department of redundancy department
Ray Heindl
Dollar Hoax". I wonder how many of their viewers notice that the title
is redundant. As well as redundant. If they must be repetitive, they
could at least make it "The $25-Million-Dollar Hoax", but I'm sure the
hyphens are too much to ask for.
Maybe they really mean for it to be read "the twenty-five dollar
million dollar hoax", sort of a cut-rate reality show.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply to: xvortr...@yaxhoo.com)
Arcadian Rises
>
>I see that NBC (a TV network) has a new show called "The $25 Million
>Dollar Hoax". I wonder how many of their viewers notice that the title
>is redundant. As well as redundant. If they must be repetitive, they
>could at least make it "The $25-Million-Dollar Hoax", but I'm sure the
>hyphens are too much to ask for.
>
>Maybe they really mean for it to be read "the twenty-five dollar
>million dollar hoax", sort of a cut-rate reality show.
Or "Dollar twenty-five million hoax" :)
Now, seriously, I agree with you. I believe that the superfluous dollar sign is
redundant and unnecessary.
Bob G
Bob G
Adrian Bailey
news:20041110173428...@mb-m13.aol.com...
:-D
http://www.nbc.com/nbc/25_Million_Dollar_Hoax/
Adrian
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns959DAF25...@130.133.1.4...
> I see that NBC (a TV network) has a new show called "The $25 Million
> Dollar Hoax". I wonder how many of their viewers notice that the title
> is redundant. As well as redundant. If they must be repetitive, they
> could at least make it "The $25-Million-Dollar Hoax", but I'm sure the
> hyphens are too much to ask for.
>
> Maybe they really mean for it to be read "the twenty-five dollar
> million dollar hoax", sort of a cut-rate reality show.
I recently came across a box of rubber bands which had a printed price tag
reading "$125c" (I use "c" here to represent the "cent sign" which was
actually used.)
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
R H Draney
>
>I see that NBC (a TV network) has a new show called "The $25 Million
>Dollar Hoax". I wonder how many of their viewers notice that the title
>is redundant. As well as redundant. If they must be repetitive, they
>could at least make it "The $25-Million-Dollar Hoax", but I'm sure the
>hyphens are too much to ask for.
Not the first time a title has contained a nested part of itself...Brad Pitt was
in a movie called (if one believes the posters) "Se7en", and a certain group of
singing siblings had a cartoon series called "The Jackson 5ive"....r
Donna Richoux
> I see that NBC (a TV network) has a new show called "The $25 Million
> Dollar Hoax". I wonder how many of their viewers notice that the title
> is redundant. As well as redundant. If they must be repetitive, they
> could at least make it "The $25-Million-Dollar Hoax", but I'm sure the
> hyphens are too much to ask for.
>
> Maybe they really mean for it to be read "the twenty-five dollar
> million dollar hoax", sort of a cut-rate reality show.
I think Google must be adding more punctuation and symbols to what it
indexes -- I now get meaningful results for things like "The $6". But
not "The $$$" - I wonder why one and not the other.
"The six million dollar man" 34,900
"The 6 million dollar man" 16,200
"The $6 million dollar man" 45
Actually, the ratio is closer for others that are not a fixed title:
"The 8 million dollar" 674
"The $8 million dollar" 583
That's one close ratio.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Bob G
>reading "$125c" (I use "c" here to represent the "cent sign" which was
>actually used.)
I had an interesting time at my local Walmart not long ago:
I spotted an item marked at 0.99c (cents). It was not a made-up, on-the-spot
price tag, but had rather been professionally printed and was part of the
sealed package the item came in.
I offered to buy one hundred of them for 99 cents and was met by extreme
resistance from several employees, who swore up and down that the tag was
correct and it called for 99 cents, and that I was mistaken and it did not
mean, as I kept insisting, 99 hundredths of a cent.
Finally they summoned the manager, who immediately pronounced me right, having
been better educated than the others. He graciously offered me the 100 items
for 99 cents, if I wanted them, but I turned him down, not actually having the
slightest need for even one of them.
A few weeks later I checked back on the same item and the manufacturer had
corrected the error and it was then clearly marked "99 c".
The amazing thing is that the erroneous tag had been presumably inspected both
by the printer and the manufacturer and maybe by others and no one had picked
up the gaff.
Which, BTW, I've often wondered, do printers have resident grammarians?
Bob G
Stan Brown
>Now, seriously, I agree with you. I believe that the superfluous dollar sign is
>redundant and unnecessary.
It's also superfluous.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"And if you're afraid of butter, which many people are nowa-
days, (long pause) you just put in cream." --Julia Child
Arcadian Rises
>
>"Arcadian Rises" <arcadi...@aol.com> wrote in alt.usage.english:
>>Now, seriously, I agree with you. I believe that the superfluous dollar sign
>is
>>redundant and unnecessary.
>
>It's also superfluous.
It's also redundant too, as well as unnecessarily useless and needless.
Maria Conlon
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>> Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>> Now, seriously, I agree with you. I believe that the superfluous
>>> dollar sign is redundant and unnecessary.
>>
>> It's also superfluous.
>
> It's also redundant too, as well as unnecessarily useless and
> needless.
Did anyone mention it being like perfume on a pig?
Maria Conlon
Jon Miller
wrote:
Check your memory . . . was that not also the name of the group of
singing siblings?
Jon Miller
Not brave enough to actually research the answer.
Bloke
I wish they would.
Bloke
>>> It's also superfluous.
I wish they had.
Steve Hayes
>The amazing thing is that the erroneous tag had been presumably inspected both
>by the printer and the manufacturer and maybe by others and no one had picked
>up the gaff.
Oy!
--
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
Steve Hayes
Isn't it in the same category as "ISBN number" and "ATM machine"?
Martin Ambuhl
> Did anyone mention it being like perfume on a pig?
I applaud the originality of Ms Conlon's deviation from the more usual
"lipstick on a pig."
Steve MacGregor
news:MPG.1bfca7008...@news.odyssey.net...
> "Arcadian Rises" <arcadi...@aol.com> wrote in alt.usage.english:
>>Now, seriously, I agree with you. I believe that the superfluous
>>dollar sign is
>>redundant and unnecessary.
>
> It's also superfluous.
"Stamp out, eliminate, and abolish redundancy!"
-- Sam Samuels, director, Department of Redundancy Department
--
Steve
R H Draney
>>in a movie called (if one believes the posters) "Se7en", and a certain group of
>>singing siblings had a cartoon series called "The Jackson 5ive"....r
>
>Check your memory . . . was that not also the name of the group of
>singing siblings?
>
Tough call...tried looking them up that way at allmusic.com and got an entry
calling them "The Jackson 5"...checking actual album covers it seems they didn't
start or end that way, but there was a prolonged period in the middle where they
used the seminumeric version either with or without the definite article:
"Diana Ross Presents the Jackson 5" - can't read the lettering
"ABC" - "Jackson 5"
"Third Album" - "Jackson 5"
"The Jackson 5 Christmas Album" - "Jackson 5"
"Goin' Back To Indiana" - "Jackson 5ive"
"Maybe Tomorrow" - no lettering on cover
"Lookin' Through The Windows" - "J5"
"Get It Together" - "The Jackson 5ive"
"Skywriter" - "Jackson 5ive"
"Dancing Machine" - no cover picture on site
"Moving Violation" - "Jackson 5"
"Joyful Jukebox Music" - "The Jackson 5"
With the next album, the number 5 became altogether irrelevant and the name
changed to "The Jacksons"....
Michael, by the way, has the odd distinction of having appeared on three of the
five #1 songs with three-letter titles since 1955...(and there goes my SDC
contribution for next year)....r
Ben Zimmer
>
> Jon Miller filted:
> >
> >On 10 Nov 2004 16:20:49 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>Not the first time a title has contained a nested part of itself...Brad Pitt was
> >>in a movie called (if one believes the posters) "Se7en", and a certain group of
> >>singing siblings had a cartoon series called "The Jackson 5ive"....r
> >
> >Check your memory . . . was that not also the name of the group of
> >singing siblings?
> >
> >Not brave enough to actually research the answer.
>
> Tough call...tried looking them up that way at allmusic.com and got an entry
> calling them "The Jackson 5"...checking actual album covers it seems they didn't
> start or end that way, but there was a prolonged period in the middle where they
> used the seminumeric version either with or without the definite article:
>
> "Goin' Back To Indiana" - "Jackson 5ive"
> "Maybe Tomorrow" - no lettering on cover
> "Lookin' Through The Windows" - "J5"
> "Get It Together" - "The Jackson 5ive"
> "Skywriter" - "Jackson 5ive"
And perhaps not coincidentally, these albums were released between 1971
and 1973, the years when the "Jackson 5ive" TV series was on the air...
Skitt
> (Bob G) wrote:
>> The amazing thing is that the erroneous tag had been presumably
>> inspected both by the printer and the manufacturer and maybe by
>> others and no one had picked up the gaff.
>
> Oy!
Well, I looked into that, and would you believe, "gaff" means "gaffe",
according to MW Online. AHD4 calls it a variant of "gaffe".
It made me snicker, appearing in the above paragraph about inspecting
written material, but I bit my tongue and cut the writer some slack. I
wouldn't have spelled it that way, though.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>[...]
>> "Goin' Back To Indiana" - "Jackson 5ive"
>> "Maybe Tomorrow" - no lettering on cover
>> "Lookin' Through The Windows" - "J5"
>> "Get It Together" - "The Jackson 5ive"
>> "Skywriter" - "Jackson 5ive"
>[...]
>
>And perhaps not coincidentally, these albums were released between 1971
>and 1973, the years when the "Jackson 5ive" TV series was on the air...
Okay...so how are we expected to pronounce that last word?.../'faIvaIv/?...and
in other countries did they say /'sINko,ivE:/, /'fynf,Iv@/ and /'goIbe/?...r
Ray Heindl
In a similar vein, "as useless as teats on a boar hog". One of my
early mentors was fond of that phrase, along with "hotter than a
two-dollar pistol". Another of his favorites has been overtaken by
technology: "as accurate as a two-dollar watch".
Ray Heindl
> Ray Heindl <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Maybe they really mean for it to be read "the twenty-five dollar
>> million dollar hoax", sort of a cut-rate reality show.
> I think Google must be adding more punctuation and symbols to what
> it indexes -- I now get meaningful results for things like "The
> $6". But not "The $$$" - I wonder why one and not the other.
Maybe it only counts dollar signs if they are followed by a number? If
I search for "$ntuninstall" (a Windows thing) it ignores the $. The
same happens with "$five". I compared "$5" and "5", and got different
results. (The latter had "about 2,000,000,000" hits, which I think is
the highest I've ever seen. I didn't look at all of them.)
Dylan Nicholson
"Ray Heindl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:Xns959EA95E...@130.133.1.4...
> (The latter had "about 2,000,000,000" hits, which I think is
> the highest I've ever seen. I didn't look at all of them.)
>
Maria Conlon
Thanks, Martin, but I can't take credit for originality. That's the only
way I'd heard the phrase until aue came into my life bringing the
lipstick version.
Btw: I don't go by "Ms," though I have nothing against the term. I'm
either Maria Conlon or Mrs. Conlon. (Or, my favorite, Grandma Conlon.)
--
John Dean
Is 'Tootsie' redundant?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Maria Conlon
I still answer to "Tootsie," but no one seems to attach a Ms. or Mrs. to
it. It's too informal, I guess.
Maria (Tootsie) Conlon
Richard Bollard
He was probably the sort of manager who thinks it is worth losing some
money to keep the customer satisfied. Damn fine approach.
The format that was printed is sometimes used but has the dollar sign
as well. That, to me, makes it valid. $0.99c reads "nought dollars and
ninety nine cents". So I think their error was dropping the
"redundant" dollar sign.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra, Australia
Maria Conlon
Agreed.
> The format that was printed is sometimes used but has the dollar sign
> as well. That, to me, makes it valid. $0.99c reads "nought dollars and
> ninety nine cents". So I think their error was dropping the
> "redundant" dollar sign.
To me, $0.99c would mean .99c -- 99/100 of a cent. The dollar sign makes
no difference if the cent sign is there.
What say others?
Maria Conlon
Stan Brown
I thought it was "----(*) on a boar hog".
(*) A George Carlinesque locution for, er, the bosom.
Mark Brader
> You should try "a". Apparently their index nearly doubled in size recently.
Of the things I thought the try, these are the ones with two gigagoogles
or more:
the 8,000,000,000
a 7,400,000,000
in 6,460,000,000
de 4,130,000,000
1 3,920,000,000
is 3,300,000,000
2 3,260,000,000
i 2,690,000,000
3 2,490,000,000
this 2,440,000,000
that 2,320,000,000
it 2,210,000,000
4 2,210,000,000
5 2,000,000,000
I accidentally tried one of these twice and got slightly different numbers.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Those who cannot Google the past are destined
m...@vex.net to repost it." -- Huey Callison
John Seeliger
news:4192f8d6....@news.saix.net...
> On 10 Nov 2004 22:34:28 GMT, arcadi...@aol.com (Arcadian Rises) wrote:
>
>>>From: Ray Heindl m...@privacy.net
>>
>>>
>>>I see that NBC (a TV network) has a new show called "The $25 Million
>>>Dollar Hoax". I wonder how many of their viewers notice that the title
>>>is redundant. As well as redundant. If they must be repetitive, they
>>>could at least make it "The $25-Million-Dollar Hoax", but I'm sure the
>>>hyphens are too much to ask for.
>>>
>>>Maybe they really mean for it to be read "the twenty-five dollar
>>>million dollar hoax", sort of a cut-rate reality show.
>>
>>
>>Or "Dollar twenty-five million hoax" :)
>>
>>Now, seriously, I agree with you. I believe that the superfluous dollar
>>sign is
>>redundant and unnecessary.
>
> Isn't it in the same category as "ISBN number" and "ATM machine"?
You don't want to use an ISBN number on an automated ATM machine. You use a
PIN number. The former has too many digits.
John Seeliger
news:20041110202948...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> I spotted an item marked at 0.99c (cents). It was not a made-up,
> on-the-spot
> price tag, but had rather been professionally printed and was part of the
> sealed package the item came in.
>
> I offered to buy one hundred of them for 99 cents and was met by extreme
> resistance from several employees, who swore up and down that the tag was
> correct and it called for 99 cents, and that I was mistaken and it did not
> mean, as I kept insisting, 99 hundredths of a cent.
Here is an experience I had with an expiring coupon at Target:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.php?start=1090&catid=18&threadid=336288
Also, about 12 years ago a friend of mine, James Cronan, at UTA was in the
University bookstore buying a 3.5 inch "floppy disk" for a class and the
girl who worked in the bookstore held up the disk to him and said forcefully
"This is not a floppy disk. It's a hard disk." Don't you just love it when
they are indignant and WRONG?
>
> Finally they summoned the manager, who immediately pronounced me right,
> having
> been better educated than the others. He graciously offered me the 100
> items
> for 99 cents, if I wanted them, but I turned him down, not actually having
> the
> slightest need for even one of them.
What, you'd turn down $99 worth of who knows what for $0.99 just because you
don't need it?
Matti Lamprhey
> "Martin Ambuhl" <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.usage.english:
> >Maria Conlon wrote:
> >
> >> Did anyone mention it being like perfume on a pig?
> >
> >I applaud the originality of Ms Conlon's deviation from the more
> >usual "lipstick on a pig."
>
> I thought it was "----(*) on a boar hog".
>
>
> (*) A George Carlinesque locution for, er, the bosom.
These three seem to me to relate to different concepts.
a) Like lipstick on a pig
b) Like perfume on a pig
c) Like tits on a boar hog
Only the last comes close to "redundancy", and it's really more like
"inutility". The other two respectively describe inappropriate and
appropriate methods for attempting to correct a perceived problem.
Matti
Matti Lamprhey
>
> To me, $0.99c would mean .99c -- 99/100 of a cent. The dollar sign
> makes no difference if the cent sign is there.
>
> What say others?
I would take it that the dollar sign links to the number before the
period, and the cent sign to the number after it. Therefore 99 cents in
this case.
Matti
Maria Conlon
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> Maria Conlon wrote:
>>
>>> Did anyone mention it being like perfume on a pig?
>>
>> I applaud the originality of Ms Conlon's deviation from the more
>> usual "lipstick on a pig."
>
> I thought it was "----(*) on a boar hog".
>
>
> (*) A George Carlinesque locution for, er, the bosom.
Now I'm wondering where the "boar hog" version comes from. I've always
heard "as useless as tits on a bull."
(Am I being too Carlinesque?)
Maria Conlon
John Dean
Whatever you say Ms Tootsie.
May I drive you somewhere?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Mickwick
>These three seem to me to relate to different concepts.
>
>a) Like lipstick on a pig
>b) Like perfume on a pig
>c) Like tits on a boar hog
>
>Only the last comes close to "redundancy", and it's really more like
>"inutility". The other two respectively describe inappropriate and
>appropriate methods for attempting to correct a perceived problem.
Isn't 'boar hog' tautologous?
And what about 'weird as tits on a bishop'? Still weird?
--
Mickwick
R H Draney
>
>Dylan Nicholson:
>> You should try "a". Apparently their index nearly doubled in size recently.
>
>Of the things I thought the try, these are the ones with two gigagoogles
>or more:
>
> the 8,000,000,000
> a 7,400,000,000
> in 6,460,000,000
> de 4,130,000,000
> 1 3,920,000,000
> is 3,300,000,000
> 2 3,260,000,000
> i 2,690,000,000
> 3 2,490,000,000
> this 2,440,000,000
> that 2,320,000,000
> it 2,210,000,000
> 4 2,210,000,000
> 5 2,000,000,000
>
>I accidentally tried one of these twice and got slightly different numbers.
of 8,000,000,000
to 7,470,000,000
and 7,860,000,000
for 4,490,000,000
www 3,910,000,000
com 3,810,000,000
by 2,810,000,000
with 2,580,000,000
None of the other obvious net-related words ("eBay", "mp3", "yahoo", "web",
"google" itself) comes anywhere near breaking the 2Ghit mark...nor does any
country domain I considered likely (and "us" has the pronoun thing going for it
in addition to its use as an abbreviation)..."free" is bubbling under at
1,080,000,000....r
Skitt
> To me, $0.99c would mean .99c -- 99/100 of a cent. The dollar sign
> makes no difference if the cent sign is there.
>
> What say others?
Well, it don't make no sense to me, but I know what was meant. Plus tax.
Donna Richoux
> Isn't 'boar hog' tautologous?
You think all adults male swine are left in a condition to reproduce?
A couple of months ago, we had quite a discussion about piglets, pigs,
hogs, and sows, but I did notice that boars didn't get mentioned. I
looked to see if their was some obscure word to represent the castrated
males but I didn't find it. I thought maybe "gilt" but M-W says that's
"a young female swine."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Ray Heindl
> In alt.usage.english, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>
>>These three seem to me to relate to different concepts.
>>
>>a) Like lipstick on a pig
>>b) Like perfume on a pig
>>c) Like tits on a boar hog
The version that I've heard is "as useless as teats on a boar hog".
>>Only the last comes close to "redundancy", and it's really more like
>>"inutility". The other two respectively describe inappropriate and
>>appropriate methods for attempting to correct a perceived problem.
>
> Isn't 'boar hog' tautologous?
No, a hog can be either sex (or neither), according to the RHUD; the
key qualification is a weight of more than 120 pounds. An uncastrated
male hog is a boar. Presumably a castrated male would be a bore.
Ray Heindl
When did they quit listing how many pages they had indexed? The last
number I recall was 3 billion, but that was a long time ago.
Donna Richoux
I just got it, with the help of M-W's Advanced Search:
Main Entry: 2barrow
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English barow, from Old English
bearg; akin to Old High German barug barrow
Date: before 12th century
: a male hog castrated before sexual maturity
Ben Zimmer
>
> "Dylan Nicholson" <wizo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ray Heindl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns959EA95E...@130.133.1.4...
> >> (The latter had "about 2,000,000,000" hits, which I think is
> >> the highest I've ever seen. I didn't look at all of them.)
> >>
> > You should try "a". Apparently their index nearly doubled in size
> > recently.
>
> When did they quit listing how many pages they had indexed? The last
> number I recall was 3 billion, but that was a long time ago.
Hmm? At the bottom of <http://www.google.com/> it says "Searching
8,058,044,651 web pages".
But at some point they might want to take a cue from McDonald's...
14 Apr 1994
During the McDonald's Biennial Worldwide Convention,
chairman Michael Quinlan announces that the company has
exceeded 100 billion hamburgers served. He recommends
that, from now on, franchisees post "BILLIONS AND
BILLIONS SERVED."
Ray Heindl
> Ray Heindl wrote:
>>
>> "Dylan Nicholson" <wizo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Ray Heindl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>> >> (The latter had "about 2,000,000,000" hits, which I think is
>> >> the highest I've ever seen. I didn't look at all of them.)
>> >>
>> > You should try "a". Apparently their index nearly doubled in
>> > size recently.
>> When did they quit listing how many pages they had indexed? The
>> last number I recall was 3 billion, but that was a long time ago.
> Hmm? At the bottom of <http://www.google.com/> it says "Searching
> 8,058,044,651 web pages".
>
> But at some point they might want to take a cue from McDonald's...
>
> 14 Apr 1994
> During the McDonald's Biennial Worldwide Convention,
> chairman Michael Quinlan announces that the company has
> exceeded 100 billion hamburgers served. He recommends
> that, from now on, franchisees post "BILLIONS AND
> BILLIONS SERVED."
>
> http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/corporate/mcdonalds/
D'oh! For some reason I was thinking the number should be on the
search *results* page. Apparently they haven't indexed any new pages
since you wrote your post; the number is still 8,058,044,651. There's
a news teaser on their home page saying "Google's index nearly doubles
to more than 8 billion pages." Unfortunately the article doesn't say
how they achieved that feat.
I'd think that "8 billion" would be sufficiently precise for most
users, but I suppose that "8,058,044,651" carries an air of precision
that inspires confidence.
Jim Ward
wrote:
>I just got it, with the help of M-W's Advanced Search:
>
> Main Entry: 2barrow
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English barow, from Old English
> bearg; akin to Old High German barug barrow
> Date: before 12th century
> : a male hog castrated before sexual maturity
This is probably as good a time as any to mention Schrimnir the boar,
who is cooked nightly for the heroes of Valhalla and becomes whole
every morning so they can have hot links.
Heidrun, the she-goat and provider of mead, also asks for a mention
(if the immortals are forgotten, they just fade away).
Mickwick
>Mickwick <mick...@use.reply.to> wrote:
>> Isn't 'boar hog' tautologous?
>
>No, a hog can be either sex (or neither), according to the RHUD; the
>key qualification is a weight of more than 120 pounds.
Another cisatlantic disparity? (See my other post.)
> An uncastrated male hog is a boar. Presumably a castrated male would
>be a bore.
He'd squeal sweetly, though.
That pig who sings in dulcet tones
Is pining for his doucet stones
--
Mickwick
Mickwick
>Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>> Mickwick <mick...@use.reply.to> wrote:
>> > Isn't 'boar hog' tautologous?
>>
>> You think all adults male swine are left in a condition to reproduce?
It would be nice, wouldn't it?
>> A couple of months ago, we had quite a discussion about piglets, pigs,
>> hogs, and sows, but I did notice that boars didn't get mentioned. I
>> looked to see if their was some obscure word to represent the castrated
>> males but I didn't find it. I thought maybe "gilt" but M-W says that's
>> "a young female swine."
>
>I just got it, with the help of M-W's Advanced Search:
>
> Main Entry: 2barrow
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English barow, from Old English
> bearg; akin to Old High German barug barrow
> Date: before 12th century
> : a male hog castrated before sexual maturity
The NSOED says that a hog is 'especially a castrated male pig reared for
slaughter'. (Or it can be 'Any (wild) pig of the domesticated species,
Sus scrofa.' Ferals? Ancestrals?) That's why I thought that 'boar hog'
might be tautologous.
But I should have checked 'boar' too. I thought a boar was any old male
pig but the NSOED says a boar is 'an uncastrated male pig'.
So, is 'boar hog' - uncastrated castrated male pig reared for slaughter
- contradictory in NSOED-land?
Possibly, but under 'barrow' it has 'A castrated boar', which is to say
a castrated uncastrated male pig, so it's clearly an allowable sort of
contradiction.
--
Mickwick
Ben Zimmer
>
> The NSOED says that a hog is 'especially a castrated male pig reared for
> slaughter'. (Or it can be 'Any (wild) pig of the domesticated species,
> Sus scrofa.' Ferals? Ancestrals?) That's why I thought that 'boar hog'
> might be tautologous.
>
> But I should have checked 'boar' too. I thought a boar was any old male
> pig but the NSOED says a boar is 'an uncastrated male pig'.
>
> So, is 'boar hog' - uncastrated castrated male pig reared for slaughter
> - contradictory in NSOED-land?
>
> Possibly, but under 'barrow' it has 'A castrated boar', which is to say
> a castrated uncastrated male pig, so it's clearly an allowable sort of
> contradiction.
No contradiction, I don't think. There are clearly two senses of "boar"
-- either marked or unmarked, as linguists would say. In the marked
sense, "boar" is restricted to uncastrated male pigs, while in the
unmarked sense, "boar" generically refers to any domesticated pig. A
compound like "boar hog" is called a "hyponym" (or "undername"), a
particular categorization of a more general category (in this case, the
unmarked sense of "hog").
Compare the dialectal form "bull cow" (as in Big Bill Broonzy's "Bull
Cow Blues"). That would seem contradictory considering the marked sense
of "cow" for female cattle, but it's a perfectly acceptable hyponym
using the unmarked (generic) sense of "cow" for any cattle. Another
historical example of this would be "wifman", the Old English precursor
to "woman" -- it's a compound consisting of "wif" (meaning 'woman') and
"man" (in its unmarked sense referring to any adult human being).
For more on markedness and hyponymy, see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CFF8B42...@midway.uchicago.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D7F3777...@midway.uchicago.edu
Ray Heindl
> The NSOED says that a hog is 'especially a castrated male pig
> reared for slaughter'. (Or it can be 'Any (wild) pig of the
> domesticated species, Sus scrofa.' Ferals? Ancestrals?) That's
> why I thought that 'boar hog' might be tautologous.
>
> But I should have checked 'boar' too. I thought a boar was any old
> male pig but the NSOED says a boar is 'an uncastrated male pig'.
>
> So, is 'boar hog' - uncastrated castrated male pig reared for
> slaughter - contradictory in NSOED-land?
>
> Possibly, but under 'barrow' it has 'A castrated boar', which is
> to say a castrated uncastrated male pig, so it's clearly an
> allowable sort of contradiction.
OED lists "a domestic swine generally" as one of the meanings of hog,
which doesn't specify sex. It adds "(Not used in Scotland.)", so I
guess in Scotland "boar hog" would be an oxymoron.
JC Dill
<bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Compare the dialectal form "bull cow"
Another example is "filly colt". Colt is a term that has two
meanings: 1) any young horse; 2) a young male horse. (A young female
horse is called a filly.)
Mickwick wrote:
>So, is 'boar hog' - uncastrated castrated male pig reared for slaughter
We also have gelding or "gelded stallion" - a castrated uncastrated
male horse.
jc
Steve Hayes
>The NSOED says that a hog is 'especially a castrated male pig reared for
>slaughter'. (Or it can be 'Any (wild) pig of the domesticated species,
>Sus scrofa.' Ferals? Ancestrals?) That's why I thought that 'boar hog'
>might be tautologous.
>
>But I should have checked 'boar' too. I thought a boar was any old male
>pig but the NSOED says a boar is 'an uncastrated male pig'.
>
>So, is 'boar hog' - uncastrated castrated male pig reared for slaughter
>- contradictory in NSOED-land?
We have two speacies of wild pig - a wild boar and a warthog. Both species
presumably have females, or they wouldn't be able to reproduce.
--
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
Stan Brown
>D'oh!
Why the apostrophe? I've seen it that way myself on /The Simpsons/,
and it's never made sense to me.
Donna Richoux
> "Ray Heindl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in alt.usage.english:
> >D'oh!
>
> Why the apostrophe? I've seen it that way myself on /The Simpsons/,
> and it's never made sense to me.
It's not pronounced like "doe" or "dough". It's pronounced with a break:
"d---oh" because it is someone stopping themselves from saying "damn".
Or, that's the origin, anyway. Now that it's a second-generation
buzzword, who knows what people are saying.
--
Best - Donna Richoux
John Hatpin
And it's always printed in the Simpsons script as "annoyed grunt", by
way of an in-joke. Apparently, that was the script direction for Dan
Castellaneta (aka Homer's voice) when he first came up with the
"d'oh!" thing, and they just carried on phrasing it as "annoyed
grunt".
It's referenced in the title of the episode "E-I-E-I- (annoyed
grunt)", which itself is a reference to "Old MacDonald's Farm".
--
John H
Yorkshire, England
Mike Lyle
In the trade, though, "hog" is most often met in the expression
"heavy hog": these are animals too big for pork or even bacon,
generally destined to star as pies, sausages and so forth.
A male allowed to get that big would, I think, invariably have been
castrated; fashions vary, but porkers aren't always unsexed.
Mike.
don groves
Richoux at tr...@euronet.nl exposited:
In the early '70s, when my kids were in grammar school, it began
as "dur". The phrase "no dur" was equivalent to the grown-up "no
shit", sometimes with "Sherlock" added for extra effect. Within a
couple years, "dur" became "duh" and has remained thus since.
Never having seen "The Simpsons", I know nothing about "d'oh".
Does it have the same meaning as "duh" or is it a completely
different word?
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Ben Zimmer
>
> In article <1gnaych.9godhz1dt8rseN%tr...@euronet.nl>, Donna
> Richoux at tr...@euronet.nl exposited:
> > Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > "Ray Heindl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in alt.usage.english:
> > > >D'oh!
> > >
> > > Why the apostrophe? I've seen it that way myself on /The Simpsons/,
> > > and it's never made sense to me.
> >
> > It's not pronounced like "doe" or "dough". It's pronounced with a break:
> > "d---oh" because it is someone stopping themselves from saying "damn".
> >
> > Or, that's the origin, anyway. Now that it's a second-generation
> > buzzword, who knows what people are saying.
Dan Castellaneta, the voice of Homer, credits character actor James
Finlayson of the "Laurel & Hardy" movies with the slowed-down "D---oh",
which he says he sped up to create "D'oh".
> In the early '70s, when my kids were in grammar school, it began
> as "dur". The phrase "no dur" was equivalent to the grown-up "no
> shit", sometimes with "Sherlock" added for extra effect. Within a
> couple years, "dur" became "duh" and has remained thus since.
"Duh" goes back long before your early-'70s memory of "dur". A 1943
Merrie Melodies cartoon, "Jack-Wabbit and the Beanstalk", has the Giant
saying of Bugs Bunny, "Duh... Well, he can't outsmart me, 'cause I'm a
moron." The playground sense of "duh" (defined by the new OED entry as
"expressing inarticulacy or incomprehension ... implying that another
person has said something foolish or extremely obvious") dates to a 1963
article in the New York Times Magazine on kids' slang.
So "dur" is most likely a variation on "duh", not vice versa. (I wonder
if "dur" started off as a non-rhotic pronunciation spelling of "duh"
that came to be pronunced rhotically, like "er" and "erm".)
> Never having seen "The Simpsons", I know nothing about "d'oh".
> Does it have the same meaning as "duh" or is it a completely
> different word?
Some feel that "d(')oh" has kinship with "duh", but the sense is rather
different. The new OED entry defines "doh" as "expressing frustration
at the realization that things have turned out badly or not as planned,
or that one has just said or done something foolish."
More on "doh" and "duh" here:
don groves
bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu exposited:
> don groves wrote:
> >
> > In article <1gnaych.9godhz1dt8rseN%tr...@euronet.nl>, Donna
> > Richoux at tr...@euronet.nl exposited:
> > > Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Ray Heindl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in alt.usage.english:
> > > > >D'oh!
> > > >
> > > > Why the apostrophe? I've seen it that way myself on /The Simpsons/,
> > > > and it's never made sense to me.
> > >
> > > It's not pronounced like "doe" or "dough". It's pronounced with a break:
> > > "d---oh" because it is someone stopping themselves from saying "damn".
> > >
> > > Or, that's the origin, anyway. Now that it's a second-generation
> > > buzzword, who knows what people are saying.
>
> Dan Castellaneta, the voice of Homer, credits character actor James
> Finlayson of the "Laurel & Hardy" movies with the slowed-down "D---oh",
> which he says he sped up to create "D'oh".
Ahhh, L & H being my favorites as a kid, I remember that.
> > In the early '70s, when my kids were in grammar school, it began
> > as "dur". The phrase "no dur" was equivalent to the grown-up "no
> > shit", sometimes with "Sherlock" added for extra effect. Within a
> > couple years, "dur" became "duh" and has remained thus since.
>
> "Duh" goes back long before your early-'70s memory of "dur". A 1943
> Merrie Melodies cartoon, "Jack-Wabbit and the Beanstalk", has the Giant
> saying of Bugs Bunny, "Duh... Well, he can't outsmart me, 'cause I'm a
> moron." The playground sense of "duh" (defined by the new OED entry as
> "expressing inarticulacy or incomprehension ... implying that another
> person has said something foolish or extremely obvious") dates to a 1963
> article in the New York Times Magazine on kids' slang.
The early cartoon version was also stretched out, iirc, duuuh,
descriptive of a slow-witted person. "Implying another person
said something foolish or obvious" is what "duh" currently means
to me. It must have taken those several years to migrate to the
West Coast -- plus my kids reaching a certain age.
> So "dur" is most likely a variation on "duh", not vice versa. (I wonder
> if "dur" started off as a non-rhotic pronunciation spelling of "duh"
> that came to be pronunced rhotically, like "er" and "erm".)
>
> > Never having seen "The Simpsons", I know nothing about "d'oh".
> > Does it have the same meaning as "duh" or is it a completely
> > different word?
>
> Some feel that "d(')oh" has kinship with "duh", but the sense is rather
> different. The new OED entry defines "doh" as "expressing frustration
> at the realization that things have turned out badly or not as planned,
> or that one has just said or done something foolish."
>
> More on "doh" and "duh" here:
>
> http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-doh1.htm
Thanks for the info.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Areff
> "Duh" goes back long before your early-'70s memory of "dur". A 1943
> Merrie Melodies cartoon, "Jack-Wabbit and the Beanstalk", has the Giant
> saying of Bugs Bunny, "Duh... Well, he can't outsmart me, 'cause I'm a
> moron." The playground sense of "duh" (defined by the new OED entry as
> "expressing inarticulacy or incomprehension ... implying that another
> person has said something foolish or extremely obvious") dates to a 1963
> article in the New York Times Magazine on kids' slang.
>
> So "dur" is most likely a variation on "duh", not vice versa. (I wonder
> if "dur" started off as a non-rhotic pronunciation spelling of "duh"
> that came to be pronunced rhotically, like "er" and "erm".)
I can easily remember-imagine dimwitted characters on Warner Bros.
cartoons saying rhotic "dur" as well as "duh", with my intuition being
that rhotic "dur" is sort of a combination of "duh" and rhotic "er",
though that assumes that rhotic "er" is not from a mispronunciation of
non-rhotic "er" ("uh"). Whether that's based on real memory I don't know.
--
Steny '08!
John Dean
And why did Peter Glaze never get the credit he deserved for inventing
it?
--
John 'Crackerjack!' Dean
Oxford
R H Draney
>
>I can easily remember-imagine dimwitted characters on Warner Bros.
>cartoons saying rhotic "dur" as well as "duh", with my intuition being
>that rhotic "dur" is sort of a combination of "duh" and rhotic "er",
>though that assumes that rhotic "er" is not from a mispronunciation of
>non-rhotic "er" ("uh"). Whether that's based on real memory I don't know.
I can remember kids about 35 years ago using "dur-EEEE!" as the emphatic version
of "duh"...if "duh" meant "you said something stupid", "dur-EEEE!" meant "I've
seen wads of pocket lint that were smarter than you"....r
Ben Zimmer
>
> I can easily remember-imagine dimwitted characters on Warner Bros.
> cartoons saying rhotic "dur" as well as "duh", with my intuition being
> that rhotic "dur" is sort of a combination of "duh" and rhotic "er",
> though that assumes that rhotic "er" is not from a mispronunciation of
> non-rhotic "er" ("uh"). Whether that's based on real memory I don't know.
I don't recall rhotic "dur", but Mel Blanc did create many variations on
the basic "duh". See these pages for sound clips (search for "duh"):
http://www.barbneal.com/ltmisc.asp
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/The_Three_Bears.html
As for rhotic "er", Bugs Bunny was known to use that as a hesitation
particle from time to time, as in this sound clip ("Er, uh, a harem, I
tink"): <http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_155.wav>. Of
course, his most common hesitation particle was "eh..." [E:], as before
"What's up, Doc?"
Charles Riggs
Who?
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address
Mickwick
>Mickwick wrote:
>> The NSOED says that a hog is 'especially a castrated male pig reared for
>> slaughter'. (Or it can be 'Any (wild) pig of the domesticated species,
>> Sus scrofa.' Ferals? Ancestrals?)
Does anybody know why 'wild' is parenthesised like that?
hog [...]
I 1 A domesticated pig; esp. a castrated male reared for
slaughter. LOE.
2 Any (wild) pig of the domesticated species, Sus scrofa. L15.
Wild Boars and domesticated pigs are the same species. Definition 1
covers the domesticated pig. If Def. 2 is supposed to cover Wild Boars
(and perhaps feral piggy pigs), why not say so?
It's a good dictionary. What am I missing? (I pigged myself on chips
just before bed last night and rolled like a sow all night. I am not the
brightest snork in the litter today.)
[...]
>> So, is 'boar hog' - uncastrated castrated male pig reared for slaughter
>> - contradictory in NSOED-land?
I wish I hadn't written that. I seem to have ignored the bit in the
NSOED's definition of 'hog' before the 'especially', the bit that says
'hog' can mean any domesticated pig: the unmarked hog.
>> Possibly, but under 'barrow' it has 'A castrated boar', which is to say
>> a castrated uncastrated male pig, so it's clearly an allowable sort of
>> contradiction.
And that's even worse. If it wasn't uncastrated to begin with, it
wouldn't be possible to castrate it, would it? No contradiction at all.
Oh well.
>No contradiction, I don't think. There are clearly two senses of "boar"
>-- either marked or unmarked, as linguists would say. In the marked
>sense, "boar" is restricted to uncastrated male pigs, while in the
>unmarked sense, "boar" generically refers to any domesticated pig. A
>compound like "boar hog" is called a "hyponym" (or "undername"), a
>particular categorization of a more general category (in this case, the
>unmarked sense of "hog").
[...]
Thanks. I think I understand. Marked 'boar' plus unmarked 'hog' is a
hyponym, right?
But did you perhaps mean to write, 'in the unmarked sense, "boar"
generically refers to any *male* domesticated pig'? (I.e. castrated ones
too.) Can 'boar' really mean 'any domesticated pig'?
The NSOED certainly doesn't think so, but then it doesn't think it can
ever mean 'any male domestic pig' either. It has only the marked sense:
'an uncastrated male pig'.
(Marked, unmarked, castrated, uncastrated, stripy little piglets ... I
think I'm losing it again.)
Incidentally, the NSOED also says that 'pig' originally meant the young
of the domesticated swine, Sus scrofa, and that this sense is still
current in the USA. Is this true? What of piglets? (Or boneens, fares,
farrows, grices, gruntlings, hoglings, porklings, shoats, snorks or
suckers? The NSOED is pig-happy. More below.) And are the adults always
hogs and never pigs?
[Googles]
Yes (pigs) and yes (hogs). I've just found Donna's thread (I think:
March 2003: 'Stuffed grape leaves'). How strange.
I haven't read much of it so forgive me if these extra pig words have
already been covered:
Captain Cooker: a wild boar
sheat: a pig under a year old
sounder: a boar in its first or second year
gorgeant, hogget: a boar in its second year
hoggaster: a boar in its third year
marcassin: a young boar with a limp tail (heraldry)
porker: a young (marked) hog fattened for pork
cutter: a pig heavier than a porker but lighter than a baconer
baconer: a very big pig destined to become bacon or ham
galt: 'a boar, a male pig' [Unmarked 'boar' or two separate
meanings?]
gilt: a young sow
tantony, titman: smallest pig of litter
plus food terms
--
Mickwick
Ben Zimmer
>
> In alt.usage.english, Ben Zimmer wrote:
>
> >No contradiction, I don't think. There are clearly two senses of "boar"
> >-- either marked or unmarked, as linguists would say. In the marked
> >sense, "boar" is restricted to uncastrated male pigs, while in the
> >unmarked sense, "boar" generically refers to any domesticated pig. A
> >compound like "boar hog" is called a "hyponym" (or "undername"), a
> >particular categorization of a more general category (in this case, the
> >unmarked sense of "hog").
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks. I think I understand. Marked 'boar' plus unmarked 'hog' is a
> hyponym, right?
>
> But did you perhaps mean to write, 'in the unmarked sense, "boar"
> generically refers to any *male* domesticated pig'? (I.e. castrated ones
> too.) Can 'boar' really mean 'any domesticated pig'?
Good grief... I meant to say that *hog* has an unmarked sense of "any
domesticated pig" (and a marked sense of "a castrated male pig"). So
yes, marked "boar" is combined with unmarked "hog" in the hyponym.
Sorry for the confusion.
John Dean
Doyen of a British children's TV show, Charles.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195452/combined
He was using the Simpsonian 'D'oh' shortly after Matt Groening was born.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Mike Lyle
[...]
> gorgeant, hogget: a boar in its second year
Always providing that a hogget is also a sheep in its second year.
[...]
> porker: a young (marked) hog fattened for pork
> cutter: a pig heavier than a porker but lighter than a baconer
> baconer: a very big pig destined to become bacon or ham
But see also, as I'm sure Emsworth would have said, Lyle on the Heavy
Hog.
Always, of course, providing that a hogg is also an ovine hogget;
though not, to the best of my knowledge in modern usage, a hog.
[...]
Would you believe that swine have three thousand words for snow? No?
All right. But, in ancient Irish mythology, they can see the wind.
And in Homer a swineherd receives the epithet "divine".
Mike.
Mike Lyle
And, now I come to think of it, Walter Gabriel was using it
presumably well before Peter Glaze was born.
("Dum de dum de dum de dum...")
Mike.
Laura F Spira
As in "D'oh, me old pal, me old beauty", you mean?
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Dylan Nicholson:
>> You should try "a". Apparently their index nearly doubled in size
>> recently.
>
> Of the things I thought the try, these are the ones with two
> gigagoogles or more:
>
> the 8,000,000,000
> a 7,400,000,000
> in 6,460,000,000
> de 4,130,000,000
> 1 3,920,000,000
> is 3,300,000,000
> 2 3,260,000,000
> i 2,690,000,000
> 3 2,490,000,000
> this 2,440,000,000
> that 2,320,000,000
> it 2,210,000,000
> 4 2,210,000,000
> 5 2,000,000,000
>
> I accidentally tried one of these twice and got slightly different
> numbers.
"10" gets in barely (2,070,000,000), but "0" just misses
(1,900,000,000). A big one you're missing is "of", which I see as
having 8 GG. Prepositions are pretty good:
of 8.000
in 6.590
for 4.450
on 3.090
by 2.800
as 1.890
Pronouns:
I 2.740 they 0.740
it 2.270 me 0.616
you 2.030 he 0.606
your 1.530 his 0.509
us 1.290 them 0.404
we 1.120 her 0.333
its 0.809 she 0.259
my 0.805 him 0.194
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> You don't want to use an ISBN number on an automated ATM machine.
> You use a PIN number. The former has too many digits.
Not to mention being hard to type about nine percent of the time.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |People think it must be fun to be a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |super genius, but they don't
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |realize how hard it is to put up
|with all the idiots in the world.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
>> And, now I come to think of it, Walter Gabriel was using it
>> presumably well before Peter Glaze was born.
>>
>> ("Dum de dum de dum de dum...")
>>
>
> As in "D'oh, me old pal, me old beauty", you mean?
No, I'm sure he used to say it in Homerian situations.
Mike.
Mark Barratt
>
> And in Homer a swineherd receives the epithet "divine".
Probably in exchange for a promise to stay downwind.
--
Mark Barratt
Budapest
Mark Brader
> > Of the things I thought the try, these are the ones with two
> > gigagoogles or more:
> >
> > the 8,000,000,000
> > a 7,400,000,000
> > in 6,460,000,000
Evan Kirshenbaum:
> "10" gets in barely (2,070,000,000), but "0" just misses
> (1,900,000,000). A big one you're missing is "of", which I see as
> having 8 GG. Prepositions are pretty good...
And we both missed "to" (7.36 GG), which seems appropriate given my
typo above.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "What Europe needs is a fresh, unused mind."
m...@vex.net | -- Foreign Correspondent
Ross Howard
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrought:
D'oh, if at first you don't succeed...
(All together now:)
Troy, Troy again.
--
Ross Howard
Mickwick
The confusion was all mine, believe me. I always have trouble with this
sort of stuff.
One last thing: is there an unmarked 'boar'? In other words, are boars
always uncastrated? I ask because I'd always thought 'boar' just meant
'male pig'. The NSOED says otherwise (though some of its uses of 'boar'
in other definitions are a bit ambiguous) but surely it is sometimes
used in that way?
It's the same with JC Dill's 'stallion'. NSOED definition: uncastrated.
But is 'stallion' never used to mean any old male horse?
--
Mickwick
Mickwick
[...]
>Would you believe that swine have three thousand words for snow? No?
>All right. But, in ancient Irish mythology, they can see the wind.
>And in Homer a swineherd receives the epithet "divine".
I've just found this in 'Jude the Obscure'. (Well, not in the book per
se. In the bluffer's bible, Encarta.)
On a sudden something smacked him sharply in the ear, and he
became aware that a soft cold substance had been flung at him,
and had fallen at his feet.
A glance told him what it was--a piece of flesh, the
characteristic part of a barrow-pig, which the countrymen used
for greasing their boots, as it was useless for any other
purpose.
A while later, Arabella says that her father
'... makes that into dubbin.' She nodded towards the fragment on
the grass.
Who knew that there could be so much useful grease in a testicle?
(I haven't read any Hardy since school but he looks to be worth another
go. Very lively, very saucy - though a bit patronising, a bit
*animalistic* for modern tastes?)
--
Mickwick
Robin Bignall
wrote:
Is this the post that launched a thousand groans?
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
Mike Lyle
I guess I oughda see whatcha mean...
Mike.
rzed
news:sdimp0hpe10sl31vr...@4ax.com:
Odd to see it makes you ill; 'e had a perfectly good pun there.
--
rzed
John Dean
Made me feel Ilium just reading it...
--
John Dean
Oxford
Mike Lyle
[...]
> One last thing: is there an unmarked 'boar'? In other words, are
boars
> always uncastrated? I ask because I'd always thought 'boar' just
meant
> 'male pig'. The NSOED says otherwise (though some of its uses of
> 'boar' in other definitions are a bit ambiguous) but surely it is
> sometimes used in that way?
>
> It's the same with JC Dill's 'stallion'. NSOED definition:
> uncastrated. But is 'stallion' never used to mean any old male
horse?
I've absolutely never heard horsey people call a gelding a stallion:
I don't think it's possible. (I once knew one who'd been thought to
be a gelding, but was actually a "rig": he still had one stone left.
I don't think even he was called a "stallion".)
As for male swine which are not entire, I do fancy a marked form of
"boar" is sometimes loosely used in the trade, but probably only for
explanation.
In both cases, I'd expect outsiders to use the terms less precisely.
Mike (a "teaser", in case you want to know: the worst part's the
injection).
Ross Howard
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrought:
Penny spent 20 years thinking she'd been dropped. (And when hubby
finally did come home, his appearance beggared description.)
--
Ross Howard
Mike Lyle
Needed a new suit or what?
Mike.
Mark Barratt
>
> As for rhotic "er", Bugs Bunny was known to use that as a
> hesitation particle from time to time, as in this sound clip
> ("Er, uh, a harem, I tink"):
> <http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_155.wav>.
That could also be non-rhotic. Note that the 'r' is followed by a
vowel.
--
Mark Barratt
Budapest
Donna Richoux
> In alt.usage.english, Ben Zimmer wrote:
>
> >Good grief... I meant to say that *hog* has an unmarked sense of "any
> >domesticated pig" (and a marked sense of "a castrated male pig"). So
> >yes, marked "boar" is combined with unmarked "hog" in the hyponym.
> >Sorry for the confusion.
>
> The confusion was all mine, believe me. I always have trouble with this
> sort of stuff.
>
> One last thing: is there an unmarked 'boar'? In other words, are boars
> always uncastrated? I ask because I'd always thought 'boar' just meant
> 'male pig'. The NSOED says otherwise (though some of its uses of 'boar'
> in other definitions are a bit ambiguous) but surely it is sometimes
> used in that way?
Maybe what you're thinking of is that "wild boar" is one of the common
names for the entire species, also called "wild swine" and various other
things? So that way you have, for example, female "boars" as well as
male ones. However, none of the beasts would be neutered because they're
not domesticated.
>
> It's the same with JC Dill's 'stallion'. NSOED definition: uncastrated.
> But is 'stallion' never used to mean any old male horse?
Not by a farmer or breeder, I wouldn't think. A stallion is left that
way for breeding purposes. In the wild, of course, all the males are
uncastrated. I know that the stuff we learn in children's books
("Stallion, Mare, Colt") not necessarily the terms they use in
agriculture. I'd have to look up colt, filly, and foal, for example, to
be sure of sex and age. ("Filly" sounds like French "fille", though.)
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Skitt
> Ben Zimmer wrote:
>> Good grief... I meant to say that *hog* has an unmarked sense of "any
>> domesticated pig" (and a marked sense of "a castrated male pig"). So
>> yes, marked "boar" is combined with unmarked "hog" in the hyponym.
>> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> The confusion was all mine, believe me. I always have trouble with
> this sort of stuff.
>
> One last thing: is there an unmarked 'boar'? In other words, are boars
> always uncastrated?
Who is it that goes around castrating wild boars? The dictionary people are
strictly against such practice, as far as letting the victims keep the
"boar" name, anyway.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Ben Zimmer
Good point. Now that I think of it, Bugs' use of "er, uh..." is not
unlike the Bostonian "filled pause" associated with the Kennedys (or at
least imitations thereof, like Mayor Quimby on "The Simpsons").
For more on filled pauses, see:
https://secure.ldc.upenn.edu/intranet/Annotation/MDE/guidelines/2004/fp.shtml
Mike Lyle
But dictionary people, no doubt from an ingrained aversion to
oxymora, notoriously rarely farm wild boars. In England there _are_
wild boar farms -- hence several contented feral populations of
escapees.
Without research, I wonder if the wild ones are called "boars" as a
result of their past as quarry of the chase: was the male the major
target of the hunters?
Mike.
John Dean
Aren't you rather drawing the longbow there, old chap?
--
John 'Penny dropped. Arf' Dean
Oxford
Joe Fineman
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > "Ray Heindl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in alt.usage.english:
> > >D'oh!
> >
> > Why the apostrophe? I've seen it that way myself on /The Simpsons/,
> > and it's never made sense to me.
>
> It's not pronounced like "doe" or "dough". It's pronounced with a break:
> "d---oh" because it is someone stopping themselves from saying "damn".
Really? You could have fooled me. I'd always assumed it was a recent
respelling of "duh", which in my childhood was something drooling
idiots were supposed to say, and was commonly offered as a comment on
a stupid remark. Even these days, when I see it in print, it is
usually in a context where "Everybody knows that!" would make a better
translation than "Damn!".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: If he be not queer for me, :||
||: What care I how queer he be? :||
Stan Brown
> It's not pronounced like "doe" or "dough". It's pronounced with a break:
> "d---oh" because it is someone stopping themselves from saying "damn".
Maybe I'm mishearing it, but when Homer Simpson says it I hear
"dough" -- no pause or caesura at all.
How does Homer's pronunciation, specifically, sound to others?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"And if you're afraid of butter, which many people are nowa-
days, (long pause) you just put in cream." --Julia Child
Dylan Nicholson
news:MPG.1c05d1aa9...@news.odyssey.net...
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) writes:
> > It's not pronounced like "doe" or "dough". It's pronounced with a break:
> > "d---oh" because it is someone stopping themselves from saying "damn".
>
> Maybe I'm mishearing it, but when Homer Simpson says it I hear
> "dough" -- no pause or caesura at all.
>
> How does Homer's pronunciation, specifically, sound to others?
>
*some* Americans pronounce it, as it seems to be much closer to a true
[oU] diphthong (as opposed what's closer to [@U] in words like doe,
no, go etc.).
I don't believe there's any "break" between the 'd' and the vowel
sound, despite the spelling - in fact, at least one website claims the
apostrophe is purely to avoid a trademark infringement. (The
"official" spelling I assume comes from the title of a few Simpsons
episodes - apparently it never occurs in the script).
Can't find any online dictionary that lists a pronunciation for it.
Raymond S. Wise
> > It's not pronounced like "doe" or "dough". It's pronounced with a break:
> > "d---oh" because it is someone stopping themselves from saying "damn".
>
> Maybe I'm mishearing it, but when Homer Simpson says it I hear
> "dough" -- no pause or caesura at all.
>
> How does Homer's pronunciation, specifically, sound to others?
I think Homer Simpson--and the other members of his family who exclaim
"D'oh!" on occasion--pronounces it quite different from the pronunciation of
"dough." I've written about the matter in previous messages:
Discussing the sound I spell "ew" or "eww": The ASCII IPA /u:/ really isn't
a very good representation of the sound I have in mind. It's rather like
using /doU/ to represent Homer Simpson's 'D'oh!' It's not quite right, but I
can think of no better way to represent it in ASCII IPA."
On the spelling: "I prefer 'd'oh'--the word is *not* pronounced exactly the
same as 'dough,' the 'd' has a very strong pronunciation, difficult to
describe."
On "Brr!": "[T]here is something about the 'b' in 'brr!' that is not quite
the same as the 'b' in 'burr.' It is released more strongly. Sort of like
the difference between Homer Simpson's 'D'oh!' and the word 'dough.'"
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Donna Richoux
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) writes:
>
> > Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > "Ray Heindl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in alt.usage.english:
> > > >D'oh!
> > >
> > > Why the apostrophe? I've seen it that way myself on /The Simpsons/,
> > > and it's never made sense to me.
> >
> > It's not pronounced like "doe" or "dough". It's pronounced with a break:
> > "d---oh" because it is someone stopping themselves from saying "damn".
>
> Really?
Yes, really.
>You could have fooled me.
Many people have been so fooled. And the more who are, the more the two
words are conflated.
>I'd always assumed it was a recent
> respelling of "duh", which in my childhood was something drooling
> idiots were supposed to say, and was commonly offered as a comment on
> a stupid remark.
"Duh" is different. "Duh' is definitely tied to stupidity -- being
unable to come up with the right word or idea, or (later) pointing out
mockingly that someone said something stupid or trivially obvious.
>Even these days, when I see it in print, it is
> usually in a context where "Everybody knows that!" would make a better
> translation than "Damn!".
I suppose I'm going to have to dig up some original citations of "d'oh"
to convince you that it wasn't "duh". It would be hard to find in the
archives.. Maybe it's in the FAQ... No. Maybe the AUE Multi-site
Search... Yes, here's some info from David Wilton's Word Origins site:
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordord.htm#doh
A couple of years ago, "d'oh" was put in the OED so I'm sure there are
discussions published around that time.
Donna Richoux
> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c05d1aa9...@news.odyssey.net...
> > tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) writes:
> > > It's not pronounced like "doe" or "dough". It's pronounced with a break:
> > > "d---oh" because it is someone stopping themselves from saying "damn".
> >
> > Maybe I'm mishearing it, but when Homer Simpson says it I hear
> > "dough" -- no pause or caesura at all.
> >
> > How does Homer's pronunciation, specifically, sound to others?
Can someone please locate a sound file so we can listen to the same
thing?
> >
> It's certainly not like I'd say "doe". But I do think it might be how
> *some* Americans pronounce it, as it seems to be much closer to a true
> [oU] diphthong (as opposed what's closer to [@U] in words like doe,
> no, go etc.).
> I don't believe there's any "break" between the 'd' and the vowel
> sound,
Maybe "break" is too strong of a word, maybe there's a subtle difference
in how the d is voiced or joined to the vowel or something. I can hear
it.
Also, as I said, the more the word is used, the more it is likely to
change from its origins. People start pronouncing it the way they read
it, not the way they hear it.
>despite the spelling - in fact, at least one website claims the
> apostrophe is purely to avoid a trademark infringement. (The
> "official" spelling I assume comes from the title of a few Simpsons
> episodes - apparently it never occurs in the script).
Any remark anywhere about trademark infringement, I would take with a
shaker of salt.
>
> Can't find any online dictionary that lists a pronunciation for it.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Mickwick
>Mickwick <mick...@use.reply.to> wrote:
>> One last thing: is there an unmarked 'boar'? In other words, are boars
>> always uncastrated? I ask because I'd always thought 'boar' just meant
>> 'male pig'. The NSOED says otherwise (though some of its uses of 'boar'
>> in other definitions are a bit ambiguous) but surely it is sometimes
>> used in that way?
>
>Maybe what you're thinking of is that "wild boar" is one of the common
>names for the entire species, also called "wild swine" and various other
>things? So that way you have, for example, female "boars" as well as
>male ones. However, none of the beasts would be neutered because they're
>not domesticated.
I don't think that's it. I think it's more to do with uncastrated being
the default state of the male pig, just as it is with the male human,
and it would seem logical to use (unmarked) 'boar' to mean any male pig,
just as 'man' can be used to mean any male human. If there are ten male
humans in a room and one of them is a eunuch, it is perfectly OK to say
that there are ten men in the room. Why doesn't it work that way with
pigs?
Perhaps there's simply no need for a word meaning 'any male pig'?
According to the NSOED, there used to be such a word - 'galt' - but it's
now obsolete, except in unspecified dialects (and in Swedish). Perhaps
modern farming is so specialised that it doesn't need one (and for most
of us a pig is just a pig). You probably never get nine boars and a
(marked) hog in the same room.
[Google]
Actually, it does seem that 'boar' is used in this way - to mean 'any
male pig', and not just by the obviously ignorant.
Oh, I dunno.
[Geld 'stallions'. It's the same argument - or, in my case,
non-argument. I'm not really very sure what I'm on about.]
*
By the way, I've just stumbled on an amazing source of pictures from
illuminated manuscripts, old etchings and the like, fully searchable and
exhaustively (exhaustingly) categorised and cross-referenced (by theme,
utility, mythology, items in the picture etc. etc. etc.).
Here, for example, are 106 images of pigs:
http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/iconclass/47I212/
And here are two of pigs not enjoying the smell of marjoram:
http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/search?SearchString=Non+tibi+spiro
And here are 20 illustrations from fables:
http://www.mnemosyne.org/mia/iconclass/85/
The 'folk tale' category is, alas, empty.
Here is another version (soon to be subscription-only):
http://www.iconclass.nl/libertas/ic?style=index.xsl
--
Mickwick