On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> alliteration?
One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>> alliteration?
"Harrison Hill" <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
> http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
(since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.) This
influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery." This
is a very old preference in the language.
-- Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:45:02 -0400, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> writes:
>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>> alliteration?
>In my book (and the AHD), aid means help, and abet means urge. One
>may do either without the other.
Like forging and uttering.
-- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
On Oct 14, 5:11 am, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
> > I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> > alliteration?
> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
oh i get it, you're talking about the *END* of a word or sentence
being reserved for alliteration huh? ... maybe what I meant to say was
'redundant assonance' or something like that, or maybe we're
discussing a new literary device and brand new form of alliteration to
be reserved for sounds of assonance and rhyming only at the beginning
of a word or sentence yet to be recognized and classified as
'assalliteration' ... and title for my new doctoral thesis in English?
<e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
>>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>>> alliteration?
>> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
>> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
>> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
>> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
>> http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
>Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
>(since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
>prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
>various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.) This
>influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
>by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery." This
>is a very old preference in the language.
Mind you, an assault need not include battery. -- MIke.
On Oct 14, 5:11 am, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
> > I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> > alliteration?
> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:03:43 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
> <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> >> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
> >>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> >>> alliteration?
> >> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> >> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> >> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> >> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
> >>http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
> >Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
> >(since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
> >prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
> >various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.) This
> >influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
> >by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery." This
> >is a very old preference in the language.
> Mind you, an assault need not include battery.
They usually don't. If they did the A&E departments would really be in
trouble.
On Oct 14, 7:01 am, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> alliteration?
Here's a guy using words like redundant and alliteration
wanting to know the difference between aiding and abetting. You have
a computer Bozo, look it up. Stop asking phony questions ala Somebody
to illicit entertainment from others. Please. Just kidding, keep 'em
coming (whatever they are).
On Oct 14, 6:27 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Mind you, an assault need not include battery.
And battery need not include assault, using my method anyway. I
walk with a fake limp and carry a fake cane which is really a
disguised sword holder. All I do is walk around. I don't bother
anybody. I certainly don't assault them. But they see the limp and
the cane and they figure this is their best shot, a wounded animal.
So they start working their way in, sometimes as many as 3 in a group,
surrounding me as I limp slowly away only to turn swiftly at the last
minute and withdraw the sword from it's holder and slice all of the
aggressors to ribbons. Now I know you might say, "Well, you didn't
assault them, but you instigated it by pretending to use a cane and
walk with a limp." But you would be wrong. See, I don't use the cane
and limp to lure people in for assault, I do it because I think it
makes me look distinguished and goes well with my long gray hair,
goatee, and reading glasses.
> On Oct 14, 5:11 am, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> > because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> > be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> > start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
There's alliteration in the last line: "stone for the sake of the souls of the slain birds sailing". Otherwise I'm not sure what Harrison was referring to.
As far as I know alliteration requires that the words begin with the same *sound*, not just the same letter, so "aided and abetted" wouldn't be an example in any case.
> > On Oct 14, 5:11 am, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> > > because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> > > be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> > > start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
> There's alliteration in the last line: "stone for the sake of the souls of
> the slain birds sailing". Otherwise I'm not sure what Harrison was
> referring to.
"sparrows and such who swansing, dusk"
"the hawk on fire, the halter height"
"stabs and paddles In the pebbly dab-filled shallow and sedge"
"wharves of water where the walls dance
"his whirlwind silence save, who marks the sparrows hail for their
souls' song""
On Oct 14, 6:08 pm, Tommy Joe <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 7:01 am, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
> > I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> > alliteration?
> Here's a guy using words like redundant and alliteration
> wanting to know the difference between aiding and abetting. You have
> a computer Bozo, look it up. Stop asking phony questions ala Somebody
> to illicit entertainment from others. Please. Just kidding, keep 'em
> coming (whatever they are).
> TJ
It wasn't a phony question, and besides, if i can get a distinguished
answer like "aid means help, and abet means urge", I'll take that any
day over Wikipedia.
> On 15 Oct, 07:07, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > There's alliteration in the last line: "stone for the sake of the souls > > of
> > the slain birds sailing". Otherwise I'm not sure what Harrison was
> > referring to.
> "sparrows and such who swansing, dusk"
> "the hawk on fire, the halter height"
> "stabs and paddles In the pebbly dab-filled shallow and sedge"
> "wharves of water where the walls dance
> "his whirlwind silence save, who marks the sparrows hail for their
> souls' song""
Thank you. I should have read more carefully. You have to look for examples of alliteration in that type of verse; they don't automatically jump out at you.
Medieval verse used alliteration as a standard feature, of course, as in "Piers Plowman":
In a somer seson, whan softe was the sonne,
I shoop me into shroudes as I a sheep were,
In habite as an heremite unholy of werkes,
Wente wide in this world wondres to here.
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:27:37 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:03:43 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
><e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
>>>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>>>> alliteration?
>>> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
>>> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
>>> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
>>> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
>>> http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
>>Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
>>(since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
>>prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
>>various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.) This
>>influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
>>by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery." This
>>is a very old preference in the language.
>Mind you, an assault need not include battery.
Special Offer!
Three assaults for the price of two. Batteries not included.
> Thank you. I should have read more carefully. You have to look for
> examples of alliteration in that type of verse; they don't automatically
> jump out at you.
> Medieval verse used alliteration as a standard feature, of course, as in
> "Piers Plowman":
> In a somer seson, whan softe was the sonne,
> I shoop me into shroudes as I a sheep were,
> In habite as an heremite unholy of werkes,
> Wente wide in this world wondres to here.
> http://www.poetryatlas.com/poetry/poem/1772/piers-plowman---prologue....
Alliteration was a standard feature if the medieval poet was writing in the Anglo-Saxon tradition.
Alliteration requires the same consonantal sound (or any two vowel sounds) to begin the stressed syllables, not the word; so "aided and abetted" isn't alliterative, but "bide abed" is.
Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> writes:
> bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> writes:
>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>> alliteration?
> In my book (and the AHD), aid means help, and abet means urge. One
> may do either without the other.
Exactly (although in my dialect, "abet" doesn't really exist outside
this phrase). It's not sufficient to help because you're threatened
or to do something that incidentally helps. You have to be actively
in favor of the crime being committed when you help in order to become
an accessory.
-- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |...as a mobile phone is analogous
SF Bay Area (1982-) |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Chicago (1964-1982) |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com | Ross Howard
>>>> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
>>>> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
>>>> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
>>>> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
>>>> http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
>>>Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
>>>(since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
>>>prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
>>>various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.) This
>>>influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
>>>by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery." This
>>>is a very old preference in the language.
>>Mind you, an assault need not include battery.
> Special Offer!
> Three assaults for the price of two. Batteries not included.
Note: batteries rechargeable only if fresh evidence comes to light.
>>>>> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
>>>>> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
>>>>> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
>>>>> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
>>>>> http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
>>>> Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
>>>> (since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
>>>> prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
>>>> various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.) This
>>>> influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
>>>> by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery." This
>>>> is a very old preference in the language.
>>> Mind you, an assault need not include battery.
>> Special Offer!
>> Three assaults for the price of two. Batteries not included.
> Note: batteries rechargeable only if fresh evidence comes to light.
> >>>>> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> >>>>> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> >>>>> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> >>>>> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
> >>>>>http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
> >>>> Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
> >>>> (since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
> >>>> prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
> >>>> various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.) This
> >>>> influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
> >>>> by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery." This
> >>>> is a very old preference in the language.
> >>> Mind you, an assault need not include battery.
> >> Special Offer!
> >> Three assaults for the price of two. Batteries not included.
> > Note: batteries rechargeable only if fresh evidence comes to light.
"Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Illicit"? (Sorry, but if you're going to crosspost to alt.usage.english
> you'll need to be more careful than that.)
I'll bet you and your type were against the use of the word
"crosspost" when it first appeared, just as you 'by the book' types
are opposed to any kind of change. I appreciate your guidance and
realize that my English is not perfect. Was I wrong to capitalize the
word 'english' just now? I don't know. Please God in heaven help me
to spell correctly and to choose just the right words to make everyone
happy from this point forth, thank you God.
