Gotta vs. got to
Thomas Schenk
Mark Odegard wrote:
>
> I don't remember anyone posting on this before.
>
> "Gotta" must be considered a legitimate, grammatical,
> properly-spelled word. It belongs in the dictionaries.
>
> Consider:
> 1. I got to go to Europe.
> 2. I gotta go to Europe.
>
> #1 says you had the opportunity to go to Europe.
> #2 says you *must* go to Europe.
>
> The difference in meaning is quite distinct.
>
> This is modern day spoken (American) English. To indicate the
> difference in writing, you have to spell it "gotta".
"I've got to go to Europe" for "I have to go to Europe" is bad enough,
but "I gotta go to Europe" is beyond the pale. You can hear all
varieties of elisions in spoken AmE, such "D'j'eat?" for "did you eat?"
"Gotta" in this sense falls into the same basic category of slovenly
enunciation. It is simply a corruption of "-'ve got to". (Sniff)
Certainly not representative of choice speech.
Best regards,
Tom
--
*******************
Dr Thomas M Schenk
Laguna Beach, California
Mark Odegard
I don't remember anyone posting on this before.
"Gotta" must be considered a legitimate, grammatical,
properly-spelled word. It belongs in the dictionaries.
Consider:
1. I got to go to Europe.
2. I gotta go to Europe.
#1 says you had the opportunity to go to Europe.
#2 says you *must* go to Europe.
The difference in meaning is quite distinct.
This is modern day spoken (American) English. To indicate the
difference in writing, you have to spell it "gotta".
--
Mark Odegard.
My real address doesn't include a Christian name.
Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
Ralph M Jones
Mark Odegard wrote:
> I don't remember anyone posting on this before.
>
> "Gotta" must be considered a legitimate, grammatical,
> properly-spelled word. It belongs in the dictionaries.
>
> Consider:
> 1. I got to go to Europe.
> 2. I gotta go to Europe.
>
> #1 says you had the opportunity to go to Europe.
> #2 says you *must* go to Europe.
>
> The difference in meaning is quite distinct.
>
> This is modern day spoken (American) English. To indicate the
> difference in writing, you have to spell it "gotta".
I think that your second example doesn't support your point. It should
be "I have got to" or "I've gotta" which means that we can still write
got to" and say "gotta" without causing confusion.
--
Don't write it in concrete if there's an erasable medium available.
- rmj
Bob Cunningham
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:03:27 GMT, marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard)
said:
>I don't remember anyone posting on this before.
>"Gotta" must be considered a legitimate, grammatical,
>properly-spelled word. It belongs in the dictionaries.
>Consider:
>1. I got to go to Europe.
>2. I gotta go to Europe.
>#1 says you had the opportunity to go to Europe.
>#2 says you *must* go to Europe.
>The difference in meaning is quite distinct.
>This is modern day spoken (American) English. To indicate the
>difference in writing, you have to spell it "gotta".
I think 'I gotta go to Europe' is a degenerate form of 'I have got to go
to Europe', which is still proper American English when it becomes 'I've
got to go to Europe' and pronounced 'I've gotta go to Europe', but which
becomes the American Vulgate when the ' 've ' is elided.
'I've got to go to Europe', meaning 'I have to go to Europe' is
unambiguous because if the meaning is 'I have been given the opportunity
to go to Europe' the statement will be 'I have gotten to go to Europe',
or possibly, as you say, 'I got to go to Europe'.
--
Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USofA
To send e-mail, please remove the well-known
initialism for 'extraterrestrial'.
Please do not send me copies of Usenet postings.
Mark Odegard
I said originally (snipped somewhat):
1. I got to go to Europe.
2. I gotta go to Europe.
#1 says you had the opportunity to go to Europe.
#2 says you *must* go to Europe.
The difference in meaning is quite distinct.
This is modern day spoken (American) English. To indicate the
difference in writing, you have to spell it "gotta".
Ralph M Jones responds:
|I think that your second example doesn't support your point. It should
|be "I have got to" or "I've gotta" which means that we can still write
|got to" and say "gotta" without causing confusion.
Mimi Kahn also responded:
|Or you could say, "I have to go to Europe."
Both MK and RMJ miss the point. The distinction between "gotta"
and "got to" is very clear in spoken American English, and the
spelling "gotta" differentiates it for written English.
It is not that we cannot or do not say "I have got to go". It is
that many "educated native-speaker" Americans also say "gotta"
in everyday speech.
There is a parallel between "usta" and "used to". I posted a
while back a line from a newspaper referring to Mother Teresa
which went something like "he only possessions were two saris
and a plastic bucket she used to wash in". "Used to" here is
ambiguous; it can mean either "formerly washed in" or "used for
washing". "Usta" seems to be the "standard" spelling for the
"formerly" meaning.
I am not saying that "gotta" and "usta" are suitable for formal
writing. I am saying, however, that when reporting direct speech
*in writing* (including the most formal of writing) you *MUST*
spell "usta" and "gotta" this way. With "gotta" you cannot emend
the speaker's "I gotta go" to "I have to go"; nor can you recast
an ambiguous "use to".
Once this fact is recognized, "gotta" and "usta" must be
considered formal lexical items ("lexemes"). They belong in the
dictionaries. Whether one feels "gotta" or "usta" should be
considered "standard" or "good" English is a separate question;
we include such words as "ain't" as well as the usual vulgarisms
and obscenities in the (larger modern) dictionaries too -- i.e.,
we admit that are real words, separate in meaning from other
words, whatever these words' origins, and whatever their
"register" implies.
Mark Odegard
**Note Spam Trap below** On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:52:47 GMT,
ad...@elafnt.org (Bob Cunningham) in
<34764fdf...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> wrote
|I think 'I gotta go to Europe' is a degenerate form of 'I have got to go
|to Europe', which is still proper American English when it becomes 'I've
|got to go to Europe'
I am not arguing that "I gotta" is "formal" American English. I
am arguing that it is common enough, and that the meaning is
distinct enough that it needs inclusion in dictionaries.
I've been looking for a copy of the words of the
Kern-Hammerstein song from _Showboat_ "Can't Help Lovin' That
Man of Mine" (or something like that). There are some lines that
go, roughly, "birds gotta sing" (or maybe, fly), and has a few
more lines like this. While "colloquial", it's a good 1920s
written citation for the usage.
Stevicus63
>From: Thomas Schenk <tmsc...@pol.net>
>Date: Fri, Nov 21, 1997 21:10 EST
>Message-id: <34763F...@pol.net>
>
>Mark Odegard wrote:
>>
>> I don't remember anyone posting on this before.
>>
>> "Gotta" must be considered a legitimate, grammatical,
>> properly-spelled word. It belongs in the dictionaries.
>>
>> Consider:
>> 2. I gotta go to Europe.
>>
>> #1 says you had the opportunity to go to Europe.
>> #2 says you *must* go to Europe.
>>
>> The difference in meaning is quite distinct.
>>
>> This is modern day spoken (American) English. To indicate the
>> difference in writing, you have to spell it "gotta".
>
>but "I gotta go to Europe" is beyond the pale. You can hear all
>varieties of elisions in spoken AmE, such "D'j'eat?" for "did you eat?"
>"Gotta" in this sense falls into the same basic category of slovenly
>enunciation. It is simply a corruption of "-'ve got to". (Sniff)
>Certainly not representative of choice speech.
I suppose "gonna" for "going to" also falls into this category.
As in:
"I done got me one of them thar newfangled typewriters. I think they call them
thar things computers. Then I'm gonna be on that there innernet."
Mark Odegard
**Note Spam Trap below** On 22 Nov 1997 20:35:36 GMT,
stevi...@aol.com (Stevicus63) in
<19971122203...@ladder02.news.aol.com> wrote
|I suppose "gonna" for "going to" also falls into this category.
It does, but not in the way the poster suggests.
"Gonna" represents a colloquial spelling, a contraction of
"going to" in all senses *except* "travelling to".
I am going to Europe
*I am gonna Europe
I'm gonna go to Europe
"Gotta" has to be seen as an independent word or you have to
state that it's a contraction for "have got to". "Gonna" can
*always* be decontracted with no change in meaning, whereas
"gonna" cannot.
Truly Donovan
Mark Odegard wrote:
> Both MK and RMJ miss the point. The distinction between "gotta"
> and "got to" is very clear in spoken American English, and the
> spelling "gotta" differentiates it for written English.
I think you are overlooking the possibility that they are
disagreeing with rather than missing the point. I disagree
with the point, myself. You are not allowing for the
possibility that context is the real discriminator here.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
ab...@pipeline.com
marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) wrote:
>I am not arguing that "I gotta" is "formal" American English. I
>am arguing that it is common enough, and that the meaning is
>distinct enough that it needs inclusion in dictionaries.
>I've been looking for a copy of the words of the
>Kern-Hammerstein song from _Showboat_ "Can't Help Lovin' That
>Man of Mine" (or something like that). There are some lines that
>go, roughly, "birds gotta sing" (or maybe, fly), and has a few
>more lines like this. While "colloquial", it's a good 1920s
>written citation for the usage.
________________________________________
The song is "Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man." Although it's
written throughout in dialect ("De chimbley's smokin', de
roof is leakin' in..."), "got to" is always two words, never
"gotta." Only the stuffiest of concert artistes would sing
anything but "gotta," but there you are.
Hammerstein aside, lyricists have long recognized the need
for "gotta": "You Gotta Be a Football Hero" (1933), "You
Gotta Eat Your Spinach, Baby" (1936), "You Gotta Have a
Gimmick" (1959), "We Gotta Get Out of This Place" (1965).
In fact, it's so idiomatic it sometimes elbows in where it
doesn't belong: "I Gotta Right to Sing the Blues" (1932), "I
Gotta Gal I Love (In North and South Dakota)" (1947).
Abfou
Geoff Butler
Mark Odegard <marko...@ptel.net> writes:
>I've been looking for a copy of the words of the
>Kern-Hammerstein song from _Showboat_ "Can't Help Lovin' That
>Man of Mine" (or something like that). There are some lines that
>go, roughly, "birds gotta sing" (or maybe, fly), and has a few
>more lines like this. While "colloquial", it's a good 1920s
>written citation for the usage.
Is this the one you mean:
Sharks gotta swim
Bats gotta fly
I gotta love one woman till I die
To Ed or Dick or Bob
She may be just a slob
But to me, she's my girl
-ler
John Sword
In article <34761f11....@news2.means.net>, Mark Odegard
<marko...@ptel.net> writes
>I don't remember anyone posting on this before.
>
>"Gotta" must be considered a legitimate, grammatical,
>properly-spelled word. It belongs in the dictionaries.
>
>Consider:
>1. I got to go to Europe.
>2. I gotta go to Europe.
or it is essential that I visit Europe
>
>#1 says you had the opportunity to go to Europe.
>#2 says you *must* go to Europe.
>
>The difference in meaning is quite distinct.
>
>This is modern day spoken (American) English. To indicate the
>difference in writing, you have to spell it "gotta".
>--
>Mark Odegard.
>My real address doesn't include a Christian name.
>Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
John Colville Sword
Bob Cunningham
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:12:22 GMT, marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard)
said:
[ . . . ]
>I've been looking for a copy of the words of the
>Kern-Hammerstein song from _Showboat_ "Can't Help Lovin' That
>Man of Mine" (or something like that). There are some lines that
>go, roughly, "birds gotta sing" (or maybe, fly), and has a few
>more lines like this. While "colloquial", it's a good 1920s
>written citation for the usage.
I remember it as:
Fish gotta swim.
Birds gotta fly.
I gotta love^
That man till I die.
Can't help lovin' that man of mine.
^Or is it 'I'm gonna love'? I think it's 'I gotta'. It fits
better.
Another well-known use:
When Momma calls, ya oughta go,
But when nature calls, ya gotta go.
Maria Conlon
Mark Odegard <marko...@ptel.net> wrote in article
<34772a68....@news2.means.net>...
>
> [snip]
> I am not saying that "gotta" and "usta" are suitable for formal
> writing. I am saying, however, that when reporting direct speech
> *in writing* (including the most formal of writing) you *MUST*
> spell "usta" and "gotta" this way. With "gotta" you cannot emend
> the speaker's "I gotta go" to "I have to go"; nor can you recast
> an ambiguous "use to".
>
> Once this fact is recognized, "gotta" and "usta" must be
> considered formal lexical items ("lexemes"). They belong in the
> dictionaries. Whether one feels "gotta" or "usta" should be
> considered "standard" or "good" English is a separate question;
> we include such words as "ain't" as well as the usual vulgarisms
> and obscenities in the (larger modern) dictionaries too -- i.e.,
> we admit that are real words, separate in meaning from other
> words, whatever these words' origins, and whatever their
> "register" implies.
> --
> Mark Odegard.
==================================
And then we have:
HAFTA for have to
HADDA for had to
OUGHTA for ought to
SHUDDA (sp?) or SHOULD OF for should have
CUDDA (sp?) or COULD OF for could have
WUDDA (sp?) or WOULD OF for would have
MAY OF for may have
MUSTA for must have
I have no objections to putting these in a dictionary of some sort as long
as they are labeled as corruptions or "informal contractions" of the
correct words.
If nothing else, such a book might be useful to people learning English; it
might help them understand what the English-speaker is saying, especially
when said speaker is talking fast. It might also help them to "translate"
written material (including many books) which use such corruptions
(usually, but not always, in dialogue).
Well, I gotta go now. There's a *buncha* bills waiting for me and I really
*needta* write some checks. And also too, there's a *pile a* dirty *cloze*
to wash.
MC
P.S. "And also too" is just one of those "jokey" things we say in our
family. Other things include "coop de grass" and -- no, I won't tell you
what we do with "faux pas."
Mark Odegard
**Note Spam Trap below** On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:14:19 -0700,
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> in
<3477593B...@lunemere.com> wrote
I originally wrote:
|> Both MK and RMJ miss the point. The distinction between "gotta"
|> and "got to" is very clear in spoken American English, and the
|> spelling "gotta" differentiates it for written English.
|I think you are overlooking the possibility that they are
|disagreeing with rather than missing the point. I disagree
|with the point, myself. You are not allowing for the
|possibility that context is the real discriminator here.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I am saying that "gotta" is
used by a sufficient number of "educated native-speakers" in
everyday speech to have earned its place in the dictionaries.
What do you mean when you say "context is the real discriminator
here"?
I have trouble accepting that "gotta" is a contraction for "have
got to", even after recognizing that it's always "he's gotta",
or 'he has gotta" (and never "he gotta").
David Samuel Barr
Geoff Butler wrote:
>
> Mark Odegard <marko...@ptel.net> writes:
> >I've been looking for a copy of the words of the
> >Kern-Hammerstein song from _Showboat_ "Can't Help Lovin' That
> >Man of Mine" (or something like that). There are some lines that
> >go, roughly, "birds gotta sing" (or maybe, fly), and has a few
> >more lines like this. While "colloquial", it's a good 1920s
> >written citation for the usage.
>
>
> Sharks gotta swim
> Bats gotta fly
> I gotta love one woman till I die
> To Ed or Dick or Bob
> She may be just a slob
> But to me, she's my girl
>
> -ler
Hehehehehehe......I love it.......someone who can actually quote Tom
Lehrer.........although unless the poster to whom you are responding
knows both the original song and this parody of it, you probably are
just confusing him.
The original song, of course, is:
Fish gotta swim,
Birds gotta fly,
I gotta love one man til I die.
Can't help lovin' dat man of mine.
But in any event, there is no correct use of "gotta" except as a
written representation of the dialectical slurring of "got to".
These lyrics are a good example of this use, but they don't
legitimise the term, any more than the heavy "Negro" dialect used
in many 19th- & early 20th-century songs (from Stephen Foster to
Scott Joplin) -- or for that matter, Hammerstein's original opening
lyric to "Show Boat" which read "niggers all work on de Mississippi"
but of course was bowdlerised in later years -- serve as a basis for
making a case for the existence of "Ebonics".
Naturally, when such terms as "gotta" come into verbal use, it is
expected that certain grammatical alterations will follow it for the
sake of euphony, which is why it's "fish gotta swim" rather than "fish
have got to swim" (or simply "fish have to swim". It's the same type of
thinking with one's mouth rather than one's head that brings us such
reverse neologisms as the non-existent "proactive" (where people looking
for the reverse of "reactive" cobble up a new word rather than use the
proper "active") or "conversate" (again, working backwards from the noun
"conversation" rather than knowing the actual verb "converse").
Lee Rudolph
marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) writes:
>I have trouble accepting that "gotta" is a contraction for "have
>got to", even after recognizing that it's always "he's gotta",
>or 'he has gotta" (and never "he gotta").
You gotta be kidding us!
Lee Rudolph
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Note Spam Trap below** On 24 Nov 1997
07:14:14 -0500, lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) in
<65br2m$9...@panix.com> wrote
OK, Rudolph. Perhaps I'm missing something. I am saying that
"gotta", in the sense of "must" or "have to" stands by itself as
a separate lexical item. It is not formal English by a long
shot, but when rendering colloquial American English in writing,
you gotta spell it "gotta" when the word "have" is missing,
whenever and wherever any ambiguity would result.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Geoff Butler <ge...@gbutler.demon.LoseThisBit.co.uk> writes:
> Mark Odegard <marko...@ptel.net> writes:
> >I've been looking for a copy of the words of the
> >Kern-Hammerstein song from _Showboat_ "Can't Help Lovin' That
> >Man of Mine" (or something like that). There are some lines that
> >go, roughly, "birds gotta sing" (or maybe, fly), and has a few
> >more lines like this. While "colloquial", it's a good 1920s
> >written citation for the usage.
>
> Is this the one you mean:
>
> Sharks gotta swim
> Bats gotta fly
> I gotta love one woman till I die
> To Ed or Dick or Bob
> She may be just a slob
> But to me, she's my girl
Interestingly, Lehrer parodied this song twice. The second is from
"Pollution":
Fish gotta swim,
And birds gotta fly...
But they don't last long
If they try.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |To express oneself
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |In seventeen syllables
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is very diffic
| Tony Finch
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
RReming327
In article <3478fefb....@news2.means.net>, marko...@ptel.net (Mark
Odegard) writes:
>I have trouble accepting that "gotta" is a contraction for "have
>got to", even after recognizing that it's always "he's gotta",
>or 'he has gotta" (and never "he gotta").
I have the same problem with verbal mutations becoming accepted contractions in
written English, but we all know it has happened (somebody will provide an
example I'm sure).
In written dialogue where the speaker is quoted for colorful dialect, it is
OK-- in formal writing, neve-- once every millennium or so.
To your last assertion I must respectfully disagree.
Ebonic speech patterns include "he gotta" quite frequently. I guess it depends
on what school district one teaches/learns in.
Never say never.
RRemington
___________________________________________________
For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours,
and laugh at them in our turn? -- Jane Austen
Mark Odegard
**Note Spam Trap below** On 25 Nov 1997 01:43:03 GMT,
rremi...@aol.com (RReming327) in
<19971125014...@ladder02.news.aol.com> wrote
|To your last assertion I must respectfully disagree.
|Ebonic speech patterns include "he gotta" quite frequently. I guess it depends
|on what school district one teaches/learns in.
Ebonic speech patterns? Howabout wasp speech patterns? This is
not Black English Vernacular. This is not White Anglo-Saxon
Protestant English vernacular. It's colloquial American English
vernacular.
Truly Donovan
Mark Odegard wrote:
>
> **Note Spam Trap below** On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:14:19 -0700,
> Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> in
> <3477593B...@lunemere.com> wrote
>
> I originally wrote:
>
> |> Both MK and RMJ miss the point. The distinction between "gotta"
> |> and "got to" is very clear in spoken American English, and the
> |> spelling "gotta" differentiates it for written English.
>
> |I think you are overlooking the possibility that they are
> |disagreeing with rather than missing the point. I disagree
> |with the point, myself. You are not allowing for the
> |possibility that context is the real discriminator here.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. I am saying that "gotta" is
> used by a sufficient number of "educated native-speakers" in
> everyday speech to have earned its place in the dictionaries.
> What do you mean when you say "context is the real discriminator
> here"?
What I mean is that I disagree with you. I'm saying that
"gotta" and "got to" are interchangeable, and the urgency of
the necessity in either case is determined by the context.
RReming327
In article <347a3098...@news2.means.net>, marko...@ptel.net (Mark
Odegard) writes:
>Ebonic speech patterns? Howabout wasp speech patterns? This is
>not Black English Vernacular. This is not White Anglo-Saxon
>Protestant English vernacular. It's colloquial American English
>vernacular.
Well, you just gotta trust me, Mark. Black dialect does have some unique
characteristics within the American colloquial set.
If you're hung-up on the term "ebonics"-- sorry.
I was commenting more on "he gotta" and thought you meant this was "never"
intended usage.
John M. Lawler
Mark Odegard writes:
>Truly Donovan writes:
>|Mark Odegard writes:
>|> Both MK and RMJ miss the point. The distinction between "gotta"
>|> and "got to" is very clear in spoken American English, and the
>|> spelling "gotta" differentiates it for written English.
>|I think you are overlooking the possibility that they are
>|disagreeing with rather than missing the point. I disagree
>|with the point, myself. You are not allowing for the
>|possibility that context is the real discriminator here.
>I'm not quite sure what you mean. I am saying that "gotta" is
>used by a sufficient number of "educated native-speakers" in
>everyday speech to have earned its place in the dictionaries.
>What do you mean when you say "context is the real discriminator
>here"?
A dictionary listing is not awarded on the basis of actual use by
"educated native-speakers". It's a function of many things, which vary
from dictionary to dictionary, which are commercial books by commercial
publishers who expect to make money from them, and not accolades from The
Academy.
One of the things that lexicographers agree on is that dictionaries list
*words*, and not phrases. There are just too many possible phrases, and
too many variant spellings of them. The place for "gotta" is in a grammar,
not a dictionary. I grant you, English dictionaries would be a lot more
useful for English learners if they went into more detail about English
grammar. But that's a whole nother rant.
If any dictionary listed "gotta", it'd also hafta list "hafta", "shoulda",
"couldna", "gonna", "Ida", "emself", and "wanna", to name only those.
Wanna bet how likely that'd be?
>I have trouble accepting that "gotta" is a contraction for "have
>got to", even after recognizing that it's always "he's gotta",
>or 'he has gotta" (and never "he gotta").
"Gotta" is *one* spelling for *one* contraction for "have got to".
There are others; your position seems to be that "gotta" has achieved
canonical status, like "he's". Is "he's" listed in dictionaries?
Should dictionaries decide on Canon Law?
And why "have got to"? Why not "have to", or "hafta", which means pretty
much the same thing as "gotta", and is equally colloquial and arguably
equally canonical? There's a reason, but it won't make English purists
happy, since it demonstrates just how chaotic English grammar is.
"Get" means "come to be" *or* "come to have", as in
He got tired. <--> He became tired.
or
He got his orders. <--> He received his orders.
(Parenthetically, I've always been amused at the fact that German
uses the verb "bekommen" to mean "receive" but *not* "become".)
In the case of "have", especially, if one comments on acquisition
of something, the implicature is that one still has it -- otherwise,
one would say something different. So the present perfect of "get"
naturally implicates the present of "have", leading to the equivalence
of "have got" and "have".
The present perfect construction uses the auxiliary verb "have/has",
plus the past participle of the matrix verb: "I have/He has gone."
The past participle of "get" is "got" or "gotten" in the US; UK
mileage may vary. There is a principled distinction between the two,
since "get", as the inchoative ("come to ...") form of both "be" and
"have", is itself an auxiliary, and "got" has come to have its own
usages in American English, leaving the simple past participle slot
to be filled by "gotten".
As Jim McCawley points out in his classic "Tense and Time Reference in
English" (Language, ?1969?), one of the functions of the present perfect
is to report past actions still relevant in the present; thus, "I've got a
cold" reports a past event (catching the cold) which is still relevant
(having the cold), and, since pragmatically what we're interested in is
the present state, "I've got a cold" is used more often to warn people to
duck when I sneeze than to comment on the events of the past week.
But there's more. Both "be" and "have" are already auxiliary verbs, and
are used in many constructions, like passive or the perfect. Since "get"
can implicate "be" and "have" in some cases, it's been generalized to
substitute in others, where their use is grammatical instead of
meaningful, like the so-called "Get-Passive"
He got arrested. <--> He was arrested. = S.b. arrested him.
or in the periphratic phrase "have to" meaning "must"
He's got to go. <--> He has to go. = He must go.
or simply, *wherever* one might use "have"
I got a new CD. <--> I have a new CD.
and quite frequently children generalize this equivalence to produce
sentences like *He gots a new ball; in effect, inventing a new verb
because the old one has worn out.
This has already happened in Indo-European at least once, and in some
languages twice. The English verb "have" is *not* cognate with the Latin
'habere,' but with 'capere,' meaning "grasp"; just as Spanish "tener"
comes from a different Latin verb with a similar meaning. 'Habere' got
worn out almost completely by its grammatical uses, and substitutes had to
be found, which eventually got thrown into the grammatical stew
themselves. Note that "Tengo que irme" means the same thing as "Gotta go",
and you see how the pattern works.
"Gotta" is the eye-dialect spelling for the grammaticalized "get" version
of the periphrastic modal "have to", which is why "I gotta go" means "I
must go"; it's pronounced differently from "got to", the past tense of the
construction "get to", which means "have the opportunity to". "Gotta" has
a flap [D], whereas "got to" has a geminate [t.t] in careful speech, and
thus there's a contrast, as the original poster pointed out.
But there are contrasts everywhere; they're the Most Important Product of
Unconscious Generations, Inc. And most of them aren't in the dictionary,
nor could they be, if we don't want to herniate ourselves when we consult
it. Can you imagine what the Compact OED would look like if it explained
*every* construction in English? It'd hafta come with an electron
microscope instead of a magnifying glass.
For more than you probably wanna know on this subject, point your Web
browser at:
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/aue/gonna.html
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/aue/hafta.html
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/aue/hadve.html
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/aue/modals.html
-John Lawler http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
Evan Kirshenbaum
jla...@gorf.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M. Lawler) writes:
> One of the things that lexicographers agree on is that dictionaries
> list *words*, and not phrases.
I think this overstates things a bit. In MWCD10, for instance, the
entry for "have" includes "had better", "have at", "have coming",
"have done", "have done with", and ten others. On the same page I
find "Hawaiian goose", "haversian canal", and "haute cuisine".
> If any dictionary listed "gotta", it'd also hafta list "hafta",
> "shoulda", "couldna", "gonna", "Ida", "emself", and "wanna", to name
> only those. Wanna bet how likely that'd be?
Given that this is pretty much a closed set numbering not more than a
hundred or so members in all dialects, I don't see what the problem
would be. I know that I would've appreciated it if I could've looked
up "bettn't" when I came across it in a novel.
> >I have trouble accepting that "gotta" is a contraction for "have
> >got to", even after recognizing that it's always "he's gotta", or
> >'he has gotta" (and never "he gotta").
>
> "Gotta" is *one* spelling for *one* contraction for "have got to".
> There are others;
It appears to be reasonably standardized. In any case, dictionaries
can certainly handle variant spellings. On the same page I find
"hautbois or hautboy".
> your position seems to be that "gotta" has achieved canonical
> status, like "he's". Is "he's" listed in dictionaries?
It is in MWCD10. "Got to" is actually there as well, but it is
(somewhat confusingly) listed as meaning 10b of "get":
to have as an obligation or necessity -- used in the present
perfect tense form with present meaning <you have _got_ to come>
A note here, at the very least, that said that the past participle is
used by itself in some dialects, wouldn't be amiss, even if they
couldn't bring themselves to call "got" a full verb on its own.
[explanation of how "gotta" came about snipped]
> But there are contrasts everywhere; they're the Most Important Product of
> Unconscious Generations, Inc. And most of them aren't in the dictionary,
> nor could they be, if we don't want to herniate ourselves when we consult
> it. Can you imagine what the Compact OED would look like if it explained
> *every* construction in English? It'd hafta come with an electron
> microscope instead of a magnifying glass.
I find this assertion strange. I would've thought that any detailed
explanation of functional words would be dwarfed by the sheer number
of lexical words. (That doesn't look like the right term, but I have
to leave.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |to say there are twenty gods, or no
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God.
| Thomas Jefferson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
P&DSchultz
Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:03:27 GMT, marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard)
> said:
>
> >I don't remember anyone posting on this before.
>
> >"Gotta" must be considered a legitimate, grammatical,
> >properly-spelled word. It belongs in the dictionaries.
>
> >Consider:
> >1. I got to go to Europe.
>
> >#2 says you *must* go to Europe.
>
> >The difference in meaning is quite distinct.
>
> >difference in writing, you have to spell it "gotta".
>
> to Europe', which is still proper American English when it becomes 'I've
Nice explanation, but "gotta" is one of many modals, for the
others of which the explanation doesn't work. You can say "I hafta go
to Europe," meaning you must go. But you can't say "This is the last
chance I hafta go to Europe." You can say "I'm gonna buy stuff this
afternoon," but you can't say "I'm gonna the store this afternoon." The
alternative, "colloquial" pronunciations have specific modal meanings.
Mark Baker
In article <19971126015...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rremi...@aol.com (RReming327) writes:
>>Ebonic speech patterns? Howabout wasp speech patterns? This is
>>not Black English Vernacular. This is not White Anglo-Saxon
>>Protestant English vernacular. It's colloquial American English
>>vernacular.
>
> Well, you just gotta trust me, Mark. Black dialect does have some unique
> characteristics within the American colloquial set.
I don't think Mark was disagreeing with you about that. He was saying that
the particular example you cited is common in other dialects too.
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Note Spam Trap below** On 26 Nov 1997
17:53:30 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> in
<v9hlnyb...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote
|jla...@gorf.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M. Lawler) writes:
|
|> One of the things that lexicographers agree on is that dictionaries
|> list *words*, and not phrases.
|
|I think this overstates things a bit. In MWCD10, for instance, the
|entry for "have" includes "had better", "have at", "have coming",
|"have done", "have done with", and ten others.
The word we want is "lexeme". I learned this in my one
linguistics course in college. David Crystal also uses it in his
Encyclopedia of English. A lexeme may have two or more "words"
in it, but the words are not the sum of their parts (as is a
phrase). The words "united", "states", "of" and "America" all
exist as separate words, but "United States of America", is a
distinct unit of meaning -- a "lexeme" -- and merits its own
entry in a dictionary.
Actually, I think this newsgroup should start using "lexeme"
consistently.
Lee Rudolph
marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) writes:
>[Posted, e-mailed] **Note Spam Trap below** On 26 Nov 1997
>17:53:30 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> in
><v9hlnyb...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote
>
>|jla...@gorf.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M. Lawler) writes:
>|
>|> One of the things that lexicographers agree on is that dictionaries
>|> list *words*, and not phrases.
>|
>|I think this overstates things a bit. In MWCD10, for instance, the
>|entry for "have" includes "had better", "have at", "have coming",
>|"have done", "have done with", and ten others.
>
>The word we want is "lexeme". I learned this in my one
>linguistics course in college.
What I learned, for this meaning, from my one Family Linguist,
is "lexical item". And, my, didn't we all mock her at the time--
but it's entered my vocabulary (not that I guarantee to use it
as a professional would; and not that anyone knows what I'm
jabbering about when I do use it). That "we" "want" either
"lexeme" or "lexical item" is open to debate: after all, both
participants in the dialogue Mark quotes above presumably have
professional acquaintance with one or both of the...whatever
they ares (words? lexemes? lexical items?) but chose not to
use either.
>David Crystal also uses it in his
>Encyclopedia of English. A lexeme may have two or more "words"
>in it, but the words are not the sum of their parts (as is a
>phrase). The words "united", "states", "of" and "America" all
>exist as separate words, but "United States of America", is a
>distinct unit of meaning -- a "lexeme" -- and merits its own
>entry in a dictionary.
>
>Actually, I think this newsgroup should start using "lexeme"
>consistently.
Not me, thanks.
Lee Rudolph
Sarpedon
In article <65iie5$1el$1...@aziraphale.pet.cam.ac.uk>,
Dat Andy dere gots a quarda he be owin' me...
Gotta gets me dat dere quarda.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Note Spam Trap below** On 27 Nov 1997
06:16:18 -0500, lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) in
<65jkq2$g...@panix.com> wrote
I wrote:
|>The word we want is "lexeme". I learned this in my one
|>linguistics course in college.
|
|What I learned, for this meaning, from my one Family Linguist,
|is "lexical item".
David Crystal, in _The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English
Language_ (CUP 1995,) (my edition is the "first paperback
printing, 1997") gives "lexical item" as a synonym on page 118:
<start quote>
The term which has been introduced to handle all these cases is
_lexeme_ (or _lexical item_). A lexeme is a unit of lexical
meaning, which exists regardless of any inflectional endings it
may have or the number of words it may contain. Thus,
_fibrillate, rain cats and dogs,_ and _come on_ are all lexemes,
as are _elephant, jog, cholesterol, happiness, put up with, face
the music,_ and hundreds of thousands of other meaningful items
in English. The headwords in a dictionary are all lexemes [...]
<end quote>
|>Actually, I think this newsgroup should start using "lexeme"
|>consistently.
|Not me, thanks.
No problem. I'll know what is meant when I see "lexical item"
and you'll know what's meant when "lexeme" is used.
Josh Leighton
Quoth Popeye:
"Dat Andy dere gots a quarda he be owin' me...
Gotta gets me dat dere quarda."
(Many thanks to you all for explaining 'ebonics' _just_ as I was about to
post a request for it's meaning)
--
jlei...@FNORDtcp.co.uk
Vivu la revolucio,
Josxvo
P.S.: Ne vidu la fnordon. Se vi ne vidas la fnordon, gxi ne povas vin
mangxi.
Sarpedon <axemu...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<8806793...@dejanews.com>...
Josh Leighton
Just out of interest, to whom and for what are you lot all giving thanks?
It seems to be an annual sort of affair - what's the date and why?
(Snotty answers of the 'Leaving you on the other side of the Atlantic'
variety are fully anticipated, and therefore pre-emptively consigned to the
annals of the thoroughly tedious)
Happy Thanksgiving!
Vivu la revolucio,
Josxvo
P.S.: Ne vidu la fnordon. Se vi ne vidas la fnordon, gxi ne povas vin
mangxi.
Mimi Kahn <njk...@mindspringerspaniel.com> wrote in article
<347ddf22...@news.mindspring.com>...
> On 27 Nov 1997 06:16:18 -0500, lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) wrote:
>
> >marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) writes:
>
> >>Actually, I think this newsgroup should start using "lexeme"
> >>consistently.
> >
> >Not me, thanks.
>
> C'mon, can you see this newsgroup doing *anything* consistently?
>
> Happy Thanksgiving -- taking a quick break while my oven does all the
> work.
>
>
> Mimi
>
> http://www.merriewood.com
>
>
Truly Donovan
Josh Leighton wrote:
>
> Just out of interest, to whom and for what are you lot all giving thanks?
> It seems to be an annual sort of affair - what's the date and why?
>
> (Snotty answers of the 'Leaving you on the other side of the Atlantic'
> variety are fully anticipated, and therefore pre-emptively consigned to the
> annals of the thoroughly tedious)
It commemorates a harvest feast to celebrate the Pilgrims'
surviving their first year in the New World. Tradition has
it that friendly Indians (no one knew they were Native
Americans back then) came as wanted guests.
It has nothing to do with leaving you on the other side of
the Atlantic. That stupendous notion is celebrated on the
Fourth of July.
Truly Donovan
Mark Odegard wrote:
>Actually, I think this newsgroup should start using "lexeme"
>consistently.
You should realize by now that one of the things that
doesn't sit very well around here is being told what to do.
Why should we use "lexeme" when "word" or "phrase" has,
99.99% of the time, served us perfectly well up to now and
when most newbies will understand "word" or "phrase" without
wondering what the hell we are talking about?
Donna Richoux
Josh Leighton <jlei...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> Just out of interest, to whom and for what are you lot all giving thanks?
> It seems to be an annual sort of affair - what's the date
It's not always the same date. In the US, it's always on a Thursday, I
believe the fourth Thursday of November except for some reason or other.
>and why?
Well, legend has it that the Pilgrim settlers, who arrived on a
Mayflower in 1620, celebrated a feast of thanksgiving after their first
difficult winter. It certainly became an annual tradition in New England
long before it was declared a legal holiday much later. Most of the
details that we are assured of in primary school about "the first
Thanksgiving" are in fact debatable -- whether turkey was on the menu,
whether the Native Americans were invited, etc -- but the spirit is
there.
The Pilgrims did not invent the idea of a autumnal thanksgiving feast.
"Harvest home" dinners were celebrated in England before they came, and
in many other places.
Canadians set a different date, an earlier one, for their Thanksgiving
dinner.
You are not obliged to be thankful for anything in particular. Most
people feel thankful for being able to have a roof over their heads,
plenty of food on the table, loved ones around them, etc.
> Happy Thanksgiving!
Thank you. We had a nice one here on the Saturday before (since Thursday
is not a day off outside the U.S.). Still have leftover turkey.
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Peter Moylan
Josh Leighton <jlei...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>Just out of interest, to whom and for what are you lot all giving thanks?
The definitive answer was given in one of the Peanuts books:
"Woodstock is giving thanks that he tastes horrible
with cranberry sauce".
I was privileged(?) to participate in this ceremony, as an outsider,
some years ago. It's very tightly scripted. First everyone has to
eat some turkey, which tastes rather like an inferior brand of
chicken. Then you move on to the pumpkin pie - very heavily
spiced, to hide the taste, but the taste comes through anyway.
Americans are used to this and can swallow it without gagging,
but foreign guests are strongly advised to take their anti-nausea
tablets before tackling this part. The important part is to
pretend that you like it.
To someone not familiar with the tradition, it looks like a
lot of people stuffing themselves with as much food as
possible. One needs an anthropologist's detachment to
appreciate that for the natives it's a deeply religious
experience.
(OK, for the humour-impaired I'd better explain that the above
would be accompanied by a smiley if posted in a less
civilised newsgroup. Yes, I do understand that some Australian
rites would look just as strange to outsiders.)
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://www.ee.newcastle.edu.au/users/staff/peter/Moylan.html
H Gilmer
Peter Moylan (pe...@AtHome.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:
: I was privileged(?) to participate in this ceremony, as an outsider,
: some years ago. It's very tightly scripted. First everyone has to
: eat some turkey, which tastes rather like an inferior brand of
: chicken. Then you move on to the pumpkin pie - very heavily
: spiced, to hide the taste, but the taste comes through anyway.
: Americans are used to this and can swallow it without gagging,
: but foreign guests are strongly advised to take their anti-nausea
: tablets before tackling this part. The important part is to
: pretend that you like it.
Sounds like you need to hang out with better cooks!
Hg
Tom
Donna Richoux (tr...@euronet.nl) wrote:
: Josh Leighton <jlei...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
: > Just out of interest, to whom and for what are you lot all giving thanks?
: > It seems to be an annual sort of affair - what's the date
: It's not always the same date. In the US, it's always on a Thursday, I
: believe the fourth Thursday of November except for some reason or other.
Thirty days November hath
Unfit for human living,
Including one election day
And a hide-and-seek Thanksgiving....
--Ogden Nash
(who, I believe, wrote this shortly after Congress had shifted
the date from some Thursday to some other Thursday)
Tom Parsons
--
--
t...@panix.com | Whenever you find yourself on the side
| of the majority, it is time to reform.
http://www.panix.com/~twp | --Mark Twain
Padraig Breathnach
Peter Moylan wrote:
<snip>
>
> (OK, for the humour-impaired I'd better explain that the above
> would be accompanied by a smiley if posted in a less
> civilised newsgroup. Yes, I do understand that some Australian
> rites would look just as strange to outsiders.)
>
PB
Frances Kemmish
Polar wrote:
>
> O
> >: > It seems to be an annual sort of affair - what's the date
>
> as the above. Perhaps I was too America-centric in assuming that the
> story of Thanksgiving was taught in British history --considering
> that the Pilgrims were in fact English. Maybe the Mother Country was
> sore that the Pilgrims bailed, so excised them from the texts? (joke).
>
I know this will come as a shock to many of you, but I never learned
anything about US history when I was at school in England.
I did learn something about the discovery of the New World, when
learning about the Tudors and Stuarts; and the Pilgrims were mentioned
once, I think. Of course, it's a long time since I was at school in
England.
But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
Fran
H Gilmer
Polar (s.m...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On 29 Nov 1997 11:51:43 GMT, gil...@uts.cc.utexas.edu (H Gilmer)
: wrote:
: >Peter Moylan (pe...@AtHome.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:
[snip twice-quoted pissing and moaning about unpalatable American
Thanksgiving feast]
[and then Polar turns around and says]
: What can one say? How about "bugger off"?
Say, Polar, are you talking to me or Mr. Moylan?
If you're talking to him, then I must say in his defense that I
snipped the part of his post where he refers to such a thing as
"humor". Or maybe it was "humour".
If you're talking to me, whatever I did, I'm sorry. What'd I do?
Hg, who wouldn't go near pumpkin pie for years but now I just can't
get enough of it
Jeff Pack
>But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
>festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
I remember learning about Guy Fawkes when I studied "The Hollow Men."
Don't remember if that was during British Lit. or American Lit., though...
--
Jeff Pack '99 (book...@brown.edu) "We live on borrowed time
Brown University, English and So let's celebrate and sing
American Lit., Honors Program As we walk bravely
St. Anthony Hall K'96, Lit. Chair Into the unknown..."
Robert Lipton
hpl.hp.com> <347ce76a....@news2.means.net> <65jkq2$g...@panix.com> <347ddf22...@news.mindspring.com> <01bcfc42$607bd2e0$0c0150c3@default> <1997112910...@p027.hlm.euronet.nl> <65p59r$c...@panix3.panix.com> <348235df...@nntp.ix.netcom.
com> <34805556...@iconn.net>
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy
Followup-To:
In article <34805556...@iconn.net>, Frances Kemmish wrote:
>Polar wrote:
>>
>> O
>> >: > It seems to be an annual sort of affair - what's the date
>>
>> I was more than a little startled by messages from Right Pondians such
>> as the above. Perhaps I was too America-centric in assuming that the
>> story of Thanksgiving was taught in British history --considering
>> that the Pilgrims were in fact English. Maybe the Mother Country was
>> sore that the Pilgrims bailed, so excised them from the texts? (joke).
>>
>
>I know this will come as a shock to many of you, but I never learned
>anything about US history when I was at school in England.
>
>I did learn something about the discovery of the New World, when
>learning about the Tudors and Stuarts; and the Pilgrims were mentioned
>once, I think. Of course, it's a long time since I was at school in
>England.
>
>But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
>festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
Why, yes. In World History, early Junior High. Say, ages 12-14.
After all, the world does not end at our borders.
Apparently this is not the case in Britain. Small world, isn't it?
Bob
Bill Baldwin
Jeff Pack wrote:
> Frances Kemmish wrote:
>
> >But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
> >festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
>
> Don't remember if that was during British Lit. or American Lit.,
though...
That's where I learned about Guy Fawkes as well. It was English Lit. at my
High School.
T. S. Eliot was born in America but moved to England as an adult. (Isn't he
even buried in Westminster Abbey?) So the English claim him. D. H.
Lawrence, on the other hand, was born in England and moved to America. The
English claim him too. ;-)
--
Bill Baldwin (Remove NOSPAM from address to reply)
Truly Donovan
Frances Kemmish wrote:
> But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
> festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
Well, I did. My education was probably quite different from
that of today's average school child, but I learned quite a
bit of English history in school. Of course, much of the
American tradition in human rights, etc., is based in the
English experience, so English history is far more relevant
to us than our history would be to you.
Truly Donovan
Peter Moylan wrote:
> I was privileged(?) to participate in this ceremony, as an outsider,
> some years ago. It's very tightly scripted. First everyone has to
> eat some turkey, which tastes rather like an inferior brand of
> chicken. Then you move on to the pumpkin pie - very heavily
> spiced, to hide the taste, but the taste comes through anyway.
> Americans are used to this and can swallow it without gagging,
> but foreign guests are strongly advised to take their anti-nausea
> tablets before tackling this part. The important part is to
> pretend that you like it.
I wouldn't argue with you that turkey is inferior to chicken
in a general way. However, it is more often the case that
the cook isn't adequate to the task -- preparing a turkey to
its best advantage is not all that easy and most of the
advice from the majority of cookbooks will result in an
indifferent bird at best.
This is why yours truly is always responsible for the bird
in those years when we decide on a traditional dinner with a
crowd. Since I pretty much didn't like turkey at all, I had
to master the art of preparing one that *I* would find a
pleasant experience, so I did.
By the way, Julia Child's "Menu Cookbook" has a method of
doing a boned, butterflied, roast leg of lamb that will blow
your socks off. I had been getting close to that result in
my experiments, so it wasn't too big a leap for me, but the
results with her method are out of this world.
Lee Rudolph
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> writes:
>By the way, Julia Child's "Menu Cookbook" has a method of
>doing a boned, butterflied, roast leg of lamb that will blow
>your socks off.
My god. Don't let Brian hear about this.
Tonight, my (slightly postponed) Thanksgiving feast was a duck
roasted in a Catalan style according to a recipe from Penelope
Casas's "Delicioso!" (sic). Prunes and pine nuts in the sauce,
and the juice of two oranges poured over the bird at an advanced
stage in the roasting (after it's been roasted once to defat it
somewhat, quartered and partially deboned [and the bones tossed
into the stock that's going to be the base of the sauce], and
then popped into a *very* hot oven again for ten minutes just
before serving).
If my socks are still on, it must be owing to my garters. Or
something.
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
b...@wordwrights.ie (Brian J Goggin) writes:
>On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:32:57 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>'Course he never tasted my home-made pumpkin pie,made with fresh
>>organic pumpkin, certified cream and sour cream, and fresh eggs from
>>my late, lamented chickens.
>
>What is "certified cream"?
Have I never sung in this newsgroup the praises of the milk and
cream we used to buy from the gentleman farmer down the road?
The "skim milk" was as rich as what's sold for whole milk in
the A&P or the Stop-and-Shop; the whole milk was unseparated,
with the equivalent of supermarket "light cream" underneath
and supermarket "heavy cream" floating on top; and what Bud
sold as heavy cream wouldn't flow out of its container if you
turned it upside down with the top off.
None of this was pasteurized (and I assume that, even with the
obviously inordinately high butterfat content, none would have
been *quite* so good if it had been), but we felt safe in eating
it (safe, at least, from the undulant fever that still afflicts
my aged aunt going on 80 years after she contracted it, and from
other such infections, if not from heart attack) because Bud had
a "certified herd", and sold "certified milk" and "certified cream".
I actually don't know who does all this certification.
Lee Rudolph
Stan Brown
In article <347FD0E2...@lunemere.com>, tr...@lunemere.com (Truly
>It has nothing to do with leaving you on the other side of
>the Atlantic. That stupendous notion is celebrated on the
>Fourth of July.
-- which, for some reason, the Canadians celebrate three days early every
year.
<grin>
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
Frances Kemmish
Robert Lipton wrote:
> >
> >But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
> >festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
>
> After all, the world does not end at our borders.
>
> Apparently this is not the case in Britain. Small world, isn't it?
>
I have now had the opportunity to conduct my own survey of American
educated children, and find that my daughter (in seventh grade) has
heard of Guy Fawkes, because I told her about the bonfires and
fireworks, and the rhyme about the fifth of November. She doesn't know
who he was, or what he did.
My son (in tenth grade) also knows about Bonfire night, but thinks that
Guy Fawkes was a WWII spy.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
Bill Baldwin wrote:
>
> Jeff Pack wrote:
> >
> > >But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
> > >festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
> >
> > Don't remember if that was during British Lit. or American Lit.,
> though...
>
> That's where I learned about Guy Fawkes as well. It was English Lit. at my
> High School.
>
> T. S. Eliot was born in America but moved to England as an adult. (Isn't he
> even buried in Westminster Abbey?) So the English claim him. D. H.
> Lawrence, on the other hand, was born in England and moved to America. The
> English claim him too. ;-)
I read T.S. Eliot in English Lit class, too. We also read Steinbeck. I
don't think anyone was trying to claim Steinbeck as British.
I grew up about eight miles from Lawrence's birthplace, so I think I can
claim him as a compatriot.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
Polar wrote:
> As to Guy Fawkes, is his story as relatively important in English
> history as the landing of the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving are
> in American?
Maybe, maybe not. They both commemorate disasters that were averted: the
Pilgrims didn't all starve to death, and the Houses of Parliament
weren't blown up. We don't know what would have happened if the Pilgrims
had starved, or if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded. The world might
have been a totally different place, and then again, it might not. 'What
ifs' make bad history.
I chose Guy Fawkes as a comparison, because Bonfire Night is a day that
every English kid knows as well as an American would know Thanksgiving.
They may learn some of the background in school, and a little of the
context of the event, but everyone knows when it's happening.
My children, growing up in Connecticut, know much more about
Thanksgiving Day, than about Guy Fawkes. We can't celebrate Guy Fawkes
Day here, because bonfires are not permitted in our town, and we can't
buy fireworks. I do find it ironic, though, that almost the first
American expression that my son picked up, at the age of three, was
"Hey, you guys".
Of course, we do have a special meal on Thanksgiving Day: we have roast
beef and Yorkshire pudding. I believe that you have to grow up in the
USA to be able to eat squash, or pumpkin, or sweet potatoes.
Fran
Brian J Goggin
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:22:58 -0700, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
wrote:
>Josh Leighton wrote:
>>
>> Just out of interest, to whom and for what are you lot all giving thanks?
>> It seems to be an annual sort of affair - what's the date and why?
>>
>> (Snotty answers of the 'Leaving you on the other side of the Atlantic'
>> variety are fully anticipated, and therefore pre-emptively consigned to the
>> annals of the thoroughly tedious)
>
>It commemorates a harvest feast to celebrate the Pilgrims'
>surviving their first year in the New World. Tradition has
>it that friendly Indians (no one knew they were Native
>Americans back then) came as wanted guests.
One of the most interesting aspects of that celebration (at least
according to Bill Bryson in *Made in America*) is that the first two
friendly Indians the Mayflower Pilgrims met on the beach were both
English-speaking.
One, Samoset, spoke only a little, but the other, Squanto (Tisquantum)
spoke it fluently --- and spoke Spanish too.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:32:57 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
[...]
>'Course he never tasted my home-made pumpkin pie,made with fresh
>organic pumpkin, certified cream and sour cream, and fresh eggs from
>my late, lamented chickens.
What is "certified cream"?
bjg
Brian J Goggin
On 29 Nov 1997 13:58:19 GMT, "Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie>
wrote:
The Darwin Rock-Sitters' Club.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:36:26 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
[...]
>Also quite startled by a (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) query from Over
>There about whether we celebrated Christmas.
How does it sit with (a) what I understand to be your constitutional
ban on the official acknowledgement of any religion and (b) your wide
range of different religions?
I understand that the feast is observed, but to what extent is the
name "Christmas" used?
bjg
Brian J Goggin
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:57:39 -0700, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
wrote:
[...]
>By the way, Julia Child's "Menu Cookbook" has a method of
>doing a boned, butterflied, roast leg of lamb that will blow
>your socks off. I had been getting close to that result in
>my experiments, so it wasn't too big a leap for me, but the
>results with her method are out of this world.
Come on, out with it!
bjg
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Note Spam Trap below** On Sun, 30 Nov 1997
00:17:09 GMT, b...@wordwrights.ie (Brian J Goggin) in
<3493acc5....@news.indigo.ie> wrote
|I understand that the feast is observed, but to what extent is the
|name "Christmas" used?
The US version of Christmas is mostly secular, even pagan. It's
Frosty the Snowman, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, blinking
mini-lights, gargantuan outdoor displays, and an accusation that
you are an unfit parent unless you buy the latest overpriced
TV-driven toy for your kids.
I dislike Christmas, to the point that in years past I've chosen
to be elsewhere in the world where the intensity of the
Ho-Ho-Whoring is considerably less; Israel is a decent place to
be, down in Eilat.
--
Mark Odegard.
My real address doesn't include a Christian name.
Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Note Spam Trap below** On 29 Nov 1997
19:30:50 -0500, lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) in
<65qc3q$c...@panix.com> wrote
[...]
|Bud had
|a "certified herd", and sold "certified milk" and "certified cream".
|
|I actually don't know who does all this certification.
Probably the state. Lee is talking about "raw milk", i.e.,
unpasteurized milk. Such milk, when coming from what we might
today call a "boutique herd" is quite safe; the animals are all
quite healthy, their feed is clean and natural (and anyting but
scrapie-infected sheep parts), and their living conditions not
merely humane, but highly sanitary. The cows are kept very
clean, and their udders in particular are sterile when they are
milked. The dairy farmer will have a milking parlor with
concrete floors and a system of high-pressure hoses to keep the
whole place virtually sterile.
It's considerably cheaper to pasteurize your milk. Some states
don't allow raw milk to be sold.
Jeff Pack
On 29 Nov 1997 23:25:20 GMT, Bill Baldwin <NOSPAM...@gte.net> wrote:
>T. S. Eliot was born in America but moved to England as an adult. (Isn't he
>even buried in Westminster Abbey?) So the English claim him. D. H.
>Lawrence, on the other hand, was born in England and moved to America. The
>English claim him too. ;-)
Both sides claim him; Eliot has the distinction of being included in both
the Norton Anthology of English Literature and the Norton Anthology of
American Literature. I don't remember if the same poems are found in
both.
TsuiDF
Mark Odegard wrote:
<snip>
>
> It's considerably cheaper to pasteurize your milk. Some states
> don't allow raw milk to be sold.
I remember as a Russian Lit student visiting a Russian Orthodox
monastery somewhere in upstate New York which had some sort of special
exemption from the NY laws on pasteurisation and where I had my first
taste of milk fresh from the cow (saved time heating it up before
bedtime, I suppose!) -- I think the word 'certification' may indeed have
been bandied about and some state authority mentioned, but it was --
mumble, mumble -- decades ago and regulatory authorities were not the
focus of the day's conversation.
Stephanie M in HK where Russian monks aren't the focus of the day's
conversation either
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Note Spam Trap below** On Sat, 29 Nov 1997
22:57:02 -0500, Frances Kemmish <arc...@iconn.net> in
<3480E40E...@iconn.net> wrote
[usual discursion into food]
|Of course, we do have a special meal on Thanksgiving Day: we have roast
|beef and Yorkshire pudding. I believe that you have to grow up in the
|USA to be able to eat squash, or pumpkin, or sweet potatoes.
There are of course "ethnic foods" you grow up on in the UK. A
real Yorkshire pudding being among them (haggis here is a little
off topic).
Brits don't like squash? Waaaaa! Maybe it's knowing how to cook
it (slowish moist heat; lots of butter helps). This is the
winter squash season. Acorn squash as well as what I call
"Hubbard" is what comes to mind; these are sweet, moist, tasty,
far better than any potato.
Frances Kemmish
Mark Odegard wrote:
>
> [Posted, e-mailed] **Note Spam Trap below** On 29 Nov 1997
> 19:30:50 -0500, lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) in
> <65qc3q$c...@panix.com> wrote
>
> [...]
> |Bud had
> |a "certified herd", and sold "certified milk" and "certified cream".
> |
> |I actually don't know who does all this certification.
>
> Probably the state. Lee is talking about "raw milk", i.e.,
> unpasteurized milk. Such milk, when coming from what we might
> today call a "boutique herd" is quite safe; the animals are all
> quite healthy, their feed is clean and natural (and anyting but
> scrapie-infected sheep parts), and their living conditions not
> merely humane, but highly sanitary. The cows are kept very
> clean, and their udders in particular are sterile when they are
> milked. The dairy farmer will have a milking parlor with
> concrete floors and a system of high-pressure hoses to keep the
> whole place virtually sterile.
>
> don't allow raw milk to be sold.
I grew up drinking raw milk. It was described, on the bottle, as
'tuberculin tested and brucellosis-accredited'. (Brucellosis causes
spontaneous abortion in cows, and may be transmitted to humans in
untreated milk.) I don't think that raw milk can be sold in England any
longer. The farmer from whom we got our milk stopped selling directly in
about 1977, and sold to a dairy, which pasteurised the milk.
When I started school, and drank pasteurised milk for the first time, I
thought it had gone bad, because it tasted so different from the milk I
was used to.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
John Nurick
>Peter Moylan (pe...@AtHome.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:
>: Then you move on to the pumpkin pie - very heavily
>: spiced, to hide the taste, but the taste comes through anyway.
>: Americans are used to this and can swallow it without gagging,
>: but foreign guests are strongly advised to take their anti-nausea
>: tablets before tackling this part. The important part is to
>: pretend that you like it.
>Sounds like you need to hang out with better cooks!
Peter's description of pumpkin pie rings true to me. Possibly
it's one of those national delicacies that one needs to be born
to, like the Chiko roll.
John
I dislocated my e-mail address, and the doctor says it will be
six months before I can see a specialist.
Brian J Goggin
On 29 Nov 1997 19:17:50 -0500, lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) wrote:
[...]
>Tonight, my (slightly postponed) Thanksgiving feast was a duck
>roasted in a Catalan style [...]
Sounds delicioso.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:18:06 GMT, marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard)
wrote:
[...]
>Probably the state. Lee is talking about "raw milk", i.e.,
>unpasteurized milk. Such milk, when coming from what we might
>today call a "boutique herd" is quite safe; the animals are all
>quite healthy, their feed is clean and natural (and anyting but
>scrapie-infected sheep parts), and their living conditions not
>merely humane, but highly sanitary. The cows are kept very
>clean, and their udders in particular are sterile when they are
>milked. The dairy farmer will have a milking parlor with
>concrete floors and a system of high-pressure hoses to keep the
>whole place virtually sterile.
In these parts, some cheese-makers are finding it difficult to resist
the pressure tfrom The Powers That be to use pasteurised milk in their
cheeses. The makers of Cashel Blue, for instance, have just submitted
to the pressure.
Others hold out; long live free cheese!
bjg
Frances Kemmish
Mark Odegard wrote:
>
> Brits don't like squash? Waaaaa! Maybe it's knowing how to cook
> it (slowish moist heat; lots of butter helps).
No, it's the taste.
Fran
Lee Rudolph
Frances Kemmish <arc...@iconn.net> writes:
There is more commonality in the textures of the various (winter)
squashes than in their tastes; that you say "the" taste suggests
that you haven't sampled enough different kinds.
Here's Jane Grigson on pumpkin: "...[B]ad cooking can make it seem
wet and pointless as a form of nourishment; the careless cook
can quite destroy its fine, delicate flavour." And, again, on
vegetable marrows (summer squash which has overstayed its season):
"Some cookery writers define its flavour as `delicate'. This
carries politeness too far. The marrow swells and swell with
water, not goodness." By contrast with these two reprobates,
acorn, butternut, Hubbard, turban, delicata, and any number
of other light-yellow-to-deep-orange-fleshed true winter squashes
are never watery in texture (if anything, they tend to overdryness:
but therefore are admirable foils for rich sauces and gravies, or
just plain butter) and rarely "delicate" in flavo[u]r (with
different degrees of sweetness and appropriate bitterness).
ObAUE: English squash < Narragansett askutasquash. (The Narragansetts
lived not far from me, but before I got here.)
Lee Rudolph
Robert Lieblich
Tom wrote:
>
> Donna Richoux (tr...@euronet.nl) wrote:
> : Josh Leighton <jlei...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : > Just out of interest, to whom and for what are you lot all giving thanks?
> : > It seems to be an annual sort of affair - what's the date
>
> : believe the fourth Thursday of November except for some reason or other.
>
> Thirty days November hath
> Unfit for human living,
> Including one election day
> And a hide-and-seek Thanksgiving....
> --Ogden Nash
>
> (who, I believe, wrote this shortly after Congress had shifted
> the date from some Thursday to some other Thursday)
Time was that each state proclaimed its own Thanksgiving. By tradition,
Thanksgiving occurred on the fourth Thursday in November -- except in
those states where it occurred on the last Thursday in November. Two
years in seven, the fourth Thursday in November is not the last Thursday
in November. Obvious unfortunate consequences resulted. Congress
passed a law (around 1940 I think) intended to standardize Thanksgiving
on the *fourth* Thursday. It worked.
I said "intended" and "It worked" in the preceding paragraph because
such changes do not always work. A couple of decades ago, Congress got
the bright idea of moving Veterans Day (formerly Armistice Day) from
November 11 (the historically correct date) to the fourth Monday in
October. The states were not required to go along (they never are), and
many did not. Confusion once again. Congress eventually backed off,
and Veterans Day is once again November 11. Washington's Birthday,
however (now often called Presidents Day) is now, by federal law, the
third Monday of February -- which means it never falls on February 22,
the "actual" date ("actual" in quotes because of a calendar shift after
1732 -- but let's not get into that).
Bob Lieblich
Frances Kemmish
Lee Rudolph wrote:
>
> Frances Kemmish <arc...@iconn.net> writes:
>
> >Mark Odegard wrote:
> >>
> >> Brits don't like squash? Waaaaa! Maybe it's knowing how to cook
> >> it (slowish moist heat; lots of butter helps).
> >
> >No, it's the taste.
>
> There is more commonality in the textures of the various (winter)
> squashes than in their tastes; that you say "the" taste suggests
> that you haven't sampled enough different kinds.
>
I am not planning to buy, grow, or cook any more winter squash.
I once - as part of an art appreciation class for second-graders -
re-created a still life of vegetables. It was based on a painting by an
eighteenth century American painter whose name escapes me at the moment.
I bought a large number and variety of squash for this project. I took
them all home, and cooked samples of each. I didn't like any of them.
They all had some similarity of taste which I found unpalateable. I
cooked them all into a vegetable soup, with a lot of other vegetables,
and the soup was not too bad.
I have the same problem with black beans and Guinness. I know you'll say
that they don't taste the same, but whatever it is in the taste of black
beans that I don't like, I dislike also in Guinness.
I like summer squash - zucchini/courgettes, and the yellow ones that
look like courgettes(do they have a name?).
Fran
Padraig Breathnach
Bill Baldwin wrote:
>
> T. S. Eliot was born in America but moved to England as an adult. (Isn't
he
> even buried in Westminster Abbey?) So the English claim him. D. H.
> Lawrence, on the other hand, was born in England and moved to America.
The
> English claim him too. ;-)
Were I American, I would be happy to cede both claims.
PB
Truly Donovan
Frances Kemmish wrote:
> I like summer squash - zucchini/courgettes, and the yellow ones that
> look like courgettes(do they have a name?).
There are two yellow ones that look like courgettes -- the
crookneck has a fatter body and a skinnier neck, but there
is also the "golden zucchini" (quite rare, so far), which
looks just like a green one except that it is gold. Its
taste, however, is slightly sweeter. It makes an
astonishingly good ratatouille.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Truly Donovan
Okay, but this lamb is VERY RARE so if you don't like your
meat VERY RARE, don't try it.
Marinade: 3-4 Tb olive oil, 2 Tb soy sauce, juice of 1/2
lemon, 1/2 tsp or so rosemary, 1 or 2 cloves garlic, pureed.
(I just puree the whole thing, myself.)
Marinate for an hour. Place roast on rack in roasting pan,
boned side up, place in oven preheated to 375F/190C degrees
and roast for 20 to 25 minutes (or a meat thermometer
reading of 120F/49C).
Then baste with oil and set for 2 to 3 minutes under a
preheated broiler to brown lightly. Let sit for 8 to 10
minutes before carving.
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <347e647d...@news2.means.net>, NOTE THE ANTI-SPAM TRAP wrote:
> <start quote>
> The term which has been introduced to handle all these cases is
> _lexeme_ (or _lexical item_). A lexeme is a unit of lexical
> meaning, which exists regardless of any inflectional endings it
> may have or the number of words it may contain. Thus,
> _fibrillate, rain cats and dogs,_ and _come on_ are all lexemes,
> as are _elephant, jog, cholesterol, happiness, put up with, face
> the music,_ and hundreds of thousands of other meaningful items
> in English. The headwords in a dictionary are all lexemes [...]
> <end quote>
I assume you surround a word or phrase with underscores to indicate that it
is italicized in the material you're quoting from. I'd like to suggest,
however, that the way you've placed them could be misleading. For instance,
you quote:
> _fibrillate, rain cats and dogs,_ and _come on_ are all lexemes,
> as are _elephant, jog, cholesterol, happiness, put up with, face
> the music,_ and hundreds of thousands of other meaningful items
. I would have transcribed that same block of text thus:
"_fibrillate_, _rain cats and dogs_, and _come on_ are all lexemes, as are
_elephant_, _jog_, _cholesterol_, _happiness_, _put up with_, _face the
music_, and hundreds of thousands of other meaningful items"
. The meaning of the italics here is of course their traditional role of
"words-as-words" (or here "lexemes-as-lexemes"). By surrounding
"_fibrillate, rain cats and dogs_" with a single pair of underscores, you
are italicizing them as a unit and identifying them as a single lexeme.
(Although admittedly probably no one would assume that that was what you
meant, upon my first reading of that sentence I did have to go back and
think for a second.) While with actual italics it's impossible to tell what
is "italicized as a unit", the underscores-as-italics convention really is
more analogous to quotation marks. If you were using quotes to indicate
words-as-words (not a farfetched hypothesis), you would certainly not have
written:
"fibrillate, rain cats and dogs," and "come on" are all lexemes
. Rather you would have written:
"fibrillate", "rain cats and dogs", and "come on" are all lexemes
. It may be a bit longer, but it certainly less confusing to adopt the same
convention with underscore marks used to represent italics.
(Looking over this, I see that someone could begin making arguments about
whether the commas should go inside or outside the quotes and underscores.
It's not really relevant, but go ahead if you feel like it.)
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Aaron J. Dinkin
> I said "intended" and "It worked" in the preceding paragraph because
> such changes do not always work. A couple of decades ago, Congress got
> the bright idea of moving Veterans Day (formerly Armistice Day) from
> November 11 (the historically correct date) to the fourth Monday in
> October. The states were not required to go along (they never are), and
> many did not. Confusion once again. Congress eventually backed off,
> and Veterans Day is once again November 11. Washington's Birthday,
> however (now often called Presidents Day) is now, by federal law, the
> third Monday of February -- which means it never falls on February 22,
> the "actual" date ("actual" in quotes because of a calendar shift after
> 1732 -- but let's not get into that).
It never falls on February 12th, which is Lincoln's birthday, either.
That's because Presidents' Day is really - I guess - supposed to be a sort
of average of Washington and Lincoln, with more weight given to Lincoln.
Peter Moylan
Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>Peter Moylan wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> (OK, for the humour-impaired I'd better explain that the above
>> would be accompanied by a smiley if posted in a less
>> civilised newsgroup. Yes, I do understand that some Australian
>> rites would look just as strange to outsiders.)
>>
>Such as cricket, rugby league, footie -- what else? Please enlighten us.
Now that you ask, I suddenly realise that this is an extraordinarily
difficult question to answer. The trouble is that I see my culture
from the inside. The things that would look strange to you are
probably things that I find perfectly normal.
In any case, Padraig is the wrong person to be asking this.
Australian culture owes an enormous amount to Irish influence.
A few years ago, while visiting Italy, I met an Irishman with
whom I shared a surname. It's not a common name, so that was
excuse enough to share a few beers and compare notes. One thing
I remember from that conversation was his comment "Australia sounds
just like Ireland!" That was, I think, after I'd mentioned that
Australia's two best-known national heroes were a bushranger and
a horse.
In another thread, some of our friends are discussing Guy Fawkes.
I gather that the English celebrate the fact that he failed to
blow up the houses of parliament. Here, we celebrate the fact
that he nearly succeeded.
If I had to nominate just one strange Australian ritual, I think it
would be the way we celebrate Easter. The general perception is that
Easter is the last long weekend of the summer, and therefore a
suitable time for a holiday. Nobody is willing to admit that summer
is over by then.
It works like this.
On the first day, everyone gets up early to beat the traffic.
Just before leaving home, you discover that it's absolutely vital
to get at something that's been packed underneath everything else;
so the car has to be unpacked and re-packed, sometimes several times.
The light holiday conversation somehow mutates into discussions of
divorce.
Then it's on to the road, to join a traffic jam a couple of
thousand kilometres long. This is the boring part. A lot of the
trip is done at walking speed. On the rare occasions that you find
a clear stretch of road, the children suddenly discover that their
bladders are bursting. The driver advises them to wet their pants.
By the time you arrive at your destination, night has fallen.
This is the point at which you discover that somebody forgot to
pack a torch. Without the torch, there's no way of knowing whether
you dropped the tent-pegs on the ground or left them at home.
The darkness also hides the fact that you've erected the tent
on an ant-hill.
Around midnight the tent is finally up, and it's time to count
the children. You then spend the next hour or so searching for
the child who's wandered off into the bush and lost its way.
The next morning, the rain starts. You spend the next couple
of days huddled in the tent listening to the rain. The
monotony is broken only by occasional forays out searching
for not-too-damp firewood.
Eventually you decide to leave half a day early and avoid the
traffic jam. So does everyone else in the country.
If all the cars in Australia were laid end to end, it
would be Easter.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://www.ee.newcastle.edu.au/users/staff/peter/Moylan.html
H Gilmer
Peter Moylan (pe...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:
: If I had to nominate just one strange Australian ritual, I think it
: would be the way we celebrate Easter. The general perception is that
: Easter is the last long weekend of the summer, and therefore a
: suitable time for a holiday. Nobody is willing to admit that summer
: is over by then.
: It works like this.
: On the first day, everyone gets up early to beat the traffic.
: Just before leaving home, you discover that it's absolutely vital
: to get at something that's been packed underneath everything else;
: so the car has to be unpacked and re-packed, sometimes several times.
: The light holiday conversation somehow mutates into discussions of
: divorce.
snip remainder of description of charming family holiday, ending with:
: If all the cars in Australia were laid end to end, it
: would be Easter.
In the U.S. we call this holiday "Labor Day".
Hg
Magda
gil...@uts.cc.utexas.edu (H Gilmer) wrote:
>Peter Moylan (pe...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:
>: It works like this.
>Hg
In France it's "Summer Holidays" - two whole months of it ! ROTFL
Magda
Brian J Goggin
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:32:16 -0500, Frances Kemmish
<arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
[...]
>I have the same problem with black beans and Guinness. I know you'll say
>that they don't taste the same, but whatever it is in the taste of black
>beans that I don't like, I dislike also in Guinness.
Foreign Guinness or Dublin Guinness?
bjg
PS they may have changed the name of the company, but they'd never
change the name of the drink, would they?
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:38:37 -0800 during the alt.usage.english
Community News Flash, njk...@mindspringerspaniel.com (Mimi Kahn)
reported:
>On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:48:06 -0500, Frances Kemmish
><arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
>
>>But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
>>festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
Please, I've always been curious about that one. Wish to enlighten
us? I understand it includes some effigy burning and firecrackers.
What on earth did that poor Guy do to deserve it?
>American history
>didn't start with Columbus.
Correct. That would be Cuban history, correct?
The Chocolate Lady
Davida Chazan <davida at jdc dot org dot il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
De chocolatei non est disputandum! Ergo, carpe chocolatum!
~*~*~*~*~*~
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:08:46 GMT during the alt.usage.english
Community News Flash, marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) reported:
>I dislike Christmas, to the point that in years past I've chosen
>to be elsewhere in the world where the intensity of the
>Ho-Ho-Whoring is considerably less;
Certainly I don't miss it.
>Israel is a decent place to
>be, down in Eilat.
Well, thank you and you're welcome! Want me to see if I can get a
discount for you at a nice hotel? When will you be arriving?
Hanukkah is also nicer here, BTW. Less commercial, but just as
fattening.
(Looking forward.)
Brian J Goggin
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:24:07 -0800, njk...@mindspringerspaniel.com
(Mimi Kahn) wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:47:12 -0700, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
>wrote:
>>Okay, but this lamb is VERY RARE so if you don't like your
>>meat VERY RARE, don't try it.
[...]
>Sounds *gorgeous*. I'll let you know for sure after I do it.
>
Moi aussi.
I covered yesterday's lamb with natural yoghurt and pesto. I have a
yoghurt-based marinade recipe somewhere ....
bjg
Frances Kemmish
Brian J Goggin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:32:16 -0500, Frances Kemmish
> <arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >I have the same problem with black beans and Guinness. I know you'll say
> >that they don't taste the same, but whatever it is in the taste of black
> >beans that I don't like, I dislike also in Guinness.
>
> Foreign Guinness or Dublin Guinness?
>
Guinness sold in Connecticut. Unfortunatley, I have never been to
Dublin.
What I tasted was bottled; there is now something sold in a can, with
the Guinness name. The can contains some kind of device to supply the
bubbles, I believe. I haven't tried it.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:48:06 -0500, Frances Kemmish
> ><arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
> >
> >>But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
> >>festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
>
> Please, I've always been curious about that one. Wish to enlighten
> us? I understand it includes some effigy burning and firecrackers.
> What on earth did that poor Guy do to deserve it?
>
Well, he got caught. Specifically, he got caught trying to set of some
gunpowder, in order to blow up the Houses of Parliament, while King
James I of England and VI of Scotland (this is one person), was opening
the new session. There was a much larger group who had planned the whole
thing - known as the Gunpowder Plot. One of the other conspirators was
called Catesby, I think. I can't remember too many other details.
We used to collect wood for a bonfire for weeks ahead of November 5th.
Our bonfire was built on wasteland near our house, and we got together
with all the families in the neighbourhood to build the fire, and buy
fireworks. There was always treacle toffee, which we called Bonfire
toffee, sausages, and potatoes baked in the fire. Some people also
served toffee apples (candy apples).
We had a 'guy' which was someone's old clothes, stuffed with straw,
which we burned on the bonfire. I assume that' what happened to Guy
Fawkes, but we never thought about that part too much. [In Lewes, in
Sussex, apparently, they burn an effigy of the Pope.]
Some kids carried their 'guy' from house to house, asking for 'a penny
for the guy'. We weren't allowed to do that. My mother thought it a
shameful act of begging.
We sang a little rhyme, while we waved sparklers around:
'Remember, remember, the Fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder treason
Ever should be forgot.'
Fran
Dennis Johnstone
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was a Jacobean conspiracy aimed at overthrowing
the Protestant monarchy then in power in England. The conspiracy's
foundations were laid when Henry VIII broke with the Vatican over the divorce
of Catherine of Aragon.
The persecution of Catholics began under Henry and continued throughout the
reign of Edward VI. When Mary took the throne, the position was reversed and
the Protestants were persecuted. She was succeeded by Elizabeth I, who revied
the prosecution of Catholics, imposed fines upon them for not attending
Protestant church services and had Jesuit priests put to death.
James I and VI (so-called because he was combined the thrones of England and
Scotland) initially relaxed the persecution of Catholics but in 1604 restored
the Recussancy Acts and expelled the Catholic priests. Pope Clement VIII
officially requested that English Catholics refrain from rebellion but Robert
Catesby, the leader of the plotters, later claimed that they acted with the
authority of the Pope.
In May 1604 the plotters took a solemn oath to overthrow the English
government, but their hopes of outside aid were dashed when Spain signed a
peace treaty with England in August. They dug a tunnel under Parliament but
ran into a cellar, which Thomas Percy then rented - but then the plotters'
money ran out and Guy Fawkes was sent to the Netherlands to seek assistance.
In the meantime, James I had postponed Parliament until November 5 and
Catesby had consulted Father Henry Garnett, Superior of the Jesuits in
England. Unfortunately for Catesby and his co-conspirators, Father Garnett
didn't believe treason would benefit English Cathlocs and passed much of the
information he was given on to the Pope, who ordered him to stop the plot.
On October 26, an anonymous writer informed Lord Mounteagle of the plot but
it is likely that the Government knew some of the details already through its
spies. The Government decided to keep a watch on the plotters while the King
ordered a search of Parliament for November 4.
A justice of the peace and his men found Guy Fawkes in the cellar beneath
Parliament around midnight on November 4, and a search uncovered the
gunpowder beanth a pile of coal and wood.
Most of other conspirators intially escaped but were soon cornered at
Holbeach House where, while attempting to dry their powder they were blown up
and three of their number injured, including Catesby. The house was then
stormed by the High Sheriff of Worcerstershire, with Catesby, Percy, two
Wrights and Rookwood being killed. All but eight of the surviving
conspirators, including those not captured at Holbeach House, were arrested,
convicted of treason and hung, drawn and quartered.
You can find the complete transcipt of the trial at
http://www.armitstead.com/gunpowder/gunpowder_trial.html.
And no, I'm not a Brit!
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan) wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:38:37 -0800 during the alt.usage.english
> Community News Flash, njk...@mindspringerspaniel.com (Mimi Kahn)
> reported:
>
> >On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:48:06 -0500, Frances Kemmish
> ><arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
> >
> >>But why would English children be expected to learn much about American
> >>festivals? Do American children learn about Guy Fawkes?
>
> Please, I've always been curious about that one. Wish to enlighten
> us? I understand it includes some effigy burning and firecrackers.
> What on earth did that poor Guy do to deserve it?
>
> snip
--
-------------------------------------
Dennis Johnstone
Website editor
BBC 5 Live
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio5
email: 5l...@bbc.co.uk
-------------------------------------
Cissy . Thorpe
> >Peter Moylan (pe...@AtHome.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:
> >: Then you move on to the pumpkin pie - very heavily
> >: spiced, to hide the taste, but the taste comes through anyway.
> >: Americans are used to this and can swallow it without gagging,
> >: but foreign guests are strongly advised to take their anti-nausea
> >: tablets before tackling this part. The important part is to
> >: pretend that you like it.
On 29 Nov 1997 11:51:43 GMT, gil...@uts.cc.utexas.edu (H Gilmer) wrote:
> >Sounds like you need to hang out with better cooks!
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, John Nurick wrote:
> Peter's description of pumpkin pie rings true to me. Possibly
> it's one of those national delicacies that one needs to be born
> to, like the Chiko roll.
>
> John
>
I HATED pumpkin pie when I was a kid. Then MY kid made a pumpkin
cheesecake that was out of this world (to quote my mother "you could
poison me with that stuff". I will agree that an overspiced pumpkin
anything is nasty...especially pumpkin soup - cold and overspiced - YECH!
Cissy
Tim Fulmer
Frances Kemmish wrote:
>
> Brian J Goggin wrote:
> >
> > <arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >I have the same problem with black beans and Guinness. I know you'll say
> > >that they don't taste the same, but whatever it is in the taste of black
> > >beans that I don't like, I dislike also in Guinness.
> >
> > Foreign Guinness or Dublin Guinness?
> >
>
> Guinness sold in Connecticut. Unfortunatley, I have never been to
> Dublin.
>
> What I tasted was bottled; there is now something sold in a can, with
> the Guinness name. The can contains some kind of device to supply the
> bubbles, I believe. I haven't tried it.
>
Carbonated with nitrogen no less, to give the libation its characterstic
head. That's the reason for the inclusion of the device in the can.
But it tastes pretty much like Guinness always tastes--in the US, that
is.
I always wondered why the Guinness brewery carbonates with nitrogen
rather than carbon dioxide. Perhaps the process should be called
nitrogenation rather than carbonation.
Tim Fulmer
Evan Kirshenbaum
marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) writes:
> The US version of Christmas is mostly secular, even pagan. It's
> Frosty the Snowman, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, blinking
> mini-lights, gargantuan outdoor displays, and an accusation that
> you are an unfit parent unless you buy the latest overpriced
> TV-driven toy for your kids.
As a non-Christian it has always amused me to see Christians deriding
the celebration of the holiday as "secular, even pagan", when what I
tend to notice is being bombarded by religious songs, angels, nativity
scenes, etc. As to the rest, well, I grew up being told that "Santa,
Rudolph, Christmas trees, etc., aren't really part of the true
holiday", but from the outside it sure seems like it. It's all
trappings that Christians put around their holiday, just as dreidls
are part of Chanukah, despite having nothing to do with the original
holiday. Maybe the best interpretation is that Christians have two
holidays that happen to fall on the same day and are called the same
thing.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |questions that can harmlessly be
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer
|until the Messiah comes. I suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them.
(650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Note Spam Trap below** On 01 Dec 1997
10:22:30 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> in
<v9hoh30...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote
|marko...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) writes:
|> The US version of Christmas is mostly secular, even pagan. It's
|> Frosty the Snowman, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, blinking
|> mini-lights, gargantuan outdoor displays, and an accusation that
|> you are an unfit parent unless you buy the latest overpriced
|> TV-driven toy for your kids.
|
|As a non-Christian it has always amused me to see Christians deriding
|the celebration of the holiday as "secular, even pagan", when what I
|tend to notice is being bombarded by religious songs, angels, nativity
|scenes, etc.
All those angels, nativity scenes, and "religious" songs are
mostly incidental to the Feast of the Nativity. People who've
never seen the inside of a church except for a wedding (if that)
will have "little Lord Jesus" playing in an eternal loop and
tend to be the worst offenders when it comes to putting out a
carload of seasonal tschotkes.
|As to the rest, well, I grew up being told that "Santa,
|Rudolph, Christmas trees, etc., aren't really part of the true
|holiday", but from the outside it sure seems like it.
It's interesting how all the stuff has gotten itself glued
together. The St. Nick of Clement Moore has become the Santa of
Coke ads, while Gene Autry's Rudolph has increased the canonical
number of reindeer to nine. If you stand back and observe the
whole thing as an example of how "popular religion" evolves, you
get an insight into what genuine paganism is. People who
seriously object to Santas and reindeer on their neighbor's
rooftops, or displays of lights that are probably visible from
the moon, are regarded as anti-social heretics (I'm serious!
Look at the flack people who object to seeing public money spent
on seasonal displays get!).
|It's all
|trappings that Christians put around their holiday, just as dreidls
|are part of Chanukah, despite having nothing to do with the original
|holiday. Maybe the best interpretation is that Christians have two
|holidays that happen to fall on the same day and are called the same
|thing.
There is an analogy, but the Christian Christmas (the paganized
version) is now celebrated in decidedly non-Christian places
(e.g., Japan). Much of christmas (the lower case version) has
taken on a life completely divorced from its original roots.
And any suggestion that a serious retreat away from Christmas'
commercialization will be firmly resisted by retailers, be they
Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Shinto, or whatever. It was
George S. Kaufman, I believe, who said " 'Tis the holy
merchandising season".
--
Mark Odegard.
My real address doesn't include a Christian name.
Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
Pierre Jelenc
Tim Fulmer <ful...@bioc.rice.edu> writes:
>
> Carbonated with nitrogen no less, to give the libation its characterstic
> head. That's the reason for the inclusion of the device in the can.
> But it tastes pretty much like Guinness always tastes--in the US, that
> is.
Canned Guinness is identical to the Irish product. It *is* the Irish
draught product. Other versions such as the (bottled) Export may be brewed
in various places around the world.
> I always wondered why the Guinness brewery carbonates with nitrogen
> rather than carbon dioxide. Perhaps the process should be called
> nitrogenation rather than carbonation.
They do not "carbonate" with nitrogen, that would be impossible. Because
Guinness is carbonated, with CO2, at a fairly low level, the pressure
caused by the CO2 is quite modest. The foaming device requires a very high
pressure, and that is the reason for the additional pressurization
provided by the nitrogen, which does *not* dissolve in the beer; its
purpose is just to push a couple of milliliters into the gizmo. When the
can is opened, the pressure is relieved and those few milliliters flow
back out of the gizmo at high velocity through a pinhole, causing the
tight creamy head characteristic of the process.
ObAUE-1: The process of causing beer to foam with a thin high-velocity
stream is called "fobbing". It is used on bottling lines just before
capping to eliminate the air from the dead space.
ObAUE-2: Why a *can* of Guinness but a *tin* of peas? Canned beer was a
British invention.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
New York City | Home Office
Beer Guide | Records
http://www.nycbeer.org/ | http://www.web-ho.com/
Geoff Butler
Peter Moylan <pe...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au> writes:
>In another thread, some of our friends are discussing Guy Fawkes.
>I gather that the English celebrate the fact that he failed to
>blow up the houses of parliament. Here, we celebrate the fact
>that he nearly succeeded.
Nah, we celebrate the attempt, and the whole celebration is a secret way
to select the members of the next band of volunteers.
At least, we used to. These days, the Fifth of November is Maxwell
Night, and we celebrate the fact that he did succeed.
-ler
John Davies
In article <3482E1...@bioc.rice.edu>, Tim Fulmer
<ful...@bioc.rice.edu> writes
>Frances Kemmish wrote:
>>
>>
>> What I tasted was bottled; there is now something sold in a can, with
>> the Guinness name. The can contains some kind of device to supply the
>> bubbles, I believe. I haven't tried it.
>>
>
>
>head. That's the reason for the inclusion of the device in the can.
>But it tastes pretty much like Guinness always tastes--in the US, that
>is.
The device is called a "widget". A unique example, so far as I know,
of a highly specific meaning being assigned to a nonce-word some
considerable time after the word was first coined. "Widgets" were
imaginary devices cited by accountancy, IT, and management trainers in
any exercise involving the products of a fictional manufacturer. (The
name is most probably based on "gadget", but nobody seems to know for
sure). Years later, someone invents a device to give canned beer and
stout an artificial head, and a marketing department hijacks the word
for its own purposes.
I have a dim recollection that it wasn't actually Guinness who first put
widgets in cans, but I can't now recall who it was. Boddingtons,
perhaps?
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
John Nurick
On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 22:51:38 GMT,
Jitze.C...@cdc.spam.filter.com (Jitze Couperus) wrote:
>As to who invented same - if I remember correctly, the international
>patents were held by Oranjeboom - at least according to the fine print
>at the bottom of the tins I grew up with. This was just above the
>jingle "Amstel beer - always make you happy - never too tight!"
>which says a lot about how attitudes have changed in the interval.
Ah, happy days! Long sleeves, mosquito boots, insect repellent,
and tins of lukewarm Amstel round the campfire.
John
I dislocated my e-mail address, and the doctor says it will be
six months before I can see a specialist.
Ben Walsh
Tim Fulmer wrote:
> I always wondered why the Guinness brewery carbonates with nitrogen
> rather than carbon dioxide. Perhaps the process should be called
> nitrogenation rather than carbonation.
>
> Tim Fulmer
It uses both; and it is called nitrogenation or "nitro-kegging".
Nitrogen is responsible for the small bubbles which cause the creamy
head (and also remove much of the flavour).
ben
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you name me a street | ben walsh
Then I'll name you a bar | benw at iona dot com
And I'll walk right through Hell | http://bounce.to/heretic
Just to buy you a jar" -- shane |
L.I. Endell
@news2.means.net> <65jkq2$g...@panix.com>
<347ddf22...@news.mindspring.com>
<01bcfc42$607bd2e0$0c0150c3@default>
<65ot15$5fl$2...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> <01bcfccf$072c39e0$142c...@padraigb.iol.ie> <slrn6847m...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au> <65tluu:
$1vr$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
Distribution:
H Gilmer (gil...@uts.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
: Peter Moylan (pe...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:
: : If all the cars in Australia were laid end to end, it
: : would be Easter.
: In the U.S. we call this holiday "Labor Day".
And in the UK it's *any* Bank Holiday weekend. And even if it's been
really nice for *weeks* before, it will rain on at least one of the three
days of the long weekend...
Linz
--
Lindsay Endell li...@cam.ac.uk & li...@earthling.net
Conference Administrator, Trinity Hall, Cambridge CB2 1TJ
Pierre Jelenc
Jitze Couperus <Jitze.C...@cdc.spam.filter.com> writes:
>
> As to who invented same - if I remember correctly, the international
> patents were held by Oranjeboom - at least according to the fine print
> at the bottom of the tins I grew up with. This was just above the
> jingle "Amstel beer - always make you happy - never too tight!"
> which says a lot about how attitudes have changed in the interval.
The original beer can was developped by Brains (Cardiff) in the 30's. IIRC
it was on behalf of the British Army.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Sarpedon <axemu...@geocities.com> writes:
> In article <65iie5$1el$1...@aziraphale.pet.cam.ac.uk>,
> mba...@iee.org (Mark Baker) wrote:
> >
> > In article <19971126015...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > rremi...@aol.com (RReming327) writes:
> >
> > >>Ebonic speech patterns? Howabout wasp speech patterns? This is
> > >>not Black English Vernacular. This is not White Anglo-Saxon
> > >>Protestant English vernacular. It's colloquial American English
> > >>vernacular.
> > >
> > > Well, you just gotta trust me, Mark. Black dialect does have
> > > some unique characteristics within the American colloquial set.
> >
> > I don't think Mark was disagreeing with you about that. He was
> > saying that the particular example you cited is common in other
> > dialects too.
>
> Dat Andy dere gots a quarda he be owin' me...
> Gotta gets me dat dere quarda.
The only part of that example that I'd consider relatively unique to
BEV is the "he be owin' me", and I'm not sure that that's grammatical
BEV in any case. I haven't studied this in a while, but I thought
that "be" constructions were only used for habituals. So the above
sentence would be taken to mean that Andy regularly owes me the same
quarter, which is a pretty strange concept. I suppose that it could
mean that he's owed me a quarter for quite some time, but I'd want to
get a native-speaker's intuition on it. I'd be more likely to buy "he
owin' me", or even more likely "he owe me", but then we're starting to
slip into features that BEV shares with other dialects.
A good introduction to the features of BEV can be found in the _Oxford
Companion to the English Language_ ("Black English Vernacular",
p. 133-135). A more in-depth treatment can be found in Smitherman's
_Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America_, although I
found her habit of slipping the authorial voice from "standard"
written English to BEV and back jarring.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Society in every state is a blessing,
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |but government, even in its best
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |state is but a necessary evil; in its
|worst state, an intolerable one.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Thomas Paine
(650)857-7572
Arye
Evan Kirshenbaum <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> dreidls
> are part of Chanukah, despite having nothing to do with the original
> holiday.
Dreidls are both an artifact of the events of Chanukah, and, in their
humble way, actually incorporate the theme of the holiday, Jewish
religous and cultural survival, very poignantly. The Seleucids of the
events commemorated by Chanukah had made the teaching of Torah a capital
offense. The education of children proceeded clandestinely, but, as even
gathering for the sake of the study of Torah was a crime, the simple
game of dreidl could serve as an alibi for the presence of a few
children and a sitter, should the authorities arrive.
--
Remove the 'spam_dongle.' from my address when replying.