Politics and the English Language
Xah Lee
George Orwell's “Politics and the English Language”, 1946.
Annotated:
Puppet_Sock
> For your perusal pleasure:
> George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", 1946.
> Annotated:
Just out of curiosity, who holds the copyright for this?
I misremember when Orwell died. It *could* be public
domain by now. Or it could still belong to his estate
or publisher. Anybody?
Socks
phil hunt
>Xah Lee wrote:
>> For your perusal pleasure:
>> George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", 1946.
>> Annotated:
>[link snipped]
>
>Just out of curiosity, who holds the copyright for this?
>I misremember when Orwell died.
1950
>It *could* be public
>domain by now. Or it could still belong to his estate
>or publisher. Anybody?
Jurisdictions vary. In many, copyright lasts for 50 years after the
author's death. In some other jurisdictions, media corporations
have bribed legislators to extend the term of copyright. There's
a list at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_length>
--
Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk
Xah Lee
Politics and the English Language. It is got tens of copies on the web
though...
Folks, there is a unnatural tendency that often a artist is appreciated
posthumously. This, i surmise is significantly due to human animal's
asshole nature. Basically, among males there is a strong power
struggle. As a result, a man's art work is not valued by the quality of
the art, but in part strongly governed by the power structure.
Therefore, often, the quality of a work is appreciated only after the
artist is dead — no longer a threat to his peers in power.
(women in general do not compete and in the few cases they did, the
weaker sex invariably seldom had a chance to surface in the power
lattice.)
If fact, we are all accustomed to it. For example, posthumous
anniversaries, memorial reserves, posthumous publications, dedications,
beatific eulogies. Often by the time we became aware of a work only to
associate it with a dead author.
Such situation we see in all sort of fields in art history. Writing,
music, painting, sculpture... In these fields it is most observable
because they are fields that have existed long enough for us to see.
This situation must be stopped. Or, as a artist, we must stop it.
To stop the power struggle nature and underhand sinisterness of men is
near impossible. However, the existent law and tradition that maintains
the copyrightness of a work long after the death of the author, is
probably harmful to artists on the whole. Such a law has the effect of
delaying the appreciation of the artist. On the surface such law gives
“right” to the author, but effectively preventing whatever the
author might have deserved for his work while he is still alive.
one might argue that such prolonged copyright benefits the author by
benefiting his immediate survived-by family or friends. This may be
true for some. However, the argument is no stronger than if we can
promote worthwhile artist while they are alive, as great number of them
die without knowing their worth. Meanwhile, abolishing such law or
shorten significantly the after-death “right” will also promote the
livelihood of art communities.
i'm writing this because i want to promote the appreciation of living
artists, and decrease or abolish the unbalanced reverences we have
today for artists who are dead.
Please think about this. If you agree, spread the idea.
Thanks.
Mike Schilling
"Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote in message
news:1121203972.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
:don't know who holds the copyright to George Orwell's 1946 essay
:Politics and the English Language. It is got tens of copies on the web
:though...
And don't care if you're violating it? That makes you a thief. But what
follows makes it clear that you're a loony too, so thief is the least of it.
Phoebe
António Marques
> (...)
> Basically, among males there is a strong power struggle.
> (...)
Indeed? Did some dude ruin your empire, or does it just look like a
cool thing to say and it seems logical so it must be true?
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate
Adrian Bailey
> Politics and the English Language. It is got tens of copies on the web
> though...
Then why add yet another copy?
Adrian
Adrian Bailey
news:giYAe.27221$O22....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Ah, now I see. You've added a commentary. Though your first footnote "This
paragraph is quite unintelligible" hardly augurs well for its usefulness...
Adrian
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
Axel
Misleart Chuff
: "Adrian Bailey" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I almost posted something very similar, before I remembered to look at
the rest of the thread. Though, my comment was going to be more along
the lines of, "Explain your first note. If you can't, then none of
your notes can be considered trustworthy."
Steve Hayes
Since he wrote 1984 in 1948, he probably has not been dead for 70 years.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Harlan Messinger
>>Just out of curiosity, who holds the copyright for this?
>>I misremember when Orwell died. It *could* be public
>>domain by now. Or it could still belong to his estate
>>or publisher. Anybody?
>
> Since he wrote 1984 in 1948, he probably has not been dead for 70 years.
Unless the Party says he has been.
Mike Schilling
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1rsbd19coukc9daha...@4ax.com...
> On 12 Jul 2005 10:34:51 -0700, "Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Xah Lee wrote:
>>> For your perusal pleasure:
>>> George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", 1946.
>>> Annotated:
>>[link snipped]
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, who holds the copyright for this?
>>I misremember when Orwell died. It *could* be public
>>domain by now. Or it could still belong to his estate
>>or publisher. Anybody?
>
> Since he wrote 1984 in 1948, he probably has not been dead for 70 years.
Orwell has *always* been dead for 70 years. (Literally speaking, he died in
1950.)
Duke of URL
from the USA, English, Canadian,
Australian and French Navies.
At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a group of half
dozen or so officers that included personnel from most of the countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks, but a
French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many
languages, Americans learn only English.
He then asked: "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these
conferences rather than speaking French?"
The American Admiral replied:
"Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it
so you wouldn't have to speak German."
Suddenly the group became very quiet.
--
Once a suicide bomber, always a suicide bomber
Peter T. Daniels
Someone with that level of social skills would never have made ensign,
let alone admiral.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
R H Draney
>
>Duke of URL wrote:
>>
>> The American Admiral replied:
>>
>> "Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it
>> so you wouldn't have to speak German."
>
>let alone admiral.
Nowadays they'd just appoint him ambassador to the UN....r
Par
> > "Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it
> > so you wouldn't have to speak German."
> >
> > Suddenly the group became very quiet.
>
> Someone with that level of social skills would never have made ensign,
> let alone admiral.
Hopefully, in the real world you might have to make that "should".
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
"Fly the airplane, then work the problem"
-- Rick Grant (quoting RCAF pilot training)
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Good one, Duke.
--
Charles Riggs
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
A rather meaningless comment, if it is not an urban legend. I recall
hearing that Germany actually abandoned the Gothic typeset during
the Second World War in order to make it easier to read German for
those unused to German script.
Axel
Bob Martin
Really. Note that a Brit, a Canadian or an Aussie would never have been so obnoxious.
Ron Henry
news:11de51g...@corp.supernews.com...
Because they realized they were in the presence of an incredible jackass.
Ron Henry
Lanarcam
Duke of URL wrote:
> A US Navy Admiral was attending a Naval conference that included Admirals
> from the USA, English, Canadian,
>
> Australian and French Navies.
>
> At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a group of half
> dozen or so officers that included personnel from most of the countries.
>
> Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks, but a
> French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many
> languages, Americans learn only English.
>
> He then asked: "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these
> conferences rather than speaking French?"
>
> The American Admiral replied:
>
> "Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it
> so you wouldn't have to speak German."
He could have added Russian; They were quite active also;)
> Suddenly the group became very quiet.
Your ancestors did a great job, very appreciated over here.
My grand parents were really pleased to say the least when
they saw the americans arriving in 1944.
A pity that their successors sometimes behave oddly;)
Duke of URL
> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
> news:11de51g...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> A US Navy Admiral was attending a Naval conference that included
>> Admirals from the USA, English, Canadian,
> Because they realized they were in the presence of an incredible
> jackass.
Hoo hoo HOO! I seem to have struck a vein of overly-sensitive
politically-correct New Agers! Never thought that little joke would stir up
so much shit.
I notice that about half of them are whining "It's naasssssy and that's a
baaaaaaaad Admiral" ... Wonder if I should tell them it's a /joke/, it's
*not* a true story?
Martin Ambuhl
> Ron Henry wrote:
>
>>Because they realized they were in the presence of an incredible
>>jackass.
>
> Hoo hoo HOO! I seem to have struck a vein of overly-sensitive
> politically-correct New Agers!
One need not be overly-sensitive, addicted to political correctness, nor
a New-Ager to recognize a boor. YAABAICMFP.
John Schilling
>Australian and French Navies.
>The American Admiral replied:
What, nobody had the stones to speak up and tell both obnoxious jingoistic
assholes to take it outside?
Pity.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
0ld Yank
"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:db93o...@drn.newsguy.com...
Schilling is a German name, isn't it?
--Yankee Viejo
Robin Bignall
I, too, was pleased just slightly earlier than that, when the
Americans invaded England in order to prepare for the Normandy
landings. A GI gave me my first taste of chocolate round about the
time I became five years old. That's a true story, BTW. I still
remember the party, where they also handed out chewing gum and little
things that looked like brass asterisks with different colours of felt
as backing. These were about a third of an inch across, raised at the
centre of the asterisk. I have always assumed they were cap badges,
or something of that sort, but I have never seen them on the uniforms
of WWII American soldiers in movies.
I also came as I grew older to really appreciate the involvement of
Americans. The Germans could not have been far from developing a
nuclear bomb: in fact, some 'evidence' was presented here some time
ago (a web site with a picture of some wasted place with mention of
lingering radiation, as I recall - some pooh-poohed the idea), and
they certainly had the delivery mechanisms to hit Britain, in the V1
and V2.
--
Robin
Hoddesdon, England
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>In article <11de51g...@corp.supernews.com>, Duke of URL says...
>
>>A US Navy Admiral was attending a Naval conference that included Admirals
>>from the USA, English, Canadian,
>
>>Australian and French Navies.
>
>>At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a group of half
>>dozen or so officers that included personnel from most of the countries.
>
>>Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks, but a
>>French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many
>>languages, Americans learn only English.
>
>>He then asked: "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these
>>conferences rather than speaking French?"
>
>>The American Admiral replied:
>
>>"Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it
>>so you wouldn't have to speak German."
>
>>Suddenly the group became very quiet.
>
>
>What, nobody had the stones to speak up and tell both obnoxious jingoistic
>assholes to take it outside?
Are jingoistic assholes less obnoxious than assholes lacking a sense
of humour? For me, it's about a toss-up.
--
Charles Riggs
Peter Bruells
Par
> >>The American Admiral replied:
> >
> >>"Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it
> >>so you wouldn't have to speak German."
> >
> >>Suddenly the group became very quiet.
> >
> >
> >What, nobody had the stones to speak up and tell both obnoxious jingoistic
> >assholes to take it outside?
>
> Are jingoistic assholes less obnoxious than assholes lacking a sense
> of humour? For me, it's about a toss-up.
I think there are two levels to view this joke. One is as a joke; the US
Admiral makes a snappy comment. Yes it was reasonably funny.
The other level is "would a real life Naval officer have the lack of
'tounge control' to let a comment like that out?" Since Naval officers
early learn that when you are doing official visits you are an extension
of the diplomatic service, and should at all times behave accordningly.
At least that was what a friend who did the cadet thing in the Swedish
Navy was taught,
The French officer was slightly tactless, a proper way to defuse it
would have been to either just let it pass, or turn it into a joke
(e.g. "you know the old saw about trilingual, bilingual and American; I
would be lost at sea if this conversation had taken place in French")
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
"Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
Wolfspawn
"The only good suicide bomber is a dead suicide bomber"?
John Schilling
>>>The American Admiral replied:
Yes, but in this one we have a jingoistic asshole lacking a sense of
humor, so two for the price of one...
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Mike Lyle
Hear about the [select ethnic name] suicide pilot? Flew fifteen
successful missions.
--
Mike.
David Johnston
wrote:
>Ron Henry wrote:
>> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
>> news:11de51g...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> A US Navy Admiral was attending a Naval conference that included
>>> Admirals from the USA, English, Canadian,
>[snip]
>
>> Because they realized they were in the presence of an incredible
>> jackass.
>Hoo hoo HOO! I seem to have struck a vein of overly-sensitive
>politically-correct New Agers! Never thought that little joke would stir up
>so much shit.
>I notice that about half of them are whining "It's naasssssy and that's a
>baaaaaaaad Admiral" ... Wonder if I should tell them it's a /joke/,
Is it really? Why is it supposed to be funny?
Mike Schilling
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3jt7uiF...@individual.net...
>
> Hear about the [select ethnic name] suicide pilot? Flew fifteen
> successful missions.
Even hear of Chicken Teriyaki? He's the oldest living kamikaze pilot.
Twittering One
Duke of URL
>> Once a suicide bomber, always a suicide bomber
>
> "The only good suicide bomber is a dead suicide bomber"?
Hmm. Interesting concept. I have to think about that one. Well-done.
Duke of URL
I've ekshully never heard that one used except about a Kamikaze pilot.
Duke of URL
> In article <11de51g...@corp.supernews.com>, Duke of URL says...
>
>> A US Navy Admiral was attending a Naval conference that included
>> Admirals from the USA, English, Canadian,
>
>> Australian and French Navies.
>
>> At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a group of
>> half dozen or so officers that included personnel from most of the
>> countries.
>
>> Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks,
>> but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans
>> learn many languages, Americans learn only English.
>
>> He then asked: "Why is it that we always have to speak English in
>> these conferences rather than speaking French?"
>
>> The American Admiral replied:
>
>> "Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans
>> arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German."
>
>> Suddenly the group became very quiet.
>
>
> What, nobody had the stones to speak up and tell both obnoxious
> jingoistic assholes to take it outside?
>
> Pity.
So you think that giving proper credit accurately where it's due is
"jingoistic"? sheesh
mark
of URL (MacB...@kdsi.net) was heard to remark...
Shirley a living suicide bomber --- i.e. one who hasn't/won't set off
his bomb and kill everyone --- is preferable?
--
"The [New York] Times is not a bad little newspaper in some ways. But
when it comes to things like egg balancing, it is out of its depth."
- Cecil Adams, /More of the Straight Dope/
Mike Schilling
"mark" <m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d45c38fa...@news.individual.net...
> While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification, Duke
> of URL (MacB...@kdsi.net) was heard to remark...
>> Wolfspawn wrote:
>>
>> >> Once a suicide bomber, always a suicide bomber
>> >
>> > "The only good suicide bomber is a dead suicide bomber"?
>>
>> Hmm. Interesting concept. I have to think about that one. Well-done.
>
> Shirley a living suicide bomber --- i.e. one who hasn't/won't set off
> his bomb and kill everyone --- is preferable?
Not preferable to one whose bomb went off as his handler was saying "And
don't press this button until ..."
Peter Bruells
> So you think that giving proper credit accurately where it's due is
> "jingoistic"? sheesh
How can it be propoer credit when it leaves out the Russians?
Joe Fineman
> Not preferable to one whose bomb went off as his handler was saying
> "And don't press this button until ..."
I heard tell of a graduate student in physics whose professor was
introducing him to some apparatus. Said the professor: "That's the
diffusion pump. Don't ever touch it -- it's hot as hell." Said the
student: "You mean *that*?" & prodded it. Lost the first joint of
his finger.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: In German there are no regular nouns, and in psychology :||
||: there are no normal minds. :||
Mike Lyle
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Not preferable to one whose bomb went off as his handler was
saying
>> "And don't press this button until ..."
>
> I heard tell of a graduate student in physics whose professor was
> introducing him to some apparatus. Said the professor: "That's
the
> diffusion pump. Don't ever touch it -- it's hot as hell." Said
the
> student: "You mean *that*?" & prodded it. Lost the first joint of
> his finger.
During what we elseponders still usually call "The War", a former RAF
man I knew was travelling east on a troopship. Among the
entertainment provided for the penguins was small arms training by a
Guards officer so stereotypically dim that they referred to him as
"Fumf" (sp?). As they all sat comfortably on the deck, Fumf showed
how to load a revolver, and then warned them to be extremely careful,
or else, he demonstrated -- by aiming the weapon at his own foot and
squeezing the trigger. Poor bloke was court-martialled, apparently.
(A fate fortunately escaped by my own father, who claimed to have
accidentally shot a destroyer in Colombo Harbour with a newly-issued
and unfamiliar automatic pistol, whose only other wartime use I ever
learned about was when they got merry one night in New Guinea and
amused themselves by shooting holes in a steel topi.)
--
Mike.
William December Starr
m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au said:
> Shirley a living suicide bomber --- i.e. one who hasn't/won't set
> off his bomb and kill everyone --- is preferable?
Depends on the circumstances. The suicide bomber who is dead along
with five innocent victims is arguably preferable to the living one
who's on his way to a final rendezvous with ten innocent victims.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Duke of URL
Russia wasn't being invited to free-world military assemblies back then.
Duke of URL
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:41:03 -0500, "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net>
> wrote:
>
>> A US Navy Admiral was attending a Naval conference that included
>> Admirals from the USA, English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies.
>
> On mature reflection the American Admiral could have replied: "Maybe
> it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it
But at that time, we hadn't yet succeeded in bringing down the Soviet
Empire - the story predates Ronald Reagan's triumph.
We HAD brought down the Nazi Reich, however.
Damien Neil
mark <m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification, Duke
> of URL (MacB...@kdsi.net) was heard to remark...
> > Wolfspawn wrote:
> > > "The only good suicide bomber is a dead suicide bomber"?
> >
> > Hmm. Interesting concept. I have to think about that one. Well-done.
>
> Shirley a living suicide bomber --- i.e. one who hasn't/won't set off
> his bomb and kill everyone --- is preferable?
Perhaps, but he's not very good at his job, is he? Nor is he,
technically, a suicide bomber.
- Damien
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
True. But by the end of WWII the eastwards thrust of Brits, Canadians,
Aussies and Americans (and the other allies) had halted the westwards
movement of the Soviet forces at what became the Iron Curtain. If the
aforementioned allied nations had not been involved there is a good chance
that the Soviet Union would have occupied all the territory previously
occupied by Germany. The Soviet Empire would have extended as far as the
Atlantic coast of Europe.
It could be argued that the invasion of Europe, starting on D-Day, whilst
contributing to the overthrow of Nazi Germany, had as its principle effect
the denial of Western Europe to the Soviet Union.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e)
Skitt
> But by the end of WWII the eastwards thrust of Brits, Canadians,
> Aussies and Americans (and the other allies) had halted the westwards
> movement of the Soviet forces at what became the Iron Curtain. If the
> aforementioned allied nations had not been involved there is a good
> chance that the Soviet Union would have occupied all the territory
> previously occupied by Germany. The Soviet Empire would have extended
> as far as the Atlantic coast of Europe.
>
> It could be argued that the invasion of Europe, starting on D-Day,
> whilst contributing to the overthrow of Nazi Germany, had as its
> principle effect the denial of Western Europe to the Soviet Union.
Oy! (principal)
The Soviet Union never got as far into Germany as where the Iron Curtain was
eventually established. A huge chunk of Germany that was originally
captured by the Western Allies (Americans, actually) was turned over to the
Soviets for their occupation, because they insisted on that. I was living
in that part of Germany (Cabarz) and got the hell out of there before that
turn-over happened.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Skitt
I forgot to give a timeline for this. Cabarz fell to US Forces on April 8,
1945. I was sick in bed at the time. I believe that the Soviets took over
that part of Germany in August of that year (maybe sooner).
Peter Duncanson
>Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>> But by the end of WWII the eastwards thrust of Brits, Canadians,
>> Aussies and Americans (and the other allies) had halted the westwards
>> movement of the Soviet forces at what became the Iron Curtain. If the
>> aforementioned allied nations had not been involved there is a good
>> chance that the Soviet Union would have occupied all the territory
>> previously occupied by Germany. The Soviet Empire would have extended
>> as far as the Atlantic coast of Europe.
>>
>> It could be argued that the invasion of Europe, starting on D-Day,
>> whilst contributing to the overthrow of Nazi Germany, had as its
>> principle effect the denial of Western Europe to the Soviet Union.
>
>Oy! (principal)
Oh! ************! I used to have the position of Principal Analyst.
>The Soviet Union never got as far into Germany as where the Iron Curtain was
>eventually established. A huge chunk of Germany that was originally
>captured by the Western Allies (Americans, actually) was turned over to the
>Soviets for their occupation, because they insisted on that. I was living
>in that part of Germany (Cabarz) and got the hell out of there before that
>turn-over happened.
Sadly, others were unable to get out.
Aaron Davies
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:41:03 -0500, "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>
> >A US Navy Admiral was attending a Naval conference that included Admirals
> >from the USA, English, Canadian,
> >
> >Australian and French Navies.
> >
> >At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a group of half
> >dozen or so officers that included personnel from most of the countries.
> >
> >Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks, but a
> >French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many
> >languages, Americans learn only English.
> >
> >He then asked: "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these
> >conferences rather than speaking French?"
> >
> >The American Admiral replied:
> >
> >"Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it
> >so you wouldn't have to speak German."
> >
> >Suddenly the group became very quiet.
>
> On mature reflection the American Admiral could have replied: "Maybe it's
> because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you
> wouldn't have to speak Russian."
On a slightly different note, you could also tell a version about talks
involving Chinese, Koreans, and various other East Asians, with Japanese
as the punchline language.
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri.
Ho! Ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Thrust!
Xah Lee
> George Orwell's “Politics and the English Language”, 1946.
> Annotated:
>
> http://xahlee.org/p/george_orwell_english.html
what does the idiom "on the order of the day" mean?
also, in the list of idioms given:
ring the changes on, take up the cudgels for, toe the line, ride
roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands
of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on
the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed
would it be a good accessment to say that most university educated
native English speakers wouldn't know hald of these?
Robert Lieblich
I'm a university-educated native English speaker (American variety),
and I know every one of them except "on the order of the day." I
offer this solely as a data point.
Well, what the hell? I googled "on the order of the day." Turns out
the key phrase is "order of the day," and it refers to a legislative
agenda for a given day. "On the order of the day" therefore means "on
the day's legislative agenda."
--
Bob Lieblich
Still learning
benlizross
Depends how old. I would say in O's time all of them would have been
familiar to educated English speakers. Almost all of them are for me
(born about the time the essay was written). For young university
educated people now, I'd say at least half, though they might have lost
sight of the original metaphor (for example one reads "tow the line"
fairly often). The "order of the day" is a common expression, but I'm
not sure what the preposition "on" means with it.
Ross Clark
Skitt
I'm a college-educated non-native speaker of English (but with
native-speaker capabilities), and I knew every one of them. The "on" for
the "order of the day" is purely incidental. I believe that most, if not
all, university-educated native English speakers would know them all also.
--
Skitt (AUE's token Latvian)
Wayne Throop
: http://xahlee.org/p/george_orwell_english.html
: what does the idiom "on the order of the day" mean?
http://www.answers.com/order%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bday
: also, in the list of idioms given:
:
: ring the changes on, take up the cudgels for, toe the line, ride
: roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands
: of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on
: the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed
:
: would it be a good accessment to say that most university educated
: native English speakers wouldn't know hald of these?
It would depend on the type of reading a person tends to do, so a
university educated person might well miss some of them though no
particular fault of their own; but I'd expect a typical university
educated person to have a very good chance to know them all. Certainly
I'd expect better than nine-in-ten for any individual one.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Josh Hill
No. They're all commonplace.
--
Josh
benlizross
>
> Xah Lee wrote:
> > Xah Lee wrote:
>
> >> George Orwell's “Politics and the English Language”, 1946.
> >> Annotated:
> >>
> >> http://xahlee.org/p/george_orwell_english.html
> >
> > what does the idiom "on the order of the day" mean?
> >
> > also, in the list of idioms given:
> >
> > ring the changes on, take up the cudgels for, toe the line, ride
> > roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands
> > of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on
> > the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed
> >
> > would it be a good accessment to say that most university educated
> > native English speakers wouldn't know hald of these?
>
> I'm a college-educated non-native speaker of English (but with
> native-speaker capabilities), and I knew every one of them. The "on" for
> the "order of the day" is purely incidental.
But if it's purely incidental, why did O cite it as part of the idiom? I
didn't find "on" with any of OED's citations of "order of the day" (s.v.
"order"). My familiarity with the phrase would be in sentences such as
"X is the order of the day", meaning the prevailing fashion or practice.
A quick look at Google gives a broader picture. Of course "on the order
of the day" can be found in a non-idiomatic sense where there is a
literal "order of the day" (an agenda or list of things to be done),
i.e. in parliamentary or military contexts. But there also seems to be
a tendency to idiomatic use among Marxists, which may be where O picked
it up. Four of the first 20 Google hits were of this type, two being
translations of pre-WWII Soviet writers and two by more recent
socialist/Marxist writers. And interestingly, checking back with OED,
the only occurrence of "on the order of the day" (s.v. "world") is from
Bertrand Russell (1920) quoting Lenin! I wonder to what extent this is a
translation from other languages where "on the order of the day" may be
a working idiom?
Ross Clark
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>> George Orwell's â??Politics and the English Languageâ?ť, 1946.
As Bob Lieblich wrote in another post on this:
Well, what the hell? I googled "on the order of the day."
Turns out the key phrase is "order of the day," and it
refers to a legislative agenda for a given day. "On the
order of the day" therefore means "on the day's legislative
agenda."
I agree with Bob's interpretation. There was no context available to
support or contradict this.
In fact, there's another "on" that is purely incidental in the above list of
idioms -- the one after "ring the changes".
Maria Conlon
And at least one native English speaker (I, Maria Conlon) who is *not*
university-educated knows the idioms (with "_on_ the order of the day"
being the odd one).
I suspect there are more like me, though perhaps not among the under-50
group. I say that because many of the idioms mentioned are not as widely
used as they once were.
Maria Conlon
Maria Conlon
>
> And at least one native English speaker (I, Maria Conlon) who is *not*
> university-educated knows the idioms (with "_on_ the order of the day"
> being the odd one).
>
> I suspect there are more like me, though perhaps not among the
> under-50 group. I say that because many of the idioms mentioned are
> not as widely used as they once were.
By the way... before reading this thread, I used the term "hotbed" in a
post today. Neat coincidence, eh?
Maria
benlizross
Of course this is the original meaning of the phrase, and some
institutions still have orders of the day and still use it that way.
But what I am concerned with (and what O was talking about) is the
extended, figurative use to mean something like "prevailing fashion, or
present state of things", and whether "on" is part of that idiom. For me
no, but for some people apparently yes.
> In fact, there's another "on" that is purely incidental in the above list of
> idioms -- the one after "ring the changes".
Here I disagree. If "ring the changes" is going to have an object, it
has to be with "on". So it's optional, but not purely incidental.
Ross Clark
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> In fact, there's another "on" that is purely incidental in the above
>> list of idioms -- the one after "ring the changes".
>
> Here I disagree. If "ring the changes" is going to have an object, it
> has to be with "on". So it's optional, but not purely incidental.
That is *if* it is going to have an object. It doesn't have to have one.
Skitt
> benlizross wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>
>>> In fact, there's another "on" that is purely incidental in the above
>>> list of idioms -- the one after "ring the changes".
>>
>> Here I disagree. If "ring the changes" is going to have an object, it
>> has to be with "on". So it's optional, but not purely incidental.
>
> That is *if* it is going to have an object. It doesn't have to have
> one.
To support my assertion, here's M-W ONline's entry:
- ring the changes or ring changes : to run through
the range of possible variations
There is no "on" as part of the idiom.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
... information is gushing toward your brain like a fire hose aimed
at a teacup. -- Dogbert
Richard Ulrich
Except for "on the order of the day," and possibly
"fishing in troubled waters," I'm sure I've *used* them
each, multiple times. In front of an educated audience,
I'd feel more concern about sounding trite than failing to
be understood.
"Whose ox is being gored" was in fashion for some op-ed
writers a couple of decades ago.
--
Rich Ulrich, wpi...@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
Damien Neil
"Take up the cudgels for" and "fishing in troubled waters" are not
familiar to me, although I can guess at their meanings easily enough. I
never see an "on" affixed to "order of the day". The others are quite
familiar to me. I see most of them in print often.
- Damien
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
> > Skitt wrote:
>
> >> In fact, there's another "on" that is purely incidental in the above
> >> list of idioms -- the one after "ring the changes".
> >
> > Here I disagree. If "ring the changes" is going to have an object, it
> > has to be with "on". So it's optional, but not purely incidental.
>
> That is *if* it is going to have an object. It doesn't have to have one.
Yes, that's what "optional" means. But if you are going to add an
object, you have to use the preposition "on". That is part of what you
learn when you learn to use that idiom, and that's why O included it.
And he was right to include it in "on the order of the day", too. I
questioned it because it's not part of my English, but you only have to
look around a bit to see that it's common enough. In fact (as I pointed
out elsewhere) there's a strong tradition among Marxist writers, which
may go back to English translations of the works of Lenin et al. Is this
a calque from a Russian expression? I don't know. Another fascinating
fact that popped out when I started googling on this is that South
Africans say "at the order of the day". Calque from Afrikaans?
Ross Clark
Peter Bruells
Can't imagine that. More than half of those have direct translations
of German, or rather are stock phrases common in Western European
languages.
Josh Hill
Like others here, I recognized the expression "order of the day" and
treated the "on" as incidental.
I don't remember either having seen the expression "fishing in
troubled waters," but "troubled waters" is commonplace (or seems that
way anyway to those of us old enough to remember Simon and Garfunkel),
which makes the expression easy to parse even though that sense of
"troubled" is no longer in common use. A search yielded this:
'Perhaps the first western record of our proverb is found in Walter
Map, De nugis curialium, which was written not long before 1200 in
England. Here it has the form 'In aqua turbida piscatur uberius.' This
is much the same as "Piscatur in aqua turbida" without an adverb,
which Burton E. Stevenson cites as a "proverbial Latin phrase" without
giving a source.'
http://info.utas.edu.au/docs/flonta/DP,2,1,96/TROUBLED_WATERS.html
I'm not sure where "take up the cudgel for" originated -- the only
source I was able to find says only that it's an idiomatic expression:
http://www.allwords.com/word-cudgel.html
--
Josh
Xah Lee
a selfish or subjective aim.
and Merriem Webster collegiate agrees:
an ulterior often selfish purpose to further
however, from my understanding before looking up, and also from two
other educated acquaintances, we thought it means something like:
grinding one's axe as of preparation of hostility. i.e. i have an axe
to grind means i have issues that demand attention by way of discussion
or even a fight to determine resolution.
this doesn't seems to be compatible with the dictionaries given.
What gives?
Xah
x...@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
Random
> American Heritage Dict gives “axe to grind” as:
> a selfish or subjective aim.
>
> and Merriem Webster collegiate agrees:
> an ulterior often selfish purpose to further
>
> however, from my understanding before looking up, and also from two
> other educated acquaintances, we thought it means something like:
> grinding one's axe as of preparation of hostility. i.e. i have an axe
> to grind means i have issues that demand attention by way of discussion
> or even a fight to determine resolution.
>
> this doesn't seems to be compatible with the dictionaries given.
>
> What gives?
>
> Xah
> x...@xahlee.org
> ∑ http://xahlee.org/
My understanding has always been nearly the same as yours. I think the
dictionary definition emphasises that when one has an axe to grind, it
usually means that the hostility is being suppressed or hidden, and is
often exhibited passive-aggressively. i.e. Secretly grinding the axe;
skulking about, privately contemplating the doom of one's enemy.
The more overt form of an 'axe to grind' might be called a 'bone to
pick'.
Aaron Davies
That's about right; in a typical usage, one might say that an author had
an axe to grind, and mean that there was a hidden agenda in his book.
This sort of thing is typically said of non-fiction, histories and
biographies and such.
Josh Hill
>American Heritage Dict gives “axe to grind” as:
> a selfish or subjective aim.
>
>and Merriem Webster collegiate agrees:
>an ulterior often selfish purpose to further
>
>however, from my understanding before looking up, and also from two
>other educated acquaintances, we thought it means something like:
>grinding one's axe as of preparation of hostility. i.e. i have an axe
>to grind means i have issues that demand attention by way of discussion
>or even a fight to determine resolution.
>
>this doesn't seems to be compatible with the dictionaries given.
>
>What gives?
No, the expression implies a hidden motive, as in "Donna lied about
Josh because she had an axe to grind." A search yielded this
explanation:
Axe to grind - ulterior and selfish motive; private grievance; pet
subject
The second and third meanings have developed from the first, which
comes from the language of US politics, which in turn found it in Too
Much for your Whistle by self-educated writer, scientist and statesman
Benjamin Franklin. It tells how, as a young man, he had obligingly
turned a heavy grindstone after a man had flattered him into doing so;
in reality the man merely wished to sharpen his axe, after which his
attitude changed. From this, Franklin learned to be cautious about the
motives behind people's smooth talk: perhaps they merely had another
axe to grind.
http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/sayings.htm
--
Josh
Robert Lieblich
>
> Random <rand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Xah Lee wrote:
> > > American Heritage Dict gives "axe to grind" as:
> > > a selfish or subjective aim.
> > >
> > > and Merriem Webster collegiate agrees:
> > > an ulterior often selfish purpose to further
> > >
> > > however, from my understanding before looking up, and also from two
> > > other educated acquaintances, we thought it means something like:
> > > grinding one's axe as of preparation of hostility. i.e. i have an axe
> > > to grind means i have issues that demand attention by way of discussion
> > > or even a fight to determine resolution.
> > >
> > > this doesn't seems to be compatible with the dictionaries given.
> > >
> > > What gives?
> > My understanding has always been nearly the same as yours. I think the
> > dictionary definition emphasises that when one has an axe to grind, it
> > usually means that the hostility is being suppressed or hidden, and is
> > often exhibited passive-aggressively. i.e. Secretly grinding the axe;
> > skulking about, privately contemplating the doom of one's enemy.
> >
> > The more overt form of an 'axe to grind' might be called a 'bone to
> > pick'.
>
> That's about right; in a typical usage, one might say that an author had
> an axe to grind, and mean that there was a hidden agenda in his book.
"Hidden agenda"? Isn't that "a selfish or subjective aim" or "an
ulterior often selfish purpose to further"? Of course the axe grinder
intends to move on to wielding it, but the act in question is the
grinding, and that act is the secret preparation for the subsequent
use. Someone with an axe to grind is pursuing a hidden agenda. The
agenda surfaces when the axe is used, not ground.
I believe this is an excellent example of why metaphors and cliches
are better left unexamined for the most part.
> This sort of thing is typically said of non-fiction, histories and
> biographies and such.
It's typically said of their authors.
--
Bob Lieblich
With teeth to grind
Josh Hill
That's not what the expression refers to, though. It's a reference to
a story told by Ben Franklin.
--
Josh
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:29:10 -0400, Robert Lieblich
> <robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
> >"Hidden agenda"? Isn't that "a selfish or subjective aim" or "an
> >ulterior often selfish purpose to further"? Of course the axe grinder
> >intends to move on to wielding it, but the act in question is the
> >grinding, and that act is the secret preparation for the subsequent
> >use. Someone with an axe to grind is pursuing a hidden agenda. The
> >agenda surfaces when the axe is used, not ground.
>
> That's not what the expression refers to, though. It's a reference to
> a story told by Ben Franklin.
What the expression *means* is what matters. I'm not denying that
it's useful to know the origin, but phrases mean what they mean
without regard to their origin. Check out "ugly American" some time.
I must say I've never seen or heard the phrase attributed to Franklin,
and Google was no help. Do you have a citation?
--
Bob Lieblich
Curioser and curioser
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I recall
> hearing that Germany actually abandoned the Gothic typeset during
> the Second World War in order to make it easier to read German for
> those unused to German script.
See Gerhard Augst in WWS. At first the Nazis tried to impose Fraktur,
since it was the national German typestyle, but as the empire expanded
to include more and more domains that used roman or cyrillic styles,
unreadability became a serious problem, and it was conveniently
discovered that Fraktur was a "Jewish" script and hence must be banned.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Josh Hill
<robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
Yes -- I hadn't heard of the attribution either, but I was able to
coax it out of Google:
Axe to grind - ulterior and selfish motive; private grievance; pet
subject
The second and third meanings have developed from the first, which
comes from the language of US politics, which in turn found it in Too
Much for your Whistle by self-educated writer, scientist and statesman
Benjamin Franklin. It tells how, as a young man, he had obligingly
turned a heavy grindstone after a man had flattered him into doing so;
in reality the man merely wished to sharpen his axe, after which his
attitude changed. From this, Franklin learned to be cautious about the
motives behind people's smooth talk: perhaps they merely had another
axe to grind.
http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/sayings.htm
So it's a reference to a story rather than a direct metaphor.
--
Josh
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:15:41 -0400, Robert Lieblich
> <robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >I must say I've never seen or heard the phrase attributed to Franklin,
> >and Google was no help. Do you have a citation?
>
> Yes -- I hadn't heard of the attribution either, but I was able to
> coax it out of Google:
>
> Axe to grind - ulterior and selfish motive; private grievance; pet
> subject
>
> The second and third meanings have developed from the first, which
> comes from the language of US politics, which in turn found it in Too
> Much for your Whistle by self-educated writer, scientist and statesman
> Benjamin Franklin. It tells how, as a young man, he had obligingly
> turned a heavy grindstone after a man had flattered him into doing so;
> in reality the man merely wished to sharpen his axe, after which his
> attitude changed. From this, Franklin learned to be cautious about the
> motives behind people's smooth talk: perhaps they merely had another
> axe to grind.
>
> http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/sayings.htm
>
> So it's a reference to a story rather than a direct metaphor.
Thank you. I've learned something today. (Unfortunately, I can't get
the site to come up, but I'm willing to believe your description of it
-- you don't have an axe to grind, do you? I'll give it another try
later.)
--
Bob Lieblich
Grateful
Xah Lee
Xah
Mike Lyle
It's what dear Julia Cresswell in her Penguin Dictionary of Cliches
calls "a dead metaphor". So, Xah, it's best not to use it. Any
necessary implication of hostility is a recent --and, you'll see if
you think about it, utterly absurd -- accretion: you'll misunderstand
a lot of writing if you assume it's there. An ulterior motive may,
after all, be entirely well-intentioned. Stick with the dictionaries
this time. And beware any attribution to Ben Franklin even more than
if it were attributed to Winston Churchill or the Duke of Wellington.
--
Mike.
Robert Lieblich
> type the url in google, then click Cached version.
Well, the good news is that Xah's tip worked. I found the site, and
it does indeed say that "axe to grind" comes from a Franklin story
named "Too much for Your Whistle." Unfortunately, I couldn't find any
Franklin story by that name. When I inserted that title into Google,
it returned several sites at which could be found the complete text of
a Franklin essay named "The Whistle," and within the text of that
story is the phrase "too much for your whistle" -- but no axe and no
grinding.
I'm not saying that Franklin didn't originate the phrase "axe to
grind." But I still haven't seen any evidence to support that origin,
and not for lack of trying. No useful results from a google search.
No results at all from an Amazon search. I guess I'll have to unlearn
what I learned earlier today.
Can anyone help? How about Ben Zimmer? He can find anything. Are
you there, Ben?
--
Bob Lieblich
Befoozled
Aaron Davies
Interesting. If actually true, that would make this sort of a homegrown
version of all the Aesop-derived metaphors--"sour grapes" and so on.
Josh Hill
<robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>[posting order conformed to AUE practice -- new stuff at bottom]
>
>Well, the good news is that Xah's tip worked. I found the site, and
>it does indeed say that "axe to grind" comes from a Franklin story
>named "Too much for Your Whistle." Unfortunately, I couldn't find any
>Franklin story by that name. When I inserted that title into Google,
>it returned several sites at which could be found the complete text of
>a Franklin essay named "The Whistle," and within the text of that
>story is the phrase "too much for your whistle" -- but no axe and no
>grinding.
>
>I'm not saying that Franklin didn't originate the phrase "axe to
>grind." But I still haven't seen any evidence to support that origin,
>and not for lack of trying. No useful results from a google search.
>No results at all from an Amazon search. I guess I'll have to unlearn
>what I learned earlier today.
>
>Can anyone help? How about Ben Zimmer? He can find anything. Are
>you there, Ben?
Check this out:
'If someone has an axe to grind then they have an ulterior motive to
pursue. This saying comes allegedly from the US diplomat Benjamin
Franklin. He told the story of the young man who wanted his axe
ground. The smith agreed to do it provided the man turn the grindstone
himself. He soon tired and gave up having bitten off more than he
could chew. This story was published early in Franklin's career in an
article entitled "Too much for your Whistle", but the actual phrase
does not seem to have been used until about 20 years later, in another
story called "Who'll turn the Grindstone?", written by Charles Minter.
This story was clearly based on Franklin's tale, and did include the
phrase "......that man has an ax to grind". It seems that Charles
Minter was the likely author of the phrase.'
http://www.briggs13.fsnet.co.uk/book/a.htm
--
Josh
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Skitt wrote:
> > benlizross wrote:
> >> Skitt wrote:
> >
> >>> In fact, there's another "on" that is purely incidental in the above
> >>> list of idioms -- the one after "ring the changes".
> >>
> >> Here I disagree. If "ring the changes" is going to have an object, it
> >> has to be with "on". So it's optional, but not purely incidental.
> >
> > That is *if* it is going to have an object. It doesn't have to have
> > one.
>
> To support my assertion, here's M-W ONline's entry:
>
> - ring the changes or ring changes : to run through
> the range of possible variations
>
> There is no "on" as part of the idiom.
You've rung the changes on this problem long enough. Add "on" left of
the colon and "of" right of it.
Robert Lieblich
But this just repeats that Franklin told the story. Where is the
story itself? There is -- said he, repeating himself -- a story by
Franklin named "The Whistle" that includes the phrase "too much for
your whistle." But there's no story whose *name* is "Too much for
your whistle*, nor does the story "The Whistle" contain anything about
an axe, or have I found any story by anybody on the Web that contains
the bit about an axe to grind. Franklin's stuff is long out of
copyright, and "The Whistle" is easily available, but beyond
containing the phrase "too much for your whistle" it has no connection
to anything anyone has said about an axe to grind.
The site to which Josh refers says the phrase "axe to grind" was first
used in a story "Who'll Turn the Grindstone" by one Charles Minter,
but it was "clearly based on Franklin's Tale." But there's no
Franklin tale that I can find about grinding an axe. Nor, as far as
google is concerned, is the Minter story anywhere on the Web, even
though it's also long out of copyright. Searching <"who'll turn the
grindstone" minter> turns up the site Josh pointed me to, one in
Chinese, and one other that says the same thing as Josh's. Beyond
that, the trail is cold.
I'm beginning to think that Ben Franklin's axe is about as authentic
as the one Washington used to chop down the cherry tree.
Can anyone find anything actually written by Ben Franklin that tells
the axe story or used the phrase "an axe to grind"? I can't.
--
Bob Lieblich
Losing faith
Peter T. Daniels
"Troubled waters" was coopted by Simon & Garfunkel about 20 years after
Orwell wrote. The goring ox was revived between 1992 and 2000.
Josh Hill
<robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
I wouldn't look upon this cite as rigorous confirmation, but the
author does seem to know something about the issue, and for some
reason that I can't fathom not everything that's ever been printed has
made it to the Web yet. So I don't think I'd write off the story
without a trip to the library . . .
--
Josh
Skitt
Talk to M-W Online about that. (What's that about an "of"?)
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Peter T. Daniels
ring the changes on = run through the variations of
Skitt
Couldn't you put different prepositions there also? Like "concerning" and
"regarding"? There are others. No sense in listing all the possibilities,
is there?
Peter T. Daniels
"Run through the variations concerning"? No.
If you want to put those on "ring the changes," then the metaphor has
become unfortunately thoroughly dead.
Skitt
I'll give you that one; however, as I said before (above), the idiom does
not need an object -- something that was a given when I wrote what I did.
Incidentally, maybe my choice of "incidental" was not the best to describe
the function of "on". It is a preposition that is normally used when the
idiom (that would be the term without the "on") has an object.
The following is a quick examination with Google, using "ring the changes"
(30,800 hits). With an object, there are not many uses of "on". I see a
few instances of "in" and "for", but the context is a bit different. The
vast majority of the uses are without an object.
Doing a Google on "ring the changes on" yields a scant 674 hits, and even
some of those are not valid hits (... ring the changes. On July ...).
I think I have said enough. I accept other opinions as being there. They
just don't match mine. There are always some that don't.
Murray Arnow
>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
Not much help but a confirmation, the OED has for an entry for "axe":
6. phrases. a. to put the axe in the helve: to solve a doubt, to find out a
puzzle. to send the axe after the helve (= the better to send the helve after
the hatchet). to have axes to grind (orig. U.S. politics): to have private
ends to serve [in reference to a story told by Franklin]; now more commonly to
have an axe to grind.
Xah Lee
serve...”
that's Private ends, and are Serving!
Xah
x...@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
>> I recall
>> hearing that Germany actually abandoned the Gothic typeset during
>> the Second World War in order to make it easier to read German for
>> those unused to German script.
> See Gerhard Augst in WWS. At first the Nazis tried to impose Fraktur,
> since it was the national German typestyle, but as the empire expanded
Thanks for the name... I could only think of "Gothic script" which I
felt was incorrect, although best described what I meant.
Axel
Peter T. Daniels
"Gothic" is the usual name for the handwriting style (used in
Germanophone areas of Europe through the 19th century) in English. The
problem is that "gothic" is also a term for sans-serif.