuries. Well I am sure that it is better than measuring the time the earth takes to go round the sun, which we *know* varies drastically. If we find a better method of defining time than the cesium atom we can change to that. There is already *talk* of such an improvement in the definition of time. SignatureDave Fawthrop <dave@hyphenologist.co.uk> uk.local.yorkshire.moderated has now been created. A place to discuss Yorkshire things without many interruptions. > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > eminent scientist whose name I don't remember questioned the > validity and wisdom of defining the second that way. You can't question the validity, for it is a definition. You can only question the wisdom of choosing that particular definition rather than some other. > He > opined that we have no way to be sure that the physical > phenomenon the definition depends upon will really remain > constant over the centuries. That doesn't matter. All that is needed for metrology is that it remains more stable than anything else, Jan >That doesn't matter. >All that is needed for metrology >is that it remains more stable than anything else, You haven't quite got the hang of haikus yet, have you? SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > >That doesn't matter. > >All that is needed for metrology > >is that it remains more stable than anything else, > > You haven't quite got the hang of haikus yet, have you? Never write any, so whatever you may say this isn't a haiku. Jan >> >That doesn't matter. >> >All that is needed for metrology [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >so whatever you may say >this isn't a haiku. :-) SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > > >That doesn't matter. > > >All that is needed for metrology [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so whatever you may say > this isn't a haiku. To have a haiku You need to mention nature, So you are correct. SignatureBob Lieblich > > [ . . . ] > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You can't question the validity, for it is a definition. If something is used as a standard of length on the assumption that that something will not change over time, and if the something changes over time, then the choice of that something as a standard is not appropriate to the end in view, so the choice isn't valid according to _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition_ definition 3: Main Entry:val£id [...] 3 : appropriate to the end in view If the choice of the constant the definition is based upon is not valid, then the definition is not appropriate to the end in view, so it's not valid. > > > [ . . . ] > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that something as a standard is not appropriate to the end > in view, so the choice isn't valid according to It can't change over time, it's the standard. If there is any variability it is the rest that changes, by definition. > _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition_ > definition 3: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is not valid, then the definition is not appropriate to the > end in view, so it's not valid. Ah M-W as the standard of Physics. Always good for a laugh, Jan > > > > [ . . . ] > > > > > A "second" has some God-awful technical definition these > > > > > days, in terms of the radiation of a cesium atom. > > > > Sometime in the past fifty years or so I've read that an > > > > eminent scientist whose name I don't remember questioned the > > > > validity and wisdom of defining the second that way. > > > You can't question the validity, for it is a definition. > > If something is used as a standard of length on the > > assumption that that something will not change over time, > > and if the something changes over time, then the choice of > > that something as a standard is not appropriate to the end > > in view, so the choice isn't valid according to > It can't change over time, it's the standard. I think I see how J. J. Lodder is going astray. He might say that if the Bureau of Metrology in Lower Slobbovia defines a yard to be the distance from a future ruler's fingertips to his nose, and if they make that definition when the future ruler is two months old, there's no sense in which people can object that the future ruler's arm will become longer with time, because it is the standard so it can't change. J. J. Lodder would apparently attach significance to the fact that the future ruler's arm won't grow longer when measured in Slobbovian yards and would deny that there's any way to perceive the length of the man's arm except in terms of the unsatisfactory standard that was based on the babe's. If I say Shaq O'Neal is taller than Danny DeVito, J. J. Lodder may ask, "How can you say that until you can state their heights in standard meters?" Hilarious. > If there is any variability it is the rest that changes, > by definition. Yeah. Sure. > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > become longer with time, because it is the standard so it > can't change. Yeah, hilarious. You seem to have ignored the point about things being defined by the rate of decay of caesium atoms and that this rate may not be unchanging. So long as it's defined that way, it's only a little better than the young Slobbovian's nose. SignatureRob Bannister > >>>>>[ . . . ] > >>>>>>A "second" has some God-awful technical definition these > >>>>>>days, in terms of the radiation of a cesium atom. > >>>>>Sometime in the past fifty years or so I've read that an > >>>>>eminent scientist whose name I don't remember questioned the > >>>>>validity and wisdom of defining the second that way. > >>>>You can't question the validity, for it is a definition. > >>>If something is used as a standard of length on the > >>>assumption that that something will not change over time, > >>>and if the something changes over time, then the choice of > >>>that something as a standard is not appropriate to the end > >>>in view, so the choice isn't valid according to > >>It can't change over time, it's the standard. > > I think I see how J. J. Lodder is going astray. He might > > say that if the Bureau of Metrology in Lower Slobbovia [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > become longer with time, because it is the standard so it > > can't change. > Yeah, hilarious. You seem to have ignored the point about things being > defined by the rate of decay of caesium atoms and that this rate may not > be unchanging. You seem to have ignored the point that it was with that point that I started. Let me repeat my remark for convenient reference: Sometime in the past fifty years or so I've read that an eminent scientist whose name I don't remember questioned the validity and wisdom of defining the second that way. If it wasn't completely obvious, let me tediously explain that it was, of course, because we have no reason to be certain that the rate of decay will be truly constant that the eminent scientist questioned the wisdom of using it for the standard. > So long as it's defined that way, it's only a little > better than the young Slobbovian's nose. Why else whould I have contrived that reductio ad absurdum analogy? Do you often find yourself responding without bothering to have understood what you're responsing to? > Do you often find yourself responding without bothering to > have understood what you're responsing to? Not on purpose, but it seems I still don't understand the point you were trying to make at Jan Lodder's expense. He seems to be saying that if that's the standard, that's the standard, which makes sense to me: ie it is no different from the days when weights and lengths were standardised to an actual lump of metal that expanded and contracted according to temperature, etc. SignatureRob Bannister > > Do you often find yourself responding without bothering to > > have understood what you're responsing to? > Not on purpose, but it seems I still don't understand the point you were > trying to make at Jan Lodder's expense. He seems to be saying that if > that's the standard, that's the standard, which makes sense to me: ie it > is no different from the days when weights and lengths were standardised > to an actual lump of metal that expanded and contracted according to > temperature, etc. He said the phenomenon on which the length standard is based can't change because it is the standard. That is to say there is no way for us to perceive whether or not the phenomenon changes. In the absence of any length standard whatever I could watch a footrace between two runners and tell you if one of them won or if it was apparently a dead heat. I have no reason to be certain that the current standard of length couldn't conceivably change. Saying that it can't change because it's the standard is equivalent to saying that we are incapable of perceiving differences without making measurements using defined standards. > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > that we are incapable of perceiving differences without > making measurements using defined standards. Now I see what you're getting at, I can envisage grounds for an interesting debate, but I'm afraid it would be totally off-topic here. Thanks for giving me food for thought. SignatureRob Bannister > >>>Do you often find yourself responding without bothering to > >>>have understood what you're responsing to? > >>Not on purpose, but it seems I still don't understand the point you were > >>trying to make at Jan Lodder's expense. He seems to be saying that if > >>that's the standard, that's the standard, which makes sense to me: ie it > >>is no different from the days when weights and lengths were standardised > >>to an actual lump of metal that expanded and contracted according to > >>temperature, etc. > > He said the phenomenon on which the length standard is based > > can't change because it is the standard. That is to say > > there is no way for us to perceive whether or not the > > phenomenon changes. > > In the absence of any length standard whatever I could watch > > a footrace between two runners and tell you if one of them > > won or if it was apparently a dead heat. > > I have no reason to be certain that the current standard of > > length couldn't conceivably change. Saying that it can't > > change because it's the standard is equivalent to saying > > that we are incapable of perceiving differences without > > making measurements using defined standards. > Now I see what you're getting at, I can envisage grounds for an > interesting debate, but I'm afraid it would be totally off-topic here. I've posted in some physics newsgroups under the subject line "Please help me remember a name". I've had some courteous and interesting replies, but so far no name. One poster seemed to be agreeing with the thought behind the remarks I referred to. Another gave me the name of someone who is up on historical data and suggested I write to him. I've done that and am awaiting a reply. The newsgroups are alt.sci.physics, sci.physics, and sci.physics.particle. > Thanks for giving me food for thought. > > Must be a myth, this story of a furlong being the distance oxen > > would plough (unless, of course the plough referred to is Ursa). A > > furlong (of 1790 inches in length) is 1/8 of a mile and a mile is > > 1/7920 the diameter of the Earth at the latitude of England. > No, gilbert was right, if I'm counting attributions correctly. You > don't want to confuse etymology with modern standards. (If you were > joking, sorry.) M-W.com says: > Etymology: Middle English, from Old English furlang, from furh > furrow + lang long The etymology doesn't appear to be in doubt. I'm really questioning why a land measure, supposedly based on the tiredness of oxen of various sizes, strengths and ages, should so neatly fit as a fraction of the Earth's diameter only at the latitude of the people who named it. > To compare it to another measurement. A "second" has some God-awful > technical definition these days, in terms of the radiation of a > cesium atom. That doesn't affect how it was defined originally, nor > why we call that thing a "second." One acre per second? That's some ox! Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/50-0.htm 2 lb of spuds, 1 lb of mince, some cotton buds, a colour rinse >>> Must be a myth, this story of a furlong being the distance oxen >>> would plough (unless, of course the plough referred to is Ursa). A [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > sizes, strengths and ages, should so neatly fit as a fraction of the > Earth's diameter only at the latitude of the people who named it. Because it's just a coincidence. And there's no real link between the number of inches in a furlong and the number of miles in the diameter of the earth. SignatureJohn Briggs > > The etymology doesn't appear to be in doubt. I'm really questioning > > why a land measure, supposedly based on the tiredness of oxen of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the number of inches in a furlong and the number of miles in the > diameter of the earth. Hmmm...? Don't you think this recourse to "coincidence" when you can't see any "real link" is just the post scientific equivalent of the pre scientific recourse to "God" when the reason for any natural phenomenon was as yet unknown. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/10-0.htm The leaden sky turned to graphite, drawing an early evening to the fell. >>> The etymology doesn't appear to be in doubt. I'm really questioning >>> why a land measure, supposedly based on the tiredness of oxen of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > scientific recourse to "God" when the reason for any natural phenomenon > was as yet unknown. No. You have suggested a situation where the ratio of a:b is *defined* as 1:7920 and the ratio of c:d is *observed* to be *approximately* 1:7920. And the ratio of b:c is *defined* to be 1:8. In the circumstances, to say "coincidence" is being generous. Try finding some mystical properties of 7920: it is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 but *not* 7! Spooky or what? :-) SignatureJohn Briggs > >>> The etymology doesn't appear to be in doubt. I'm really > >>> questioning why a land measure, supposedly based on the tiredness [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > scientific recourse to "God" when the reason for any natural > > phenomenon was as yet unknown. > No. You have suggested a situation where the ratio of a:b is > *defined* as 1:7920 and the ratio of c:d is *observed* to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 but *not* 7! Spooky or what? > :-) Yes it is spooky but I'd like to correct your observation about the observation of c:d. By maths, based on the International Ellipsoid of Reference which was the best means of Earth mapmaking before satellites, the diameter of the Earth is exactly 7920 miles at some point near to 50 degrees latitude (my maths ain't good enough for greater precision than that). In case you're interested, the International Ellipsoid of Reference has an ellipticity of 1/297. I'm really fond of the digits 2, 7 and 9 when it comes to Earth measures. Okay, back to Mr Spooky: as you note, 7920 is divisible by all those factors but it is equal to 11 x 10 x 9 x 8, and so the number of inches in the Earth's diameter at latitude 50 is 11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 8 x 8 x 9 x 10 x 11. Now that set of three 8s really is spooky because the Attic stadion is 7290 inches which is 10 x 9 x 9 x 9 and has the corresponding set of three 9s and, as you probably know, 8 cubed and 9 cubed are the values of the notes B and F in the so-called Babylonian musical octave based on powers of 2 and 3 and the Babylonians (or their predecessors), who were very into Earth measurement, degrees and suchlike, were also pretty keen on unification theories. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/6me-0.htm The Yorkshire Dialect Society: Membership >>>>> The etymology doesn't appear to be in doubt. I'm really >>>>> questioning why a land measure, supposedly based on the tiredness [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the Earth is exactly 7920 miles at some point near to 50 degrees > latitude (my maths ain't good enough for greater precision than that). How near? The only point in the British Isles on 50 degrees North is Lizard Point! > In case you're interested, the International Ellipsoid of Reference has > an ellipticity of 1/297. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 10 x 11. Now that set of three 8s really is spooky because the Attic > stadion is 7290 inches which is 10 x 9 x 9 x 9 and has the 7290 Imperial inches? > corresponding set of three 9s and, as you probably know, 8 cubed and 9 > cubed are the values of the notes B and F in the so-called Babylonian > musical octave based on powers of 2 and 3 and the Babylonians (or their > predecessors), who were very into Earth measurement, degrees and > suchlike, were also pretty keen on unification theories. The notes B and F? Why do I have this sensation of being trolled? :-) SignatureJohn Briggs > > By maths, based on the International Ellipsoid of Reference which > > was the best means of Earth mapmaking before satellites, the > > diameter of the Earth is exactly 7920 miles at some point near to > > 50 degrees latitude (my maths ain't good enough for greater > > precision than that). > How near? The only point in the British Isles on 50 degrees North is > Lizard Point! I said my maths wasn't up to it. > > In case you're interested, the International Ellipsoid of Reference > > has an ellipticity of 1/297. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > because the Attic stadion is 7290 inches which is 10 x 9 x 9 x 9 > > and has the > 7290 Imperial inches? Yes. > > corresponding set of three 9s and, as you probably know, 8 cubed > > and 9 cubed are the values of the notes B and F in the so-called > > Babylonian musical octave based on powers of 2 and 3 and the > > Babylonians (or their predecessors), who were very into Earth > > measurement, degrees and suchlike, were also pretty keen on > > unification theories. > The notes B and F? Why do I have this sensation of being trolled? > :-) I don't know. If you don't believe me, try Googling for the Babylonian musical scale. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/02-0.htm When Joachim was born, on the stroke of midnight, it took the midwife no more than a single look to restore her wavering faith in the Adversary. >> The notes B and F? Why do I have this sensation of being trolled? >> :-) > > I don't know. If you don't believe me, try Googling for the Babylonian > musical scale. 'Your search - "babylonian musical scale" - did not match any documents.' SignatureJohn Briggs >>> The notes B and F? Why do I have this sensation of being trolled? >>> :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 'Your search - "babylonian musical scale" - did not match any > documents.' You took David's advice too literally. Try some variations, like babylonian +"musical scale" and others. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > >> The notes B and F? Why do I have this sensation of being trolled? > >> :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 'Your search - "babylonian musical scale" - did not match any documents.' But babylonian musical scale (no quotes) returns 3140 hits, some of which go into some detail about the principles underlying the scale. Though a cursory reading doesn't really explain how anyone really knows the tuning, unless some lutes have been recovered by archeologists or some such thing. -- rzed > To compare it to another measurement. A "second" has some God-awful > technical definition these days, in terms of the radiation of a cesium > atom. That doesn't affect how it was defined originally, nor why we call > that thing a "second." Sure, the second minute, according to the Babylonians. For some strange reason the terts, or tertius is never used. Jan > > To compare it to another measurement. A "second" has some God-awful > > technical definition these days, in terms of the radiation of a cesium [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For some strange reason the terts, or tertius > is never used. I suspect that if you lived in a country with 60Hz power, you might see the unit, though not the name, used. When I first started programming on the Commodore PET back in '77, it was called a "jiffy". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Society in every state is a blessing, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |but government, even in its best Palo Alto, CA 94304 |state is but a necessary evil; in its |worst state, an intolerable one. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Thomas Paine (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > furrow before needing a rest) is an acre, I assume that the metal > surveyor's chain came rather later. Yes, of course. Otherwise you're putting the plough before the oxen, so to speak. Don't assume there was a chain before there, er, was a chain. Try looking up Gunter's Chain. SignatureJohn Briggs > >> Chains were the standard unit for lengths of railway track right up to > >> metrication (also canals, I think). A table of lengths was a "chainage [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of decimalisation - before the French, of course. The chain is a surveyor's > measure, and was, of course, an actual chain with actual links. What have the French got to do with it? Both the decimal system (Simon Stevin) and large scale triangulation (Snellius) were invented in the Netherlands. As was the need for a universal unit system (Huygens) Jan Don Aitken: >>> Chains were the standard unit for lengths of railway track right up to >>> metrication (also canals, I think). ... Mark Brader: >> Just to clarify, you'd only see chains used alone for distances up to a >> mile; after that it'd be mixed units. 393 miles 39 chains, not 31,479 >> chains. These chains are the ones 66 feet long, or 4 rods, or 1/80 mile. John Briggs: > More to the point, a chain is 1/10 of a furlong. No, that's less to the point. 393 miles 39 chains is how it would be written, not 393 miles 3 furlongs 9 chains. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | An actual human would feel guilt in this situation. msb@vex.net | -- Scott Adams: Dilbert > Don Aitken: > >>> Chains were the standard unit for lengths of railway track right up to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, that's less to the point. 393 miles 39 chains is how it would be > written, not 393 miles 3 furlongs 9 chains. I think that depends on who is doing the writing, and when. I have frequent cause to refer to "Edwards" - a standard reference work about the UK's inland waterways, which gives tables of distances. These seem to be compiled from two sources. The ones concerning the canals appear to be based on those listed in the Acts of Parliament authorising the canals (mainly in the period 1750-1850), and give the distances in miles, furlongs and quarter-furlongs. However those for the non-tidal Thames (which probably date from a source in the Thames Conservancy, which was founded in 1857) list the distances in miles, furlongs and chains. Which raises again a question that's been touched on earlier in the thread - when was the surveyor's chain invented? The answer seems to be 1624 (that's for the modern form of it, invented by Gunter). So did the canal surveyors not use it? Or did they regard it as too technical a measure to use in a document written for lay parliamentarians? Or (most likely IMO) were they not working to that much accuracy in the preliminary surveys that led to Parliamentary proposals? (There were more detailed surveys at later stages). -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old mathematicians never die. They simply count for less. > > Another odd one is 'chains'. I never ever saw this measure used in > > England, but even in the 70s, signs could be seen in Australia saying [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > probably applies to surveying of farmland and stock routes, where the > water access would be for watering stock. WhenIwurralad, and the I-Spy books provided essential information to ten-year-olds, the book entitled [IIRC] "I-Spy in the street" explained how Fire Hydrant signs worked in the UK (unlike Leftpondia, we don't have vandal-prone bits of street furniture protuding from the "sidewalk"). IIRC (again) this had a black 'H' on a yellow background, with the diameter of the water pipe in inches above the horizontal bar of the 'H', and a distance, in feet, below. This distance was supposed to show how far away the actual hydrant (which was below a chequerplate cover) was in front of the sign (in a direct line perpendicular to the face of the sign itself). So "4 over 3" would indicate a four-inch pipe about one yard from the sign. (It may be that the pipe diameter and distance thereto were the other way up on the sign, but the units were definitely inches and feet.) Nowadays, I have to confess to being more than somewhat puzzled; I sometimes see signs (which still use the black-H-on-yellow) reading "100 over 1", and interpret this as there being a 100mm (approx.4in) pipe some one metre (approx.3ft) in front of the sign. Then I see something like "25 over 600"; now I can envisage a 25mm (1in) pipe, but could this really be 600 metres away: surely the sign could be put closer? OTOH, if someone's reversed the meaning, then a 600mm (approx.2ft) pipe situated 25m away seems somewhat large for the fire brigade's purposes. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 |
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.