>>> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
>>> news:ae6mp6Ffj5jU1@mid.individual.net...

>>>> On 16/10/12 8:38 PM, Adam Funk wrote:

>>>> > And TBH British spelling has some bizarre changes in "-o(u)r-" words
>>>> > based on etymology, which are by no means to clear except to the kind
>>>> > of people who hang around here. Fowler explained that the words
>>>> > derived from Latin have "-or-" and the ones derived in English from
>>>> > "-our" and an English suffix keep the "u", so:

>>>> > humourless, humorous
>>>> > colourless, colourful, coloration

>>>> > Needlessly complicated (& I say that as someone who can keep them
>>>> > straight).

>>> I'd vaguely assumed that "humourous" wasn't used because of the
>>> awkwardness of consecutive syllables with "ou", but I suppose that
>>> doesn't explain "humorist" and the like. The rule seems to be to retain
>>> the "u" before native suffixes but drop it before French and Latin ones
>>> - although that doesn't explain "favourite".

>>>> Crystal says in his book about spelling that this is because when the
>>>> etymology fad was at its height adding b in doubt and s in island,
>>>> there was understandably a lot of confusion which led to spellings
>>>> like humour (unchangeable because of tradition) and humorous (Latin
>>>> fad wins because it's not used as much).

>>>> The result of this is that the better dictionaries today allow -our-
>>>> in a lot of words that formerly had only -or-. I'm not sure about
>>>> "favourite" - did that ever lose its "u"?

>>> Not in BrE as far as I know. Can you give an example of a word that now
>>> allows -our- but previously didn't?

>> I can't give an example of a prohibited spelling, but the first word I
>> looked up in my old Shorter Oxford gives "humour-, humorless" without
>> comment - no word about "chiefly America". One of the things the Crystal
>> book has brought home to me is the number of words that do have
>> alternative spellings in English. I suppose I was always aware there
>> were some, but apparently the number is quite large.

>> My spelling checker (English - UK) thoroughly disapproves of "humorless".

> On Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" this morning, on BBC radio 4, they were
> talking about Caxton, and one of them said that early printers added
> (or, presumably, subtracted) letters, such as adding an e to the end of
> a word, in order to justify the line (make all the lines the same length).

> "Katy Jennison"  wrote in message news:k5ooao$v5$1@news.albasani.net...

>> On 18/10/2012 00:25, Robert Bannister wrote:

>> > My spelling checker (English - UK) thoroughly disapproves of >
>> "humorless".

>> On Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" this morning, on BBC radio 4, they
>> were talking about Caxton, and one of them said that early printers
>> added (or, presumably, subtracted) letters, such as adding an e to the
>> end of a word, in order to justify the line (make all the lines the
>> same length).

> I've heard that theory as well to justify the British spelling of words
> like "humour", but I'm sceptical.  Why would words ending in "-o(u)r" be
> more likely to appear at the end of a line?

> > On Oct 17, 6:46 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> On 17/10/12 8:38 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Oct 16, 11:12 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 17/10/12 10:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 16, 8:22 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 17/10/12 7:24 AM, DKleinecke wrote:

> >>>>>>> Formal prayer is usually not, in my view., worship.  That would
> >>>>>>> include the Mass. I would call it liturgy rather than worship. From
> >>>>>>> where I sit what the Muslims call prayer isn't worship  But some
> >>>>>>> individual Muslims do worship. .

> >>>>>>> I do not consider formal religion and/or ritual serious religious
> >>>>>>> expression.

> >>>>>> It's serious enough when they're carrying guns.

> >>>>> That's not religious expression.

> >>>> An awful lot of people seem to express their religious beliefs with
> >>>> weapons - used to be swords, but firearms are the modern way.

> >>> For instance?

> >> Isn't that what we're in Afghanistan for? The Taliban aren't fighting
> >> with sermons.

> > The Taliban are fighting mostly to get rid of the invaders -- first
> > the USSR, currently NATO.

> By most account the Taliban was not formed after the
> Soviets withdrew.  The official story was in 1994.

> > Remember, they offered Bin Laden on a silver platter for trial -- in
> > any jusrisdiction outside the US, and GWB declined the offer.

> They blew up the Buddha statutes at Bamyan.

> >  Ḳur'ān

> How do you do that little dot under the K? I didn't even know my
> computer could display anything like that.

>>>   Ḳur'ān

>> How do you do that little dot under the K? I didn't even know my
>> computer could display anything like that.

> In Windows, go to Character Map and select the character you want (and
> the font you're using, if your email lets you pick). Where to find it
> depends on your version of Windows.

>> For me, an outhouse would usually have to be entered from outside even
>> if it was built onto the main building. We have a number of houses like
>> that where a verandah has been partially enclosed so that a bedroom or a
>> bathroom or a toilet can only be entered from what remains of the verandah.

>> If there is a door communicating directly into the main building, I
>> don't think I could think of it as an outhouse or outbuilding.

> I've not seen a house where the bathroom is built into the main
> structure but only accessible from the outside, but a large percentage
> of newer Florida homes have a bathroom that with access from a door in
> the house and a door to the outside.  That's called a "pool-planned"
> house.

> The idea is that if the house has a swimming pool, or if a pool is
> added later, someone can enter the bathroom without going through the
> house.

> > Does aue not distinguish "bat an eye" (flirt) from "bat an
> > eyelash" (flinch)?

> I can't think of "batting an eye" as meaning either of the above. Flirting
> is most definitely "fluttering eyelashes (possibly an eyelash)" - no eyes
> or bats involved.
> I can't think of an eye phrase that definitely means flinching, although
> "didn't bat an eye" does indicate not flinching. In fact, it doesn't seem
> to be used in a positive sense.

> > "Katy Jennison"  wrote in message news:k5ooao$v5$1@news.albasani.net...
> >> On Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" this morning, on BBC radio 4, they
> >> were talking about Caxton, and one of them said that early printers
> >> added (or, presumably, subtracted) letters, such as adding an e to the
> >> end of a word, in order to justify the line (make all the lines the
> >> same length).

> > I've heard that theory as well to justify the British spelling of words
> > like "humour", but I'm sceptical.  Why would words ending in "-o(u)r" be
> > more likely to appear at the end of a line?

> Two possible reasons:
> Early scribes were paid by the line and often padded lines out by adding
> extra letters. For example, "had" could be "hadd" or "hadde".

>>> On 16/10/12 8:25 PM, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>> On 2012-10-13, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

>>>>> Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> writes:

>>>>>> Baptism is about the only Christian rite that can be carried out by
>>>>>> someone who isn't ordained.

>>>>> According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, marriage also doesn't require
>>>>> a priest:

>>>>>       It is now held as certain that in Matrimony the contracting
>>>>>       parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the
>>>>>       contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by Christ to the
>>>>>       dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical "Arcanum", 10
>>>>>       Febr., 1880; see MATRIMONY).

>>>>>                http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

>>>> That fits in with what I've read about marriage among "ordinary
>>>> people" in mediaeval Europe, as described on WP:

>>>>      With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in
>>>>      Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry
>>>>      and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[57][58] The
>>>>      couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be
>>>>      married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was
>>>>      not required.[59] This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely
>>>>      given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was
>>>>      unquestionably binding;[57] if made in the future tense ("I will
>>>>      marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions
>>>>      of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which
>>>>      was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and
>>>>      personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in
>>>>      ecclesiastical courts.

>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Europe

>>> I love the way Melusina still has her horny hat on in bed, although I'm
>>> worried about the other woman in a pointy hat: what is she going to do
>>> with that bucket?

>> It's the bishop who is holding the "bucket" in his right hand. It
>> presumably contains Holy Water which he is applying to the loved-up
>> couple using the sprinkler in his left hand.

>> I notice that there is a chamber pot on the floor by the bed.

> Right. I couldn't quite see who had whose hand where.

>>>>>>> Baptism is about the only Christian rite that can be carried out by
>>>>>>> someone who isn't ordained.

>>>>>> According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, marriage also doesn't require
>>>>>> a priest:

>>>>>>      It is now held as certain that in Matrimony the contracting
>>>>>>      parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the
>>>>>>      contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by Christ to the
>>>>>>      dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical "Arcanum", 10
>>>>>>      Febr., 1880; see MATRIMONY).

>>>>>>               http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

>>>>> That fits in with what I've read about marriage among "ordinary
>>>>> people" in mediaeval Europe, as described on WP:

>>>>>     With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in
>>>>>     Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry
>>>>>     and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[57][58] The
>>>>>     couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be
>>>>>     married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was
>>>>>     not required.[59] This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely
>>>>>     given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was
>>>>>     unquestionably binding;[57] if made in the future tense ("I will
>>>>>     marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions
>>>>>     of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which
>>>>>     was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and
>>>>>     personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in
>>>>>     ecclesiastical courts.

>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Europe

>>>> I love the way Melusina still has her horny hat on in bed, although I'm
>>>> worried about the other woman in a pointy hat: what is she going to do
>>>> with that bucket?

>>> It's the bishop who is holding the "bucket" in his right hand. It
>>> presumably contains Holy Water which he is applying to the loved-up
>>> couple using the sprinkler in his left hand.

>> I wonder if the picture hasn't been inverted left-to-right.
>> I could be wrong, but the bishop sprinkling holy water with
>> his left hand looks a bit strange.

> I can't see his left hand. I think it's under the sheets where Melusina is.

>Mark Brader:
>>> I think I agree with that.  What I'd say is "latrine".

>Robert Bannister:
>> I would say that too if I were in the army, but I'm not...

>But as I understand it, that's not what "latrine" means in military
>usage.  I was considering mentioning that, but decided to keep it short.

>>>  Ḳur'ān

>> How do you do that little dot under the K? I didn't even know my
>> computer could display anything like that.

> In Windows, go to Character Map and select the character you want (and
> the font you're using, if your email lets you pick). Where to find it
> depends on your version of Windows.

>> > On Oct 18, 8:59 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> > <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:47:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 18, 2:28 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk>
>> >> > wrote:

>> >> >> As I said above, "outhouse" isn't part of my active
>> >> >> vocabulary, so for all I know you'll say "that's not an
>> >> >> outhouse".  But if I go to Google Books I can find hundreds of
>> >> >> snippets including the phrase "outside toilet" - perhaps you'd
>> >> >> do the same and tell me if any of them are outhouses.-

>> >> >An "outside toilet" is very precisely _not_ an outhouse. It's
>> >> > plumbing
>> >> >that is outside the main building.
>> >> You are talking from an AmE POV.  In BrE I would understand an
>> >> "outside toilet" associated with a house to be one that could be
>> >> accessed only by leaving the house. Whether the enclosing walls
>> >> and roof of the toilet are detached from or attached to the house
>> >> is not relevant.

>> > How is that excluded from my description?

>> >> It is still an outside toilet. "Outhouse" could be used of either
>> >> arrangement.

>> > No.
>> So, to return to my original question, which to which you responded
>> with complete astonishment.  What do YOU mean by an outhouse.
>> Instead of challenging every term used by the person asking, and
>> playing "no, it's not that, you've got 13 guesses left" with
>> everybody else, why not tell me exactly what you mean by "an
>> outhouse" and why a small building containing defecatory facilities
>> isn't one.-

> My complete description appears somewhere in this thread. Search "four
> feet square." Search "crescent-shaped."

>On 19/10/12 4:42 AM, Skitt wrote:
>> On 10/17/2012 6:34 PM, DKleinecke wrote:

>>> Consider yourself blessed if you are free of evangelists (TV or
>>> otherwise). And beware - the Mormons have just announced a big
>>> increase in their missionary efforts.

>> Yeah, but you can spot them from a mile away.

>There is something odd about two men, both about the same youngish age,
>both wearing suits, walking (occasionally cycling) around a suburban
>street where few pedestrians are usually seen.

> I think I agree with that.  What I'd say is "latrine".

> ObOuthouseStory: http://www.jldr.com/specialist.htm

>>Well done...now let's see if you can explain the 1960s Australian
>>surf-guitar
>>group that called itself "The Atlantics":

>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u_CttIV7VY

>>....r

> Well.... According to Wikipedia the group named themselves after a local
> brand of petrol name "Atlantic".

> That's the easy part. Discovering why the company in Australia was
> called Atlantic is more difficult. Petroleum companies seem to spend as
> much effort in merging, demerging and renaming as they do in finding,
> refining and distrubuting oil and other products.

> I do not yet have a satisfactory answer. However, I have ruled out any
> connection with Atlantic Petroleum (Faroe Islands). The rock group was
> formed nearly forty years before that company was founded.

> 'Several of our modern spelling practices stem from the decisions
> Johnson made. "Practice" is a case in point. He distinguishes "practice"
> as  a noun from "practise" as a verb. It was one of the several c/s
> decisions which also exercised the minds of the French scribes...[snip]

> On the other hand, he isn't entirely consistent: we see "license" for
> both the noun and the verb,, despite giving French "licencer" as its
> source. And he decided to distinguish "humour" and "humorous" on
> etymological grounds, thought the sources are unclear. Noah Webster
> would later notice these anomalies and make a different set of decisions
> for American English. British usage is not always comfortable with it:
> the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, recognises both "humorist"
> and "humourist, humourless" and "humorless".'

>> I think I agree with that.  What I'd say is "latrine".

>> ObOuthouseStory: http://www.jldr.com/specialist.htm

> I would say that too if I were in the army, but I'm not so I wouldn't. I
> do not have "latrine" in my active, spoken vocabulary unless I am
> wearing a uniform.

>> On 10/17/2012 9:39 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:31:43 +0100, Dr Nick
>>> <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>>>>> I'm beginning to think perhaps it is pondian.  We have friends who
>>>>>> are part way through re-activating part of an old farm.  It doesn't
>>>>>> include the old farmhouse, and for the time being they live in a
>>>>>> caravan and

>>>>> "trailer" or (fancy) "mobile home"

>>>> Most definitely not in BrE.

>>> In his defense, I would say that he was providing the American terms
>>> for "caravan", not stating that these are the terms you would use.

>>> We do not use "caravan" to describe what you call a "caravan".  

>> Then why does Chrysler use "Caravan" and "Grand Caravan"
>> as the model names of their line of minivans[*]?

> Trying to determine a logical reason for vehicle names is a futile
> exercise.  I owned a Plymouth Caravan.  It was not designed to be a
> holiday cottage substitute.

> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:56:41 -0400, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
> > wrote:

> >> On 10/17/2012 9:39 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:31:43 +0100, Dr Nick
> >>> <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

> >>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> >>>>>> I'm beginning to think perhaps it is pondian.  We have friends who
> >>>>>> are part way through re-activating part of an old farm.  It doesn't
> >>>>>> include the old farmhouse, and for the time being they live in a
> >>>>>> caravan and

> >>>>> "trailer" or (fancy) "mobile home"

> >>>> Most definitely not in BrE.

> >>> In his defense, I would say that he was providing the American terms
> >>> for "caravan", not stating that these are the terms you would use.

> >>> We do not use "caravan" to describe what you call a "caravan".

> >> Then why does Chrysler use "Caravan" and "Grand Caravan"
> >> as the model names of their line of minivans[*]?

> > Trying to determine a logical reason for vehicle names is a futile
> > exercise.  I owned a Plymouth Caravan.  It was not designed to be a
> > holiday cottage substitute.

> BrE "caravan" are trailers, some of them quite small.http://www.google.com/search?q=caravan+british&tbm=isch

> > Current models similar to the Caravan are the Sienna, Odyssey, Sedona,
> > Town & Country, Quest, and Routan.  If logic and application was the
> > basis for vehicle names, we'd have the Soccer Mom, School Bus,
> > Suburban Housewife, Team Transport, and the Costco Carrier.

> I don't mean that a name should follow the function, but
> it is very odd that something X is named with a word
> that denote "group of X".  It is analogous to naming a
> boat "~ Fleet" or a team "~ League".  There is a
> fundamental semantic discord there, almost like a
> grammatical error.

> That we don't feel especially odd about the _name_
> "caravan" for a vehicle model might mean that we have
> subconsciously accepted that "caravan" the word can
> denote a single vehicle.

> Just a thought, not a rigorous proof.

> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:37:26 +0800, Robert Bannister
> > <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

> >> For me, an outhouse would usually have to be entered from outside even
> >> if it was built onto the main building. We have a number of houses like
> >> that where a verandah has been partially enclosed so that a bedroom or a
> >> bathroom or a toilet can only be entered from what remains of the verandah.

> >> If there is a door communicating directly into the main building, I
> >> don't think I could think of it as an outhouse or outbuilding.

> > I've not seen a house where the bathroom is built into the main
> > structure but only accessible from the outside, but a large percentage
> > of newer Florida homes have a bathroom that with access from a door in
> > the house and a door to the outside.  That's called a "pool-planned"
> > house.

> > The idea is that if the house has a swimming pool, or if a pool is
> > added later, someone can enter the bathroom without going through the
> > house.

> You are talking about newer houses. I lived in a house as described
> above. The entrance to one bedroom and to the bathroom required going
> through the outside (lockable) door onto the back verandah. The bedroom
> and bathroom had separate locks.

> More usual in smaller Australian houses than the arrangement you
> describe is an extra outside door on the laundry, which will also
> contain a lockable toilet - not a half-bath - you're expected to use the
> laundry sink for washing your hands.

>    To House   ------------------|
> |                              |
> |         laundry area         |
> |         a bit squashed       |
> |          |-------------------|
> |          |                   |
> |           \                  |
> |            \     loo         |
> |          |                   |
> |          |                   |
> |          |___________________|
>    To Garden

> I'm not too good at this kind of drawing. The actual laundry area will
> be much larger than that because there's got to be room for a washing
> machine and a double sink and maybe for a dryer. It's still pretty
> cramped because people seem to stick all sorts of junk in there.

> > On Oct 18, 9:02 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> On 18/10/12 5:22 PM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> >>>  Ḳur'ān

> >> How do you do that little dot under the K? I didn't even know my
> >> computer could display anything like that.

> > In Windows, go to Character Map and select the character you want (and
> > the font you're using, if your email lets you pick). Where to find it
> > depends on your version of Windows.

> The free application BabelMap is much, much better
> than Window's Character Map.http://www.babelstone.co.uk/software/babelmap.html