| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Chuck Riggs
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
 |
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:22:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 24, 10:38 am, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:59:19 -0400, "Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
How deprived that you never saw a 19th-century tenement toilet!...
Deprived? Maybe not. I recall having to use the ever-popular "outhouse"
on occasion. Now there>s a rich experience. Surely the sight of tenement
toilets can>t compare.
....The
tank was mounted near the ceiling, the chain opened the valve, and the
water flushed the bowl. It made efficient use of gravity.
Actually, I>ve seen pictures, and I>ve wondered if the tanks ever fall
on someone.
The things women worry about...
Well, water is heavy!
[/quote]
And I>d probably die if both wings fell off the airplane I was
traveling in, but what are the chances? I>m probably safer in Boeings
taking ten 1000 mile journeys than I am crossing a single busy street
in Dublin or New York and I am quite certainly safer in the air than I
would be crossing a street in Naples.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Chuck Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:56:58 -0400, "Maria C." <noname@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders wrote:
Maria C. wrote:
Nathan Sanders wrote:
analyst41 wrote:
Maybe this explains why the language is still resisting
"hopefully".
The language isn>t resisting. Some people are intentionally trying
to hold it back, but the language itself long ago evolved to have
sentential "hopefully".
It>s just like split infinitives, preposition stranding, or any
other prescriptive rule that gets broken constantly in ordinary
speech. The fact that grammar mavens aren>t being listened to is
proof that the language itself is in favor of breaking the rule.
How does the language itself do this?
For the sake of discursive continuity, allow me the minimal artistic
leeway necessary to preserve analyst>s initial anthropomorphization of
language.
(I>d like to see angelgloww try to reword *that* using only Germanic
roots!)
/I/ certaintly couldn>t "reword" it. Hell, I can>t even understand it.
[/quote]
Join the club.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maria C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
[quote]Maria C. writes:
Skitt wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Chuck Riggs wrote:
"Maria C." wrote:
Actually, I>ve seen pictures, and I>ve wondered if the tanks ever
fall on someone.
The things women worry about...
Well, water is heavy!
Yeah, but it is not heavy water that>s in the tank.
Um, what sort of water is not heavy?
The sort that has relatively little deuterium in it.
[/quote]
Oh, good grief! [slaps forehead] How could I have forgotten good old
deuterium? Mosaic Law, innit? Deuteronomy and all that?
--
Maria C. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maria C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
|
|
Skitt wrote:
[quote]Maria C. wrote:
Skitt wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Chuck Riggs wrote:
"Maria C." wrote:
Actually, I>ve seen pictures, and I>ve wondered if the tanks ever
fall on someone.
The things women worry about...
Well, water is heavy!
Yeah, but it is not heavy water that>s in the tank.
Um, what sort of water is not heavy?
Whoosh? (Look up "heavy water".) Deuterium cames into play, and I
did a play on words, sort of.
[/quote]
You sure did, and it was very clever -- and I didn>t catch it. (See also
my reply to Evan.)
--
Maria C. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maria C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
|
|
Adam Funk wrote:
[quote]Maria C. wrote:
*IIRC, there was some new government mandate requiring that all
toilets made from that date forward hold only 1.6 gallons. I don>t
remember what the old tanks held, but it was more.
I think the design principle for toilets used to be: don>t worry about
water consumption, just make sure everything *always* disappears!
[/quote]
A reasonable goal -- for indoor toilets, anyway.
--
Maria C. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Trond Engen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:22 am Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
|
|
Nathan Sanders skreiv:
[quote]Nathan Sanders wrote:
For the sake of discursive continuity, allow me the minimal
artistic leeway necessary to preserve analyst>s initial
anthropomorphization of language.
[/quote]
[...]
[quote](I was forced to extend the motif by making it specifically
anthropomorphic rather than more general, because I don>t know of a
good recognizable word for metaphorically describing something as
alive/aware while not specifying it as specifically human-like.
"Animization" doesn>t seem to have widespread currency.)
Here>s my attempt at a purely Germanic paraphrase:
For the sake of sticking to the path already laid out in this
give-and-take, bestow on me the freedom needed to follow analyst>s
idle whim that speech is a living (man-like) thing.
[/quote]
For the sake of a smooth stream of thought, allow me to follow the lead
of analys and word myself as if speech were a living thing.
[quote](I might be cheating with "whim"--- I>m not certain of it>s etymology.)
[/quote]
It feels like it>s connected to a series of Scandinavian <vi>-words
denoting fast and irregular movement and, by extension, an unstructured
mind. The vi-part is the root of 'wind', and perhaps even of 'swim'. Is
the wh- aspirated by those who do?
--
Trond Engen
- interfering with the natives |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nathan Sanders
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:52 am Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
|
|
In article <C6GdnQKROtwWCBbV4p2dnAA@telenor.com>,
Trond Engen <trondnet@engen.priv.no> wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders skreiv:
Nathan Sanders wrote:
For the sake of discursive continuity, allow me the minimal
artistic leeway necessary to preserve analyst>s initial
anthropomorphization of language.
[...]
(I was forced to extend the motif by making it specifically
anthropomorphic rather than more general, because I don>t know of a
good recognizable word for metaphorically describing something as
alive/aware while not specifying it as specifically human-like.
"Animization" doesn>t seem to have widespread currency.)
Here>s my attempt at a purely Germanic paraphrase:
For the sake of sticking to the path already laid out in this
give-and-take, bestow on me the freedom needed to follow analyst>s
idle whim that speech is a living (man-like) thing.
For the sake of a smooth stream of thought, allow me to follow the lead
of analys and word myself as if speech were a living thing.
[/quote]
Nice! That>s better than mine!
(Although "allow" is from French...)
[quote](I might be cheating with "whim"--- I>m not certain of it>s etymology.)
It feels like it>s connected to a series of Scandinavian <vi>-words
denoting fast and irregular movement and, by extension, an unstructured
mind.
[/quote]
The OED also suggests a possible link to Scandinavian, but notes that
the oldest recorded form is "whim-wham", which matches a series of
similar dismissive reduplications (flim-flam, etc.), so it may have
just been a neologism (perhaps influenced by Scandinavian) rather than
a true borrowing or inherited word.
[quote]The vi-part is the root of 'wind', and perhaps even of 'swim'. Is
the wh- aspirated by those who do?
[/quote]
The OED says it is.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brian M. Scott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 am Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:22:19 +0200, Trond Engen
<trondnet@engen.priv.no> wrote in
<news:C6GdnQKROtwWCBbV4p2dnAA@telenor.com> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
[quote]Nathan Sanders skreiv:
[/quote]
[...]
[quote](I might be cheating with "whim"--- I>m not certain of
it>s etymology.)
It feels like it>s connected to a series of Scandinavian
vi>-words denoting fast and irregular movement and, by
extension, an unstructured mind.
[/quote]
The OED notes a possible connection with ON <hvima> 'to
wander with the eyes as with the fugitive look of a
frightened or silly person' and <hvimsa> 'to be taken aback
or discomfited', but it also points out that in the <whim> ~
<whimsy> ~ <whim-wham> group the one that occurs earliest is
the last, in the early 16th century, at about the same time
as <flim-flam>, <jim-jam>, and <trim-tram>.
[quote]The vi-part is the root of 'wind', and perhaps even of
'swim'. Is the wh- aspirated by those who do?
[/quote]
Yes (speaking as one who does).
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Adam Funk
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:40 am Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
|
|
On 2008-07-26, Maria C. wrote:
[quote]Adam Funk wrote:
Maria C. wrote:
*IIRC, there was some new government mandate requiring that all
toilets made from that date forward hold only 1.6 gallons. I don>t
remember what the old tanks held, but it was more.
I think the design principle for toilets used to be: don>t worry about
water consumption, just make sure everything *always* disappears!
A reasonable goal -- for indoor toilets, anyway.
[/quote]
Yes, but these days saving water is considered a worthwhile design
principle too.
--
Is one language more powerful than another? Compare, for example,
English with Yiddish. Sure, it>s hard to describe a carburetor in
Yiddish, but try describing a schlemiel in English. (Stoll 1995) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maria C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: Re: Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument! |
|
|
Adam Funk wrote:
[quote]Maria C. wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
Maria C. wrote:
*IIRC, there was some new government mandate requiring that all
toilets made from that date forward hold only 1.6 gallons. I don>t
remember what the old tanks held, but it was more.
I think the design principle for toilets used to be: don>t worry
about water consumption, just make sure everything *always*
disappears!
A reasonable goal -- for indoor toilets, anyway.
Yes, but these days saving water is considered a worthwhile design
principle too.
[/quote]
I>m not saying it isn>t. I was just commenting that "just make sure
everything *always* disappears" is reasonable for indoor toilets (as
opposed to....).
--
Maria C. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
