Re: Is the Pope Catholic?

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-12, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
><news:b9420cb0-61d5-431b...@k8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
> in alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>
>> On Mar 12, 1:22 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I thought we went over that already: BrE "minced X" = AmE
>>> "ground X".
>
>> And I will still not countenance the misuse.
>
> Translation: It's not in my idiolect, so it must be wrong.
>
> OED Third Edition s.v. <mince>: 'To cut up or grind (food,
> esp. meat) into very small pieces, now typically in a
> machine with revolving blades'.


You know the OED is part of an evil British conspiracy that involves
royal drug trafficking & the suppression of interplanetary
colonization projects, right?


--
When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
whose? --- Don Marquis

[Paul Madarasz]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:51:10 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote, perhaps among other things:

>On 2013-03-12, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>><gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
>><news:b9420cb0-61d5-431b...@k8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>> in alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>>
>>> On Mar 12, 1:22�pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I thought we went over that already: BrE "minced X" = AmE
>>>> "ground X".
>>
>>> And I will still not countenance the misuse.
>>
>> Translation: It's not in my idiolect, so it must be wrong.
>>
>> OED Third Edition s.v. <mince>: 'To cut up or grind (food,
>> esp. meat) into very small pieces, now typically in a
>> machine with revolving blades'.
>
>
>You know the OED is part of an evil British conspiracy that involves
>royal drug trafficking & the suppression of interplanetary
>colonization projects, right?

Lyndon, is that you?
--

"One thing happened after another, and before
we knew it, we were dead"
-- Michael O'Donoghue

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:51:10 +0000, Adam Funk

<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:ejk41ax...@news.ducksburg.com> in
alt.english.usage,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:

> On 2013-03-12, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>><gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
>><news:b9420cb0-61d5-431b...@k8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>> in alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:

>>> On Mar 12, 1:22�pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:

>> [...]

>>>> I thought we went over that already: BrE "minced X" = AmE
>>>> "ground X".

>>> And I will still not countenance the misuse.

>> Translation: It's not in my idiolect, so it must be wrong.

>> OED Third Edition s.v. <mince>: 'To cut up or grind (food,
>> esp. meat) into very small pieces, now typically in a
>> machine with revolving blades'.

> You know the OED is part of an evil British conspiracy
> that involves royal drug trafficking & the suppression of
> interplanetary colonization projects, right?

I suspect that our favorite Anglophobe considers 'evil
British' redundant.

Brian

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 12, 5:51 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-03-12, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

> ><gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in

> ><news:b9420cb0-61d5-431b...@k8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
> > in alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
> >> On Mar 12, 1:22 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >>> I thought we went over that already: BrE "minced X" = AmE
> >>> "ground X".
>
> >> And I will still not countenance the misuse.
>
> > Translation: It's not in my idiolect, so it must be wrong.
>
> > OED Third Edition s.v. <mince>: 'To  cut up or grind (food,
> > esp. meat) into very small pieces, now typically in a
> > machine with revolving blades'.
>
> You know the OED is part of an evil British conspiracy that involves
> royal drug trafficking & the suppression of interplanetary
> colonization projects, right?

I don't know about that part, but I do know it has very little
interest in American usage.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Are you sure of that?

Is there a lack of interest in American usage or is there a lack of
input from Americans?

I recall reading about the early days of the OED. There was
disappointment that the American contributors tended to work their way
through the same books, etc, as the British contributors rather than
material representing distinctively AmE usage.

Might there still be a bias on the part of American contributors in
favour of "high quality" English rather than the language used in all
its varieties. Even if there is no longer a bias, is there still an
imbalance that will take time and effort to rectify - a gap to be
filled?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 13, 8:07 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

Have you seen the instructions the 19th-c. editors provided? That's
the topic of Sarah Ogilvie's book (the one that started its very own
thread when it was misreported).

> Might there still be a bias on the part of American contributors in
> favour of "high quality" English rather than the language used in all
> its varieties. Even if there is no longer a bias, is there still an
> imbalance that will take time and effort to rectify - a gap to be
> filled?

Someone with electronic access can easily discover how many dialect
terms from Mark Twain or George Ade are included in the original
edition.

[Checku Buttshita]

No, the Pope is non-existent.

Ku

--
Metallic dragon.
Royal dragon or imperial dragon.
Apex of a zoiks powerful race.
Only mithri9l dragons might be more powerful.

[Adam Funk]

I don't know about the original edition, but the OED on the WWW has
2366 Twain citations (in 1880 entries).

I agree that the OED is still ropey on AmE pronunciations (in fact, I
think its RP bias for BrE ones is unfortunate too), but it is now
well-equipped for AmE meanings & citations.


--
I look back with the greatest pleasure to the kindness and hospitality
I met with in Yorkshire, where I spent some of the happiest years of
my life. --- Sabine Baring-Gould

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-11, Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:48:35 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>The US is "certain circles"? In your country, what's the term for non-
>>fish water-dwelling comestibles?
>
> Kelp?


When I was younger, so much younger than today,
I never needed anybody's kelp in any way.
But now those days are gone, I'm not so self assured,
Now I need more iodine and I've opened up the doors.

Kelp me if you can, I'm feeling down,
And I do appreciate seaweed around.
Help me get my thyroid on firm ground,
Won't you please, please kelp me?


--
I take no pleasure in being Right in my dark predictions about the
fate of our miiltary intervention in the heart of the Muslim world. It
is immensely depressing to me. Nobody likes to be betting against the
Home team, no matter how hopeless they are. --- Hunter S Thompson

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 13, 9:14 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-03-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 8:07 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Is there a lack of interest in American usage or is there a lack of
> >> input from Americans?
>
> >> I recall reading about the early days of the OED. There was
> >> disappointment that the American contributors tended to work their way
> >> through the same books, etc, as the British contributors rather than
> >> material representing distinctively AmE usage.
>
> > Have you seen the instructions the 19th-c. editors provided? That's
> > the topic of Sarah Ogilvie's book (the one that started its very own
> > thread when it was misreported).
>
> >> Might there still be a bias on the part of American contributors in
> >> favour of "high quality" English rather than the language used in all
> >> its varieties. Even if there is no longer a bias, is there still an
> >> imbalance that will take time and effort to rectify - a gap to be
> >> filled?
>
> > Someone with electronic access can easily discover how many dialect
> > terms from Mark Twain or George Ade are included in the original
> > edition.
>
> I don't know about the original edition, but the OED on the WWW has
> 2366 Twain citations (in 1880 entries).

But how many of the 1,880 items are Americanisms or localisms?

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

The aspect of Ogilvie's book that was reported (and corrected by
Sheidlower) had nothing to do with Americanisms or with 19th-century
editors.
Could you possibly quote these instructions as they relate to the
present point?

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

Twain + "dial.": 291
Twain + "U.S.": 1005

[Eb Oesch]

On Mar 13, 9:06 am, Checku Buttshita <hostilnak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, the Pope is non-existent.

How papal conclaves really work: in short, the cardinals sit around
playing poker until the spirit of St. Peter overtakes one. Then they
all vote for the guy with the glowing eyes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

The book is about how non-England vocabulary was treated over the
century and a half of the OED's progress. She is, to be sure, far more
interested in the English of the British Empire than of the United
States.

> Could you possibly quote these instructions as they relate to the
> present point?

No -- they occupy several pages and are readily available in such
familiar works as Elisabeth Murray's biography of her grandfather.

[Peter T. Daniels]

What's that supposed to tell us?

How many are separate words, and how many are local senses of familiar
terms? (What do they do with "robin" and its ilk, for instance?)

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

So...could you perhaps explain just what points in these instructions
are particularly relevant to the topic under discussion here?

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

That 291 of the items including a citation from Twain also contain a
note "dial.[ectal]" and 1,0005 of them a note "U.S.". That is at least
a first step towards an answer to your question. I was assuming you
did want an answer.

> How many are separate words, and how many are local senses of familiar
> terms?

Both such cases will contain a note such as "dial." or "U.S."

(What do they do with "robin" and its ilk, for instance?)

By now, Peter, I have developed personal guidelines for just how much
work I will do as your unpaid research assistant in discussions like
this (to which you commonly contribute no actual data at all). This is
as far as I go on this one. No matter what the answer might be to your
(potentially endless) series of further questions and divagations, I
am quite sure it would not suffice to make you doubt your original
assertion about OED's "lack of interest" in American usage. Well, too
bad.

But since I have them, here are some numbers for you to have fun with:

Total "U.S." notes: 14,471
Total "Sc.[ottish]" notes: 17,377
Total "dial." notes: 7,684

[David DeLaney]

Clearly, the conclave's smoke network has been hacked by Francis from the PvP
webcomic.

Dave, don't cry for us
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Peter T. Daniels]

The readers didn't just send in stuff at random. They were _assigned_
specific titles.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Well, you have the access, and I don't.

> But since I have them, here are some numbers for you to have fun with:
>
> Total "U.S." notes: 14,471
> Total "Sc.[ottish]" notes: 17,377
> Total "dial." notes: 7,684

There are a hell of a lot more Americans than Scotsmen in the world.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

Well, yes, that was the original plan. But readers did not always read
the things they were supposed to. They were unpaid volunteers, after
all, so you couldn't fire them. Eventually they accepted that they had
to pay some people to read stuff that had to get read. Also,
eventually, they got volunteers who just offered citations from things
that had not previously been read, without being assigned anything.

I see now that your comment was really just directed at Robert's
apparent assumption that it had all been unsystematic from the
beginning.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

True. But since that lack of access apparently means you don't even
know how they treat "robin", your generalization
about their lack of interest in American usage would seem to be rather
shakily based. In fact I think it's based on a few instances that have
come up here where OED has been wrong about American usage. Of course
you yourself have been wrong about American usage more than once.
Again, a shaky position from which to criticize.

>
> > But since I have them, here are some numbers for you to have fun with:
>
> > Total "U.S." notes: 14,471
> > Total "Sc.[ottish]" notes: 17,377
> > Total "dial." notes: 7,684
>
> There are a hell of a lot more Americans than Scotsmen in the world.

...as you never miss an occasion to remind us. But then, maybe they
don't have as many interesting dialect words as the Scots? ;-)

At any rate, you still consider that 14,471 entries reflects a lack of
interest in American usage?

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:27:05 -0700 (PDT),
"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
<news:a7439a0a-f663-42db...@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
in
alt.english.usage,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:

[...]

> At any rate, you still consider that 14,471 entries
> reflects a lack of interest in American usage?

But Ross, that's less than 0.00005 words per American!

Brian

[Adam Funk]

You're right: I get 21k Americans/word vs 305 Scottish/word! It's
outrageous.


--
I don't quite understand this worship of objectivity in
journalism. Now, just flat-out lying is different from being
subjective. --- Hunter S Thompson

[Adam Funk]

And the most productive volunteer turned out to be an inmate at
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum (subsequently renamed).


--
There's a statute of limitations with the law, but not with
your wife. [Ray Magliozzi, Car Talk 2011-36]

[Peter Brooks]

On Mar 14, 8:04 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:27:05 -0700 (PDT),

> "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in

> <news:a7439a0a-f663-42db...@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
> in
> alt.english.usage,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
> > At any rate, you still consider that 14,471 entries
> > reflects a lack of interest in American usage?
>
> But Ross, that's less than 0.00005 words per American!
>

Fewer.

[David DeLaney]

Peter Brooks <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 14, 8:04 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in

>> > At any rate, you still consider that 14,471 entries
>> > reflects a lack of interest in American usage?
>>
>> But Ross, that's less than 0.00005 words per American!
>
>Fewer.

No, I'm fairly sure the _Germans_ had the Fewer.

Dave, hail Kaliyuga! hail Kaliyuga! hail and raaaain, forever!

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:10:51 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
<peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:04084801-6833-4f69...@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
in
alt.english.usage,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:

No, no, no. 'If Peter Brooks' were to disappear, there
would be one obnoxious jackass fewer in these groups' is
correct (and accurate, too!). But here we're talking about
something that is measured (in fractional units), not
counted.

Never mind that the received rule apparently goes back only
to Robert Baker's 1770 _Reflections on the English
Language_, and he merely expresses a personal opinion:

The Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number;
where I should think _Fewer_ would do better. _No Fewer
than a Hundred_ appears to me not only more elegant than
_No less than a Hundred_, but more strictly proper.

[bar...@bookpro.com]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:10:51 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks

Fewer than 0.00005 word.

BW

[bar...@bookpro.com]

That seems as good a method as any.

I heard that they play strip poker and they pick the guy who's winning
when it gets to the point of "nobody wants to see *that*".

BW

[Jerry Friedman]

When I worked at a science magazine, we used the singular with numbers
between 0 and 1. I'm glad someone else knows about that.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Bill Marcum]

On 03/12/2013 06:09 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:51:10 +0000, Adam Funk
> <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
> <news:ejk41ax...@news.ducksburg.com> in
> alt.english.usage,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:

>
>> You know the OED is part of an evil British conspiracy
>> that involves royal drug trafficking & the suppression of
>> interplanetary colonization projects, right?
>

> I suspect that our favorite Anglophobe considers 'evil
> British' redundant.
>
> Brian
>
The producers of "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic" have decided that
princesses are good and queens are evil.

[She Who The Pigs Do Not Smell]

All except the Queen of the Universe. When it gets up there the King of
the Universe, Little brown white black dog is evil.

--
Other's Wintermute Seeks Witches Witchhunter My letter is -10- my SUIT
is jUMMONDS; you keep your thrusters in the secret desk drawer:
Shue_in.. Most interesting moment of free months: Mich tonguelashita J.
K. Cohen. Twice. In the worst Chain Gang Growl Dat's Da Wunksta.

[She Who The Pigs Do Not Smell]

On 3/13/2013 7:14 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-03-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 8:07 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Is there a lack of interest in American usage or is there a lack of
>>> input from Americans?
>>>
>>> I recall reading about the early days of the OED. There was
>>> disappointment that the American contributors tended to work their way
>>> through the same books, etc, as the British contributors rather than
>>> material representing distinctively AmE usage.
>>
>> Have you seen the instructions the 19th-c. editors provided? That's
>> the topic of Sarah Ogilvie's book (the one that started its very own
>> thread when it was misreported).
>>
>>> Might there still be a bias on the part of American contributors in
>>> favour of "high quality" English rather than the language used in all
>>> its varieties. Even if there is no longer a bias, is there still an
>>> imbalance that will take time and effort to rectify - a gap to be
>>> filled?
>>
>> Someone with electronic access can easily discover how many dialect
>> terms from Mark Twain or George Ade are included in the original
>> edition.
>
>
> I don't know about the original edition, but the OED on the WWW has
> 2366 Twain citations (in 1880 entries).
>

> I agree that the OED is still ropey on AmE pronunciations (in fact, I
> think its RP bias for BrE ones is unfortunate too), but it is now
> well-equipped for AmE meanings & citations.

The only thing ropey I see is lack of brand name consumerism in the RPG
economy. Spuds are the only way to take down African paradises.
Period. Guns are good, but they use a jungle waterfall guerilla and
alternate sniping and surprise point blank. Clear first with one of
your two spuds and then close to pistol range with Famas and G36Ks.

[leech...@yahoo.com]

When I worked with boss Prof. Uribe and also with Boss Bone N., we took a shit some days.

[Marvin J. Mooney]

James Hogg wrote:

> Jerry Friedman wrote:

>> On Mar 12, 2:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> But there you are, a prisoner of your own lect, talking like an
>>> aueian...
>>
>> Now that was uncalled-for (and you should have found a way to work an
>> o in).
>
> I've never been so insulted in my life. The word he wanted actually
> lacks vowels: PTD.
>

[Adam Funk]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Is everyone admiring the funky bullshit that Funk spread into these
> newsgroups?

Apparently they're all stunned by your intellectual vocabulary.


--
svn ci -m 'come back make, all is forgiven!' build.xml

[Marvin J. Mooney]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Is everyone admiring the funky bullshit

WHY DO YOU HATE CLINTON?!?!?

Free your mind, man!

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Marvin J. Mooney" <ms99...@newsfroup.net> wrote

Seriously, in this day and age, bashing lesbians is in pretty bad taste.

--Tedward