'City' and 'Town' - Difference?
Peter Cooper
and a town.
A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings). For example, there is a
city in Wales called St. Davids which has a population of under 10,000. It's
called a city because it has a cathedral.
I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and is
not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
Interestingly, my nearby town, Croydon, is battling with another nearby town,
Brighton, to become a city. How can a town 'become' a city in the UK with the
above definition of a city? They can't just build a cathedral overnight. So,
is the UK definition of 'city' also changing away from its original meaning?
Pete
Fabian
"Peter Cooper" <pe...@thedaytoday.com> wrote in message
news:8m2077$eo4$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a
city
> and a town.
>
> A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings). For example, there is
One definition of a city ios a commnity with a cathedral.
The present British definition of a city is a community that has been so
designated by The Royals(tm).
I have no idea what teh USA definition is.
--
--
Fabian
Find your enemy's weakest point, and destroy it.
But remember who your own worst enemy is.
John Steele Gordon
> I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a city
> and a town.
>
> A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> city in Wales called St. Davids which has a population of under 10,000. It's
> called a city because it has a cathedral.
>
> I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and is
> not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
In the U.S., what legally makes cities and towns is determined by state
constitutions, not the federal one, so it varies widely. In New York,
where I live, and which has the most complicated, convoluted,
inefficient, backward, and politics-ridden government structure on the
face of the earth, there are Class A cities (New York City is the only
one), Class B cities (a dozen or so), towns, and villages. Then, of
course, there are also counties. (The boroughs of New York City are also
counties of New York State--only with different names, except for
Queens, just to make sure everyone is hopelessly confused). So I am
subject to, besides Congress, the State Legislature, the County
Legislature, and the Town Board, all happily passing laws, hiring
bureaucrats, and working at cross purposes. If I lived in a village, I
would have a village board to contend with as well.
It is curious that one of the meanings of the word "town" is the central
city of the area. When one of my neighbors tells me he is "going to
town," he means he's going to New York City, fifty miles away.
JSG
Robert M. Wilson
"Peter Cooper" <pe...@thedaytoday.com> wrote in message
news:8m2077$eo4$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
city
> and a town.
>
> A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings).
While understand that you are correct that it used to be necessary in UK to
have a cathedral (and bishop) before the place coud be called a 'city', I
don't think that was carried to all other parts of the English-speaking
world, though some colonies did follow it.
FWIW, in this part of the world (British Columbia), there are some legal
distinctions between 'village', 'town' and 'city' such as the amount of
borrowing power the local council has. Some towns are, in fact, bigger than
some cities as a result of e.g. population changes. The provincial
government has the right to designate and usually a population of 3,000 is
necessary for a village to become a town. The importance as an
administrative and service centre (e.g. major hospital) now seems to be the
criterion for 'city' designation.
The terms 'village' and 'town' are used rather loosely, often being applied
to residential areas that are not legally such. I haven't heard 'city'
applied in a similar loose manner.
Robert Lieblich
>
> So Peter Cooper was all like:
> > I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a city
> > and a town.
>
> > A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> > city in Wales called St. Davids which has a population of under 10,000. It's
> > called a city because it has a cathedral.
>
> > I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and is
> > not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
>
> In Massachusetts this means that the cities are governed by a mayor and/or city
> manager and a city council, and the towns are governed by a board of selectmen
> and a town meeting (where all registered voters of the town can vote directly
> on the town's affairs). Also, again under the Massachusetts definition, a town
> is required to have at least 15,000 people before it can incorporate as a city,
> but some areas of more than 15,000 people choose to remain towns. (The
> residents of Framingham, for example, vote down initiatives to become a city
> every few years, and so, at well over 60,000 people, it is the largest town in
> New England.)
In Virginia, uniquely among all states, no city is part of a county, and
vice versa. Alexandria, Richmond, Norfolk, and many smaller cities are
all independent of the counties they adjoin. This can lead to some
strange situations. For example, there is a City of Fairfax that is
completely surrounded by the County of Fairfax, which is many times
larger (soon to reach a population of one million), and many of the
administrative buildings of Fairfax County, including the original
county courthouse, are located within Fairfax City -- which, to repeat,
is not within the County; it "seceded" decades ago by becoming a city.
I believe Fairfax County pays the city a fee in lieu of real estate
taxes, and the city allows the county to exercise some rights of
sovereignty (such as policing) over the county-owned property within the
city.
Cities can annex adjoining parts of counties, although this is much
harder than it used to be. Most of the City of Alexandria is the
product of two large annexations: first a big chunk of southern
Arlington County (which, although as urban as most cities, is a county
and treated as such) and, in 1950, much of south central Fairfax County.
Again, anything annexed by a city is removed from the county.
The Postal Service has redoubled the confusion by using the names of
cities to designate not only the actual city area but also much of what
surrounds it. There are probably more postal customers from Fairfax
County whom the USPS locates in Alexandria than there are customers
within the actual City of Alexandria. I was one Fairfax County
Alexandrian for many years, and I had one hell of a time explaining to
people that I didn't live in Alexandria, but in Fairfax County. Oh, I
see, people would say, you're in the City of Alexandria in the County of
Fairfax. Impossible, I'd reply. And around we'd go.
Only in Virginia is every city independent of every county. (There are
towns as well, and they have some limited self-government, but towns ARE
within counties.) Thank goodness.
Richard Fontana
> > I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a
> city
> > and a town.
> >
> > A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> > conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings). For example, there is
>
> One definition of a city ios a commnity with a cathedral.
>
> The present British definition of a city is a community that has been so
> designated by The Royals(tm).
>
> I have no idea what teh USA definition is.
Several American posters have observed, correctly, that state governments
decide how to define "city", "town", "township", etc., but this is
relevant mainly for official usages. There are common understandings of
these terms that exist apart from any applicable governmental definition.
I don't have to know anything about Texas law to feel comfortable in
describing Dallas as a "city". I know of some small cities (in the
official sense) that I'd describe as towns (in the common-speech sense).
RF
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and is
> not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
John Steele Gordon's response addresses the important issues --
particularly that state constitutions determine the municipality
definitions. In Vermont, we have cities, towns, villages, odd
incorporations like gores, and miscellaneous names like boros,
junctions, falls, etc.
In general, the cities are larger (although our capital city of
Montpelier has a population of a mere 8,400) and are run by a
mayor-council form of government.
The towns (often called 'townships' in other states) also contain
villages (usually of the same name). Towns and villages have separate
governments, a holdover from the time when village and agricultural
interests were distinctly different.
Towns and villages hold annual public meetings in March (on Town Meeting
Day), during which the year's business is conducted, school and town
officers elected and budgets argued and often approved, town roads
maintained or "thrown up" (yup, that means letting go back into private
hands), and formal participation in projects from volunteer fire
departments and libraries decided. Monthly decisions in keeping with the
public's votes on Town Meeting Day are carried out by the volunteer
Select Board and School Board.
(ObAUE) Many towns continue the tradition of town meeting but have moved
the actual elections to "Australian ballot", which is what a secret
ballot is called here.
Dennis
--
Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
MaltedMedia Productions: http://maltedmedia.com/
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: http://kalvos.org/
The Transitive Empire: http://maltedmedia.com/empire/
OrbitAccess Accessibility: http://orbitaccess.com/
Downloadable Scores: http://maltedmedia.com/scores/
Lullaby for Bill Gates: http://www.mp3.com/bathory/
ICQ: 10526261 / AIM: DBathory
Alex Chernavsky
>In New York ... there are Class A cities ..., Class B
>cities ..., towns, and villages.
What about hamlets? We discussed those a couple of weeks ago.
I used to vacation in the hamlet of Indian Lake, in Hamilton County, in the
Adirondack Mountains of northern New York State.
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
Benjamin Krefetz
> and a town.
> A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings). For example, there is a
> city in Wales called St. Davids which has a population of under 10,000. It's
> called a city because it has a cathedral.
> I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and is
> not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
As John mentioned, in the US the distinction is made by the state governments.
In Massachusetts this means that the cities are governed by a mayor and/or city
manager and a city council, and the towns are governed by a board of selectmen
and a town meeting (where all registered voters of the town can vote directly
on the town's affairs). Also, again under the Massachusetts definition, a town
is required to have at least 15,000 people before it can incorporate as a city,
but some areas of more than 15,000 people choose to remain towns. (The
residents of Framingham, for example, vote down initiatives to become a city
every few years, and so, at well over 60,000 people, it is the largest town in
New England.)
Ben
PaulP
<pe...@thedaytoday.com> wrote:
> I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a
> city
> and a town.
>
In New Zealand I believe that there also used to be an allowance for
smaller population centres to become a city if there was a cathedral.
The only example that I can call to mind is Nelson. I think that it had
a population of less than 10,00 when it became a city because of the
presence of a cathedral. Naturally enough for a British colony, it was
an Anglican cathedral (and still is).
Generally though, in NZ a town became a city for administrative purposes
when the population reached 20,000. I put that in the past tense, as
about 10 years ago the local government laws were changed. I am not sure
what the requirements are now, but they have changed. It may have become
some wishy-washy benchmark such as "attaining the stature of a city".
NZ used to have counties, boroughs and cities. Boroughs were towns
somewhere between 1000 and 20,000 population, cities were more than
20,000 and counties were everything else, from rural areas to just short
of a town. The new legislation saw all counties and boroughs disappear,
becoming "Districts", with most boroughs merging with the adjacent
counties (to the intense displeasure of many borough inhabitants). A
grouping of districts and cities is now a "Region".
As an example, the city I live in (population about 120,000) and the
surrounding districts are in the Waikato Region. Each of the
administrative groups has a council, so we have District Councils, City
Councils and Regional Councils. The regional council area includes the
districts and cities, so we have two administrations for the area. The
regional council mainly has control over environmental and
trans-district aspects and the district or city looks after roads,
sewerage, drainage and other minor administrative functions (parks,
theatres, rubbish).
Although there aren't any towns in a legal sense (and they used to be
boroughs), of course there are still population groups that identify as
towns. There wasn't, as far as I know, any legal entity that was called
a village.
Paul
--
Cynic - An idealist whose rose-coloured glasses have been removed, snapped in
two and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his vision.
Sky Rider
<snip>
>Interestingly, my nearby town, Croydon, is battling with another nearby town,
>Brighton, to become a city. How can a town 'become' a city in the UK with the
>above definition of a city? They can't just build a cathedral overnight. So,
>is the UK definition of 'city' also changing away from its original meaning?
..... but Brighton is large enough to be a city.... whereas Croydon is
just a suburb of London.... :))
--
Sky Rider
----------------------------------
What's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?? Of course... a visit to ...
... for the "Top Ten" of ad-bar reward programs!!
----------------------------------
Red Valerian
>In article <8m2077$eo4$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>, "Peter Cooper"
><pe...@thedaytoday.com> wrote:
>
>> I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a
>> city >> and a town.
>>
From the New Oxford Dictionary of English (NODE) 1998 edition:
Hamlet: a small settlement, generally one smaller than a village and
strictly (in Britain) one without a church.
Village: a group of houses and associated buildings, larger than a
hamlet and smaller than a town, situated in a rural area.
Town: an urban area with a name, defined boundaries and local
government, that is larger than a village and generally smaller than a
city.
City: A large town.
Brit: a town created a city by charter and containing a cathedral.
~~~~~~~
As an American who has lived in England for over thirty years, I can
only say that one somehow knows the difference between these four
terms and would never confuse them.
Many of my students come from the hamlets surrounding the village
where I teach. I live in an old market town which is within
commuting distance of London - a city if ever there was one.
As an aside, no-one in this country would ever say that they were
"going into the city" to shop, if they meant going into central
London. The phrase 'the City' is short for 'the City of London,' and
refers solely to the financial district of the capital, which is
contained within the original Roman walls.
For a Londoner, the phrase the City is therefore roughly the
equivalent to Wall Street.
Anyone here who says that they work 'in the City' or that they
'commute to the City' would probably be an investment banker. Like
Wall Street, the City of London has virtually no shopping facilities
and little residential accommodation.
Red Valerian
Alan Jones
"Peter Cooper" <pe...@thedaytoday.com> wrote in message
news:8m2077$eo4$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
nearby town, Croydon, is battling with another nearby town, Brighton, to
become a city. How can a town 'become' a city in the UK with the above
definition of a city? They can't just build a cathedral overnight. So, is
the UK definition of 'city' also changing away from its original meaning?
On cathedrals: you don't need a new building. An ordinary church becomes a
cathedral as soon as it is the seat of a diocesan bishop, where he has his
"cathedra" (throne).
There is a long and detailed article on "city" in CD OED2, which explains
that the English or Welsh "city = town+cathedral" definition isn't true now:
it seems to derive from Henry VIII's conversion of former abbey churches
into cathedrals following the dissolution of the monasteries, whereupon
their towns were designated "cities". A town must now be incorporated as a
city by Royal Charter or Letters Patent, and both Croydon and Brighton (as
well as Swindon, and Wolverhampton, and various other contenders) are hoping
for such a Charter to mark the New Millennium (which begins, of course, on
New Year's Day 2001 . . . ) Birmingham was the first English town without a
cathedral to be incorporated as a city, though one of its churches has since
become the Anglican cathedral.
The grant of a Charter is a rare event, and it is expected that only one of
the curremt contenders will be successful. Of course, the Queen may choose
to elevate another town which has not sought the honour. As far as I know
the title "city" is merely honorific: there is no difference in governance
between a city and a town.
All this applies only to England and Wales: the customs in Scotland and
Northern Ireland may be different.
Alan Jones
John Steele Gordon
>
> John Steele Gordon wrote, in part:
>
> >In New York ... there are Class A cities ..., Class B
> >cities ..., towns, and villages.
>
> What about hamlets? We discussed those a couple of weeks ago.
>
> I used to vacation in the hamlet of Indian Lake, in Hamilton County, in the
> Adirondack Mountains of northern New York State.
In New York State law (or at least usage, I'm not a lawyer, thank God)
hamlets are merely clusters of dwellings that have a name (and sometimes
a post office) but no local government. They are governed by the town
they are located in. That, of course, may change if some assemblyman's
cousin needs a job sometime.
In my town of North Salem, 4800 people spread out over 22 square miles,
there are four hamlets: Purdy's, Croton Falls, Salem Center, and North
Salem. The urban equivalent I think would be "neighborhood," such as
Greenwich Village or Yorkville in NYC.
JSG
John Steele Gordon
> Only in Virginia is every city independent of every county. (There are
> towns as well, and they have some limited self-government, but towns ARE
> within counties.) Thank goodness.
In New England, the locus of local government power is the town. In
Connecticut, for instance, there are eight counties, but they are merely
state administrative districts, with no local government whatever. In
the South, the county is dominant and towns have little or no power.
But in New York, the Empire boondoggle--oops, I mean state--we have both
county and town government fully fleshed out. North Salem is policed by
three (count 'em, three) police forces, state, county, and town. North
Salem's police number is often answered by an answering machine ("Could
you call me back right away, please? I've found a dead body in my living
room"), but they drive around in handsome cars with all the bells and
whistles. (On the good side: if you get stopped for speeding in North
Salem and have a North salem address, you get a lecture; if you have an
out-of-town address, you get a ticket.)
JSG
John Steele Gordon
> Anyone here who says that they work 'in the City' or that they
> 'commute to the City' would probably be an investment banker. Like
> Wall Street, the City of London has virtually no shopping facilities
> and little residential accommodation.
Actually, that is no longer true of Wall Street, where many of the older
office buildings that would be too costly to upgrade for modern
electronics, have been converted to residential buildings (bring you
checkbook, if you're looking to buy an apartment in one of them).
The Wall Street area used to be utterly dead on non-business days, but
is now getting quite lively.
JSG
Mark Barratt
>From the New Oxford Dictionary of English (NODE) 1998 edition:
>
>Hamlet: a small settlement, generally one smaller than a
village and
>strictly (in Britain) one without a church.
[snip]
>~~~~~~~
>As an American who has lived in England for over thirty years,
I can
>only say that one somehow knows the difference between these
four
>terms and would never confuse them.
>
>Many of my students come from the hamlets surrounding the
village
>where I teach. I live in an old market town which is within
>commuting distance of London - a city if ever there was one.
And do these students call the places that they come from
"hamlets"? I don't believe that I've ever heard the word used -
I would call all such places "villages". Are you sure that
that's not your own American usage?
Regards, Mark Barratt
(A Brit in Belgium)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
John Lupton
>The towns (often called 'townships' in other states) also contain
>villages (usually of the same name). Towns and villages have separate
>governments, a holdover from the time when village and agricultural
>interests were distinctly different.
I'll quibble a little with the above - in states where the township system is
still in effect (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio, to name just a few), there
is a clear difference between a 'town' and a 'township'. The former refers to
a municipality of indeterminate size, somewhere between a village and a city.
The latter is a geographical/political subdivision of a county in the same way
that a county is a subdivision of a state. As we discussed here a few weeks
ago, some states out west assign numbers to their townships, but back East
here, they have names...and, just as there are certain county names that
appear all over the US, some states will have the same township name appear in
several different counties. The example we discussed, as I recall, was
"Springfield", there are more than a dozen Pennsylvania townships by that name
- not to mention an actual town of Springfield near Philadelphia (although
under the PA nomenclature, the word 'town' is rarely used, municipalities of
the size and type of Springfield are referred to as 'boroughs').
**********************************************
John Lupton, Network Services Manager
School of Arts & Sciences Computing
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA
**********************************************
jlu...@sas.upenn.edu
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> In article <3984C2...@maltedmedia.com>, bat...@maltedmedia.com wrote:
>
> >The towns (often called 'townships' in other states) also contain
> >villages (usually of the same name). Towns and villages have separate
> >governments, a holdover from the time when village and agricultural
> >interests were distinctly different.
>
> I'll quibble a little with the above - in states where the township system is
> still in effect (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio, to name just a few), there
> is a clear difference between a 'town' and a 'township'. The former refers to
> a municipality of indeterminate size, somewhere between a village and a city.
> The latter is a geographical/political subdivision of a county in the same way
> that a county is a subdivision of a state.
Yes, I lived my first 25 years in both New Jersey townships and towns. I
was making an approximate (an apparently weak!) relationship between
township/town and town/village, as the N.J. townships were often large
suburban or agricultural areas surrounding towns or cities and referred
to by the same name (until, as with Trenton, the townships wanted
nothing to do with the urban centers as they began to decay).
Stephen Toogood
<hg...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>As an American who has lived in England for over thirty years, I can
>only say that one somehow knows the difference between these four
>terms and would never confuse them.
>
Valerian's measured tones.
Nice to have you back, RV, even if it does turn out to be just for the
summer...
--
Stephen Toogood
Frances Kemmish
>
> Red Valerian <hg...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> >From the New Oxford Dictionary of English (NODE) 1998 edition:
> >
> >Hamlet: a small settlement, generally one smaller than a
> village and
> >strictly (in Britain) one without a church.
> [snip]
> >~~~~~~~
> I can
> >only say that one somehow knows the difference between these
> four
> >terms and would never confuse them.
> >
> village
> >where I teach. I live in an old market town which is within
> >commuting distance of London - a city if ever there was one.
>
> And do these students call the places that they come from
> "hamlets"? I don't believe that I've ever heard the word used -
> I would call all such places "villages". Are you sure that
> that's not your own American usage?
>
You've never heard the word 'hamlet' used to describe a settlement
without a church? It was certainly in common parlance in Derbyshire
when I was a girl.
I haven't heard it used much in America, though
Fran
(a Brit in the USA)
John Steele Gordon
>
> John Lupton wrote:
> >
> > In article <3984C2...@maltedmedia.com>, bat...@maltedmedia.com wrote:
> >
> > >The towns (often called 'townships' in other states) also contain
> > >villages (usually of the same name). Towns and villages have separate
> > >governments, a holdover from the time when village and agricultural
> > >interests were distinctly different.
> >
> > I'll quibble a little with the above - in states where the township system is
> > still in effect (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio, to name just a few), there
> > is a clear difference between a 'town' and a 'township'. The former refers to
> > a municipality of indeterminate size, somewhere between a village and a city.
> > The latter is a geographical/political subdivision of a county in the same way
> > that a county is a subdivision of a state.
>
> Yes, I lived my first 25 years in both New Jersey townships and towns. I
> was making an approximate (an apparently weak!) relationship between
> township/town and town/village, as the N.J. townships were often large
> suburban or agricultural areas surrounding towns or cities and referred
> to by the same name (until, as with Trenton, the townships wanted
> nothing to do with the urban centers as they began to decay).
In New York State you never hear the word "township." Counties are
divided into towns. Some of these towns have incorporated villages
within them and a town can become a city, but I forget by what means.
JSG
paul draper
news:8m2077$eo4$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a
city
>
> A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings). For example, there is
a
> city in Wales called St. Davids which has a population of under 10,000.
It's
> called a city because it has a cathedral.
>
> I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and
is
> not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
>
town,
> Brighton, to become a city. How can a town 'become' a city in the UK with
the
> above definition of a city? They can't just build a cathedral overnight.
So,
> is the UK definition of 'city' also changing away from its original
meaning?
A town can be made a city by being granted a Charter. I understand that that
Croyden nearly became a city once before but as the Bishops of London had a
palace there it was thought to be impolitic to make it a city!
--
Paul Draper
020 7369 2754
Red Valerian
<ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The school term ends, and Presto! we are once again graced with Ms
>Valerian's measured tones.
Well spotted! I do indeed mostly only find time to post during the
school holidays, when I seem to do little else.
>
>Nice to have you back, RV, even if it does turn out to be just for the
>summer...
What a nice thing to say. Thank you very much indeed.
Red
John Lupton
>John Lupton wrote:
>>
>> In article <3984C2...@maltedmedia.com>, bat...@maltedmedia.com wrote:
>>
>> >The towns (often called 'townships' in other states) also contain
>> >villages (usually of the same name). Towns and villages have separate
>> >governments, a holdover from the time when village and agricultural
>> >interests were distinctly different.
>>
>> I'll quibble a little with the above - in states where the township system is
>> still in effect (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio, to name just a few),
> there
>> is a clear difference between a 'town' and a 'township'. The former refers to
>> a municipality of indeterminate size, somewhere between a village and a city.
>> The latter is a geographical/political subdivision of a county in the same
> way
>> that a county is a subdivision of a state.
>
>Yes, I lived my first 25 years in both New Jersey townships and towns. I
>was making an approximate (an apparently weak!) relationship between
>township/town and town/village, as the N.J. townships were often large
>suburban or agricultural areas surrounding towns or cities and referred
>to by the same name (until, as with Trenton, the townships wanted
>nothing to do with the urban centers as they began to decay).
I would agree that there is a certain amount of confusion stemming from the
fact that a township often contains a town of the same name, and the
distinction sometimes gets murky. As I said, Pennsylvania doesn't generally
use the term 'town', but New Jersey is a different story. Across the river
from where I live (Delaware), for example, there's a town of Penns Grove in
Penns Grove township. Two different entities (although yes, the town is part
of the township), but easily confused.
In Delaware, we have yet another term to throw into the mix - 'hundreds'.
Similar to townships, they're a remnant of colonial times, the origin is
unclear. Some say they were areas that contained 100 landowners (i.e.,
taxpayers), some say that it was available militiamen instead of landowners.
Whatever, they're not used for governmental purposes anymore, but some
volunteer fire companies are still based on hundreds ("Brandywine Hundred
Fire Company"), and realtors frequently use them to describe property
locations.
Red Valerian
wrote:
>In Delaware, we have yet another term to throw into the mix - 'hundreds'.
>Similar to townships, they're a remnant of colonial times, the origin is
>unclear. Some say they were areas that contained 100 landowners (i.e.,
>taxpayers), some say that it was available militiamen instead of landowners.
>Whatever, they're not used for governmental purposes anymore, but some
>volunteer fire companies are still based on hundreds ("Brandywine Hundred
>Fire Company"), and realtors frequently use them to describe property
>locations.
How interesting. I come originally from New Jersey and went to
Middletown Township High School, so I'm familiar with the whole
town/township thing as it relates to certain American States.
I hadn't realised that 'hundreds' was also a term used in the US,
however. Here in England the designation 'hundred' was also employed
up until the turn of the last century. I just found this definition on
the net:
"A Hundred is a unit of English local government, intermediate between
a village and a shire, which survived into the 19th century.
Originally the term probably referred to a group of 100 hides, a hide
being the unit of land required to support one peasant family.
The term hundred first appears in the laws of King Edmund I (939 -
946), but an anonymous Ordinance of the Hundred, issued before 975,
indicates that the hundred was already a long established institution.
The hundred had a court in which private disputes and criminal matters
were settled by customary law. The court met once a month, generally
in the open air, at a time and place known to everyone. Originally all
dwellers within the hundred were expected to attend, but gradually
suit of court (attendance) became restricted to the tenants of
specific land.
The suitors normally acted as the judges, but the sheriff was judge on
the two annual visits (his "tour") he made to each hundred’s court.
Increasingly, hundred courts fell into the hands of private lords.
In medieval times the hundred was collectively responsible for various
crimes committed within its borders if the offender was not produced.
These responsibilities were extinguished by statute in the 19th
century, and any reasons for maintaining the hundred boundaries
disappeared."
Red V
Aaron J Dinkin
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>> Only in Virginia is every city independent of every county. (There are
>> towns as well, and they have some limited self-government, but towns ARE
>> within counties.) Thank goodness.
>
> In New England, the locus of local government power is the town.
Or city, of course.
> In Connecticut, for instance, there are eight counties, but they are merely
> state administrative districts, with no local government whatever.
Much the same is true of Massachusetts's fourteen counties, but I believe
some of them have retained their county-government function. This is
chiefly the case for those counties that are recognizable well-defined
geographical entities within the state, rather than arbitrarily-drawn
borders, and therefore feel a need for a county government to deal with
issues that affect the entire area. Barnstable County, which coincides
with Cape Cod, is one such; Dukes County, which consists of Martha's
Vineyard and one or two surrounding islands, I believe is another. I don't
know if Nantucket County, coterminous with the town of Nantucket, has any
county government.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Stephen Toogood
draper <pdr...@baig.co.uk> writes
[ - ]
>A town can be made a city by being granted a Charter. I understand that that
>Croyden nearly became a city once before but as the Bishops of London had a
>palace there it was thought to be impolitic to make it a city!
>
palace in Croydon. The old palace is now a girls' school. Archy moved
out of town to Addington Palace (about 5 miles from central Croydon)
some time in the 18thC, and (I seem to remember) only in this century
retreated to his other (Lambeth) palace.
--
Stephen Toogood
Stephen Toogood
<flywr...@hotmail.com> writes
>Red Valerian <hg...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>Many of my students come from the hamlets surrounding the
>village
>>where I teach. I live in an old market town which is within
>>commuting distance of London - a city if ever there was one.
>
>And do these students call the places that they come from
>"hamlets"? I don't believe that I've ever heard the word used -
>I would call all such places "villages". Are you sure that
>that's not your own American usage?
>
probably help to know which side of London we're talking about, as I
have difficulty imagining many really small communities within commuting
distance.
Berkshire I'd believe, or north Essex (plenty of hamlets there) but not
Surrey or Hertfordshire.
--
Stephen Toogood
John Ritson
>
>Hamlet: a small settlement, generally one smaller than a village and
>strictly (in Britain) one without a church.
>
>hamlet and smaller than a town, situated in a rural area.
>
>Town: an urban area with a name, defined boundaries and local
>government, that is larger than a village and generally smaller than a
>city.
>
>City: A large town.
>Brit: a town created a city by charter and containing a cathedral.
>
>As an American who has lived in England for over thirty years, I can
>only say that one somehow knows the difference between these four
>terms and would never confuse them.
Confusion is certainly possible, as witnessed by the present dispute
over eligibility for the National Village Championship in cricket. The
small Welsh ermm... 'community' of Usk qualified under the rules as
rural and as having a population under 3,000, yet were disqualified when
it was spotted that their website and tourist literature called Usk a
'town'. M'learned friends are now involved.
John
Red Valerian
<ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have to say I don't find it as odd as you. Nonetheless, it would
>probably help to know which side of London we're talking about, as I
>have difficulty imagining many really small communities within commuting
>distance.
>
>Berkshire I'd believe, or north Essex (plenty of hamlets there) but not
>Surrey or Hertfordshire.
I live and work in Buckinghamshire. The rural village where I teach is
on the main line into London and yet it is surrounded by several tiny
hamlets.
I'm certainly not alone in making the village/hamlet distinction,
although I agree that the word 'hamlet' would probably not be used by
my students.
However, I did a search earlier on Alta Vista using the phrase
"villages and hamlets" and the engine came up with over a thousand
citations. Most of them were from English web pages aimed at the
tourist market. They described areas from Devon to the Borders. (And
Stephen? Even Hetfordshire got a mention or two!)
Here are some samples:
1. Hidden down these lanes are the little villages and hamlets, where
the real English folk live.
2. For 400 years THE Steppes hotel, nestling in the rural hamlet of
Ullingswick, has provided shelter, warmth and refreshment for
generations of yeoman farmers.
3. Bramley is easily accessible by car and bus from Guildford. A
network of footpaths and bridleways interlink with the Downslink and
lead to adjoining villages and hamlets.
4. Surrounding the Town is gently rolling peaceful countryside. The
river valleys are often wooded, and the rivers and streams always
unpolluted. Small hamlets and villages dot the area.
5. The surrounding countryside is a patchwork of small fields and
wooded hills, crossed by picturesque lanes that wind their way through
unspoiled hamlets and villages full of pink and white-washed thatched
cottages.
etc etc etc
Red
Benjamin Krefetz
Then there's the whole problem that arises with these terms on Long Island. To
wit, Nassau County consists of the cities of Glen Cove and Long Beach and the
towns of Hempstead, North Hempstead, and Oyster Bay. However, these three
towns are composed of zillions of villages, and any resident of one of these
towns will identify themselves by the village they hail from, not the town. In
fact, the towns themselves are so large that Oyster Bay has over 200,000
people, North Hempstead has about 300,000, and Hempstead had over 700,000, thus
making it larger than most cities, even though it takes up only 142 square
miles, making it smaller in area than many cities of comparable population. Go
figure.
Ben
Mark Barratt
>I'm certainly not alone in making the village/hamlet
distinction,
>although I agree that the word 'hamlet' would probably not be
used by
>my students.
Yes, and this is what I was trying to say. The word 'hamlet' is
common enough in descriptive prose, but is there anybody who
would *say* "I live in the hamlet of..." or "xxx is a hamlet
near Buckingham"?
>However, I did a search earlier on Alta Vista using the
phrase
>"villages and hamlets" and the engine came up with over a
thousand
>citations. Most of them were from English web pages aimed at
the
>tourist market. They described areas from Devon to the Borders.
>
>Here are some samples:
[snip]
>2. For 400 years THE Steppes hotel, nestling in the rural
hamlet of
>Ullingswick, has provided shelter, warmth and refreshment for
>generations of yeoman farmers.
[snip]
Only this one is an example of the word being used with
reference to a specific place, but as you say, it's from a
tourist brochure and is using flowery language. I suspect that
the residents of Ullingswick would actually call it 'the
village'.
Regards
Mark Barratt
SLHinton17
that in New England there is a valid legal distinction.
"Town" may be used in connection with even the largest cities, as in "He's out
of town right now." And even small towns can be called cities in some
contexts. I spent my high school years (1931-34) in Crockett, Texas, a town of
fewer than 5,000 people, and well remember a local furniture dealer there who
often said that he was the only member of his farming family who had "come to
the city."
Sam
La Jolla, CA
Robert Lipton
My ex in-laws lived in Hudson New York. Once, when we were visiting, I
asked my mother-in-law where her husband was. "Downtown Hudson," the
ex-New Yorker replied. "What part of downtown?" I asked. "The Post
Office or the hardware store?"
JR Pelland
>
> In most of the US, a "city" is usually just a larger "town," although I think
> that in New England there is a valid legal distinction.
I think that is also the case here in Ontario. Most cities are larger
than towns. However, the cities of Elliot Lake and Valley East are much
smaller than the town of Markham.
JR
>
> "Town" may be used in connection with even the largest cities, as in "He's out
> of town right now." And even small towns can be called cities in some
> contexts. I spent my high school years (1931-34) in Crockett, Texas, a town of
> fewer than 5,000 people, and well remember a local furniture dealer there who
> often said that he was the only member of his farming family who had "come to
> the city."
>
> Sam
> La Jolla, CA
Skitt
"JR Pelland" <jrpe...@cyberbeach.net> wrote in message
news:398709...@cyberbeach.net...
> SLHinton17 wrote:
> >
> > In most of the US, a "city" is usually just a larger "town," although I
think
> > that in New England there is a valid legal distinction.
>
>
> I think that is also the case here in Ontario. Most cities are larger
> than towns. However, the cities of Elliot Lake and Valley East are much
> smaller than the town of Markham.
>
New York, New York, it's a wonderful town ...
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
Wayward in Hayward
Peter Hoogenboom
> I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a city
> and a town.
>
> A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings). For example, there is a
> city in Wales called St. Davids which has a population of under 10,000. It's
> called a city because it has a cathedral.
>
> I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and is
> not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
Definitions of types of municipalities differ from state to state in the US. The
most significant issue is what the municipality's charter says.
In Virginia, a city is not part of a county, whereas a town is.
> Interestingly, my nearby town, Croydon, is battling with another nearby town,
> Brighton, to become a city. How can a town 'become' a city in the UK with the
> above definition of a city? They can't just build a cathedral overnight. So,
> is the UK definition of 'city' also changing away from its original meaning?
Probably, the legal definition of "City" in England has nothing to do with
cathedrals.
You may not be able to build a cathedral overnight, but you can make a church
into one in pretty short order.
--
Peter
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
> Peter Cooper wrote:
>
> > I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a city
> > and a town.
> >
> > A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> > conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings). For example, there is a
> > city in Wales called St. Davids which has a population of under 10,000. It's
> > called a city because it has a cathedral.
> >
> > I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and is
> > not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
>
> In the U.S., what legally makes cities and towns is determined by state
> constitutions, not the federal one, so it varies widely. In New York,
> where I live, and which has the most complicated, convoluted,
> inefficient, backward, and politics-ridden government structure on the
> face of the earth, there are Class A cities (New York City is the only
> one), Class B cities (a dozen or so), towns, and villages.
Aren't villages sub-units of towns? I have never quite figured this one out.
> Then, of
> course, there are also counties. (The boroughs of New York City are also
> counties of New York State--only with different names, except for
> Queens, just to make sure everyone is hopelessly confused).
Isn't the mainland borough also "Bronx County"? Also, the borough of Staten Island
used to be called the borough of Richmond. It is and has been Richmond County.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
> In article <3984C2...@maltedmedia.com>, bat...@maltedmedia.com wrote:
>
> >The towns (often called 'townships' in other states) also contain
> >villages (usually of the same name). Towns and villages have separate
> >governments, a holdover from the time when village and agricultural
> >interests were distinctly different.
>
> I'll quibble a little with the above - in states where the township system is
> still in effect (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio, to name just a few), there
> is a clear difference between a 'town' and a 'township'.
New Jersey's townships are not the same things as the "township system" that you
find in the midwest. In the case of Princeton Township, at least, it is a
separate municipality that surrounds the Borough of Princeton. Many
municipalities in the area are similarly arranged. I recall there was one
township that surrounded two independent boroughs, one of which had the same name
as the township, but I don't remember which it was.
In Indiana, the township is largely an administrative unit, having to do with
taxes and voting, as I understand it. Bloomington, Indiana, comprises parts of
two townships.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
> I would agree that there is a certain amount of confusion stemming from the
> fact that a township often contains a town of the same name, and the
> distinction sometimes gets murky. As I said, Pennsylvania doesn't generally
> use the term 'town', but New Jersey is a different story. Across the river
> from where I live (Delaware), for example, there's a town of Penns Grove in
> Penns Grove township. Two different entities (although yes, the town is part
> of the township), but easily confused.
Are you sure? When I lived in Princeton, the township and borough were entirely
separate. Separate mayor, legislature (town council and township committee), police
force.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:14:20 +1200, PaulP <ppu...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >In article <8m2077$eo4$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>, "Peter Cooper"
> ><pe...@thedaytoday.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a
> >> city >> and a town.
> >>
> From the New Oxford Dictionary of English (NODE) 1998 edition:
>
> Hamlet: a small settlement, generally one smaller than a village and
> strictly (in Britain) one without a church.
>
> Village: a group of houses and associated buildings, larger than a
> hamlet and smaller than a town, situated in a rural area.
>
> Town: an urban area with a name, defined boundaries and local
> government, that is larger than a village and generally smaller than a
> city.
>
> City: A large town.
> Brit: a town created a city by charter and containing a cathedral.
>
> ~~~~~~~
> As an American who has lived in England for over thirty years, I can
> only say that one somehow knows the difference between these four
> terms and would never confuse them.
>
> Many of my students come from the hamlets surrounding the village
> where I teach. I live in an old market town which is within
> commuting distance of London - a city if ever there was one.
>
> As an aside, no-one in this country would ever say that they were
> "going into the city" to shop, if they meant going into central
> London. The phrase 'the City' is short for 'the City of London,' and
> refers solely to the financial district of the capital, which is
> contained within the original Roman walls.
>
> For a Londoner, the phrase the City is therefore roughly the
> equivalent to Wall Street.
When using "Wall Street" in a geographical sense, New Yorkers generally intend
to indicate Wall Street, not the entire financial district.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
> "JR Pelland" <jrpe...@cyberbeach.net> wrote in message
> news:398709...@cyberbeach.net...
> > SLHinton17 wrote:
> > >
> > > In most of the US, a "city" is usually just a larger "town," although I
> think
> > > that in New England there is a valid legal distinction.
> >
> >
> > I think that is also the case here in Ontario. Most cities are larger
> > than towns. However, the cities of Elliot Lake and Valley East are much
> > smaller than the town of Markham.
> >
>
> New York, New York, it's a wonderful town ...
I think it was a "helluva" town on Broadway.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
R. Fontana
> John Steele Gordon wrote:
> > Then, of
> > course, there are also counties. (The boroughs of New York City are also
> > counties of New York State--only with different names, except for
> > Queens, just to make sure everyone is hopelessly confused).
>
> Isn't the mainland borough also "Bronx County"?
The mainland borough is "the Bronx". The conterminous county is "Bronx
County". Slightly different.
> Also, the borough of Staten Island
> used to be called the borough of Richmond. It is and has been
> Richmond County.
I was under the impression that the borough conterminous with Richmond
County was called Staten Island from the beginning, but perhaps I'm
mistaken. The geographical name Staten Island,
being of Dutch origin, must of course be older than the assignment of the
county name Richmond.
RF
Red Valerian
<phooge...@weSPAMsleyan.edu> wrote:
>> For a Londoner, the phrase the City is therefore roughly the
>> equivalent to Wall Street.
>
>When using "Wall Street" in a geographical sense, New Yorkers generally intend
>to indicate Wall Street, not the entire financial district.
Ah...things may well have changed since I last lived in New York -
back in the late sixties. I had an apartment in the Village, but
worked for a large brokerage firm which was technically in Maiden
Lane, if memory serves. However, I'm sure that everyone working for
Merrill Lynch back then described themselves as working "on Wall
Street" when in fact we did nothing of the sort.
BTW - I was pleasantly surprised at the post explaining that the area
is now becoming more residential. It used to be a complete ghost
town on Sundays. I can remember walking all the way down to Wall
Street from West Eighth to do overtime and suddenly finding myself
the only living soul in an empty echoing city.
Red
R. Fontana
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 04:09:58 +0200, Peter Hoogenboom
> <phooge...@weSPAMsleyan.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >> For a Londoner, the phrase the City is therefore roughly the
> >> equivalent to Wall Street.
> >
> >When using "Wall Street" in a geographical sense, New Yorkers generally intend
> >to indicate Wall Street, not the entire financial district.
>
> Ah...things may well have changed since I last lived in New York -
> back in the late sixties. I had an apartment in the Village, but
> worked for a large brokerage firm which was technically in Maiden
> Lane, if memory serves. However, I'm sure that everyone working for
> Merrill Lynch back then described themselves as working "on Wall
> Street" when in fact we did nothing of the sort.
I think this is still standard usage, and it isn't inconsistent with what
Peter said. If you were just describing the location of, say, a building
on (?) Maiden Lane to which you have no professional connection, the most
you could say is "near Wall Street" or "in the Wall Street area".
RF
K. Edgcombe
>> So Peter Cooper was all like:
>> > I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a city
>> > and a town.
>>
>> > conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings). For example, there is a
>> > city in Wales called St. Davids which has a population of under 10,000. It's
>> > called a city because it has a cathedral.
>>
>> > I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and is
>> > not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
A city in the UK does not have to have a cathedral (I think it has to have a
charter). The City of Cambridge, for instance, does not have a cathedral.
I believe the assertion is also false the other way round, but can't remember
an example. I can dig out further info on this if anyone really wants to know;
but I sense a much stronger interest in US nomenclature than UK.....
Katy
K. Edgcombe
>>
>>Brit: a town created a city by charter and containing a cathedral.
>>
>>~~~~~~~
>>As an American who has lived in England for over thirty years, I can
>>only say that one somehow knows the difference between these four
>>terms and would never confuse them.
It's interesting that NODE says "created a city by charter *and* containing a
cathedral". Is it really "and"? If so, someone ought to ask them about
Cambridge.
Katy
John Steele Gordon
> Aren't villages sub-units of towns? I have never quite figured this one out.
I believe once the inhabitants of an area decide to incorporate as a
village, they are totally separate, in New York State, but may decide to
share services, such as snow plowing or what have you.
>
> > Then, of
> > course, there are also counties. (The boroughs of New York City are also
> > counties of New York State--only with different names, except for
> > Queens, just to make sure everyone is hopelessly confused).
>
> Isn't the mainland borough also "Bronx County"? Also, the borough of Staten Island
> used to be called the borough of Richmond. It is and has been Richmond County.
It's Bronx County, but the Borough of THE Bronx.
Staten Island was renamed Richmond in 1675 to celebrate the birth of one
of Charles II's bastards, who was created Duke of Richmond soon after
his birth. New Yorkers, as is their wont, ignored this name change for
three hundred years and continued to call the place Staten Island (much
as the so-called Avenue of the Americas is really Sixth Avenue and so
called by New Yorkers). Finally in 1975 on the three hundredth
anniversary of this unwanted name change, the powers that be threw in
the towel and changed the name of the Borough to the Borough of Staten
Island. It remains, legally, the County of Richmond.
JSG
John Steele Gordon
> > New York, New York, it's a wonderful town ...
>
> I think it was a "helluva" town on Broadway.
Correct:
New York, New York, it's a helluva town.
The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
The people ride in a hole in the ground,
New York, New York!
The confusion comes, I suspect, from the fact that this song is from On
the Town (1944). The same people (Leonard Bernstein--music--and Adolph
Greene and Betty Comden--lyrics) also wrote a show called Wonderful Town
(1953), another peon to the city, although it features a song that
starts off "Why, oh why, oh why-O/Why did I ever leave Ohio?
JSG
Aaron J Dinkin
> The confusion comes, I suspect, from the fact that this song is from On
> the Town (1944). The same people (Leonard Bernstein--music--and Adolph
> Greene and Betty Comden--lyrics) also wrote a show called Wonderful Town
> (1953), another peon to the city, although it features a song that
> starts off "Why, oh why, oh why-O/Why did I ever leave Ohio?
Is there any reason that's written with the unaesthetic "why-O" instead of
using the more symmetrical "Why, oh why, oh why, oh / Why did I ever leave
Ohio?"
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
John Steele Gordon
Because I typed it from memory (aural memory at that) and I guess I was
feeling unaesthetic this morning. How Comden and Green (his name is
spelled without the final E--sorry about that) actually wrote it, I have
no idea as I've never seen it in print.
JSG
Stephen Toogood
<ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>A city in the UK does not have to have a cathedral (I think it has to have a
>charter). The City of Cambridge, for instance, does not have a cathedral.
>
>I believe the assertion is also false the other way round, but can't remember
>an example. I can dig out further info on this if anyone really wants to know;
>but I sense a much stronger interest in US nomenclature than UK.....
>
always see the same hands...
If you should be motivated to test the converse (long vac. palling
already?), Southwell, St. Asaph, Bangor, Brecon might be candidates. As
far as I remember Ely and Wells are the next smallest places with
cathedrals, and they're both cities.
Somebody might object that Wales is different, so Southwell seems to be
the acid test.
--
Stephen Toogood
Stephen Toogood
<JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>New York, New York, it's a helluva town.
>The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
>The people ride in a hole in the ground,
>New York, New York!
>
that the singer is exhausted. We might say 'the battery's flat', but
then, that wouldn't rhyme with town.
But up? Does this refer to the population of the Bronx, who are, as it
were, up and doing? Or is it a reference to some great event that is
about to happen there (sort of like 'the hunt's up')?
"What's up?"
"The Bronx is up!"
Ignoramuses like me often lose sleep over these things.
>The confusion comes, I suspect, from the fact that this song is from On
>the Town (1944). The same people (Leonard Bernstein--music--and Adolph
>Greene and Betty Comden--lyrics) also wrote a show called Wonderful Town
>(1953), another peon to the city, although it features a song that
>starts off "Why, oh why, oh why-O/Why did I ever leave Ohio?
>
They hadn't improved, had they?
--
Stephen Toogood
Aaron J Dinkin
> Aaron J Dinkin wrote:
>
>> John Steele Gordon <JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > The confusion comes, I suspect, from the fact that this song is from On
>> > the Town (1944). The same people (Leonard Bernstein--music--and Adolph
>> > Greene and Betty Comden--lyrics) also wrote a show called Wonderful Town
>> > (1953), another peon to the city, although it features a song that
>> > starts off "Why, oh why, oh why-O/Why did I ever leave Ohio?
>>
>> Is there any reason that's written with the unaesthetic "why-O" instead of
>> using the more symmetrical "Why, oh why, oh why, oh / Why did I ever leave
>> Ohio?"
>
> Because I typed it from memory (aural memory at that) and I guess I was
> feeling unaesthetic this morning. How Comden and Green (his name is
> spelled without the final E--sorry about that) actually wrote it, I have
> no idea as I've never seen it in print.
Hmm.... The UCLA _Daily Bruin_, which should probably not be taken as
authoritative, quotes Stephanie Zimbalist as citing as "Why, oh why, oh
why, oh. Why did I ever leave
Ohio?": <http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/DB/issues/97/11.18/ae.wonderful.html>.
Aaron J Dinkin
> In article <39881F51...@worldnet.att.net>, John Steele Gordon
> <JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>>New York, New York, it's a helluva town.
>>The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
>>The people ride in a hole in the ground,
>>New York, New York!
>
> Now this I have never understood. 'The battery's down' presumably means
> that the singer is exhausted. We might say 'the battery's flat', but
> then, that wouldn't rhyme with town.
>
> But up? Does this refer to the population of the Bronx, who are, as it
> were, up and doing? Or is it a reference to some great event that is
> about to happen there (sort of like 'the hunt's up')?
I always figured it was a reference to the New York practice of referring
to north as "uptown" and south as "downtown". (Identifying north with up
and south with down is of course by no means unique to New ork, but never
mind.) The Bronx is north of Manhattan, and Battery Park is the southern
tip of the island.
"Springfield, Springfield, it's a helluva town.
The schoolyard's up and the shopping mall's down.
The stray dogs go to the animal pound.
Springfield, Springfield!
Springfield, Springfield!"
"New York, New York!"
"New York is thataway, man."
"Thanks, kid!"
--The Simpsons
R. Fontana
> In article <39881F51...@worldnet.att.net>, John Steele Gordon
> <JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >New York, New York, it's a helluva town.
> >The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
> >The people ride in a hole in the ground,
> >New York, New York!
> >
> Now this I have never understood. 'The battery's down' presumably means
> that the singer is exhausted. We might say 'the battery's flat', but
> then, that wouldn't rhyme with town.
>
> But up? Does this refer to the population of the Bronx, who are, as it
> were, up and doing? Or is it a reference to some great event that is
> about to happen there (sort of like 'the hunt's up')?
>
> "What's up?"
>
> "The Bronx is up!"
>
> Ignoramuses like me often lose sleep over these things.
Hmm... Okay, I am sure you know this, but I don't want, say, P.Sankyun to
get confused, so: The Battery refers sort of vaguely to the southern
tip of Manhattan. There was a real Battery, a row of guns, at one time,
and then a West Battery and an East Battery offshore, and eventually
landfill covered the water separating the West Battery from the original
Battery, and even more eventually this was developed into a park called
Battery Park. As for the Bronx, it is due north of Manhattan. Thus, on a
map, the Bronx is up and the Battery's down.
RF
R. Fontana
> Stephen Toogood <ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <39881F51...@worldnet.att.net>, John Steele Gordon
> > <JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >>New York, New York, it's a helluva town.
> >>The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
> >>The people ride in a hole in the ground,
> >>New York, New York!
[...]
> "Springfield, Springfield, it's a helluva town.
> The schoolyard's up and the shopping mall's down.
> The stray dogs go to the animal pound.
> Springfield, Springfield!
> Springfield, Springfield!"
> "New York, New York!"
> "New York is thataway, man."
> "Thanks, kid!"
> --The Simpsons
And speaking of the Battery:
"They bite! And light! And bite and light and bite!
Bite bi-bi-yadda-yadda... You know what I'm talkin' about."
-- Krusty/The Stingy and Battery Show Theme Song
RF
John Steele Gordon
> Hmm... Okay, I am sure you know this, but I don't want, say, P.Sankyun to
> get confused, so: The Battery refers sort of vaguely to the southern
> tip of Manhattan. There was a real Battery, a row of guns, at one time,
> and then a West Battery and an East Battery offshore, and eventually
> landfill covered the water separating the West Battery from the original
> Battery, and even more eventually this was developed into a park called
> Battery Park. As for the Bronx, it is due north of Manhattan. Thus, on a
> map, the Bronx is up and the Battery's down.
Stephen Sondheim on the same subject (from "Broadway Baby" in
Follies--1971):
Gee,
I'd like to be
On some marquee,
All twinkling lights,
A spark
To pierce the dark
From Battery Park
To Washington Heights.
For the unititiated, Washington Heights is the neighborhood at the
northern end of Manhattan Island. Broadway begins at Battery Park and
runs all the way to Washington Heights (and beyond, but you're in the
Bronx at that point).
JSG
Mark Barratt
Well, wouldn't you expect Oxford University Press to be
dismissive of Cambridge?
Regards
Mark Barratt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Red Valerian
>It's interesting that NODE says "created a city by charter *and* containing a
>cathedral". Is it really "and"? If so, someone ought to ask them about
>Cambridge.
>
>Katy
Yup. It really is *and* - I just lugged NODE off the shelf again to
check.
I did leave out the second definition however, so I'll copy everything
out in full this time:
1. city: a large town: [as modifier] the city centre.
Brit. a town created a city by charter and containing a cathedral.
N. Amer. a municipal centre incorporated by the state or province
2.(the City) short for CITY OF LONDON
the financial and commercial institutions located in this part of
London: the Budget got a stony reception from the City [as modifier] a
City analyst.
DERIVATIVES: cityward adjective and adverb.
citywards adverb
Origin: Middle English: from Old French cite, from Latin civitas, from
civis 'citizen'. Originally denoting a town, and often used as a Latin
equivalent to Old English burh 'borough', the term was later applied
to foreign and ancient cities and to the more important English
boroughs. The connection between city and cathedral grew up under the
Norman kings, as the episcopal sees (many had been establish in
villages) were removed to the chief borough of the diocese.
~~~~~~~~~~
That's the lot,
Red
Robert Lipton
Actually, not quite, as Manhattan continues some distance into the
mainland.
At some point the northern section of Manhattan was sawed off from the
rest of the island and then was later attached to the mainland. I'm
sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. Anyway, as a result, New
York County continues on a bit north of where people think.
Bob
John Steele Gordon
> > For the unititiated, Washington Heights is the neighborhood at the
> > northern end of Manhattan Island. Broadway begins at Battery Park and
> > runs all the way to Washington Heights (and beyond, but you're in the
> > Bronx at that point).
>
> Actually, not quite, as Manhattan continues some distance into the
> mainland.
Well, actually only about two blocks. If the lights are with you, you
won't even notice.
> At some point the northern section of Manhattan was sawed off from the
> rest of the island and then was later attached to the mainland. I'm
> sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.
The area is known as Marble Hill, as there used to be a marble quarry
there. The Harlem Ship Canal, which made a much easier passage from the
Harlem River to the Hudson, cut it off from Manhattan in 1895. Spuyten
Duyvil Creek, to Marble Hill's north and west, was then filled in,
attaching it to the Bronx geographically, but leaving it politically
still attached to Manhattan. The residents hate this, but in New York
government exists for the convenience of politicians not the people, so
105 years later the situation continues.
JSG
Alex Chernavsky
>in New York government exists for the
>convenience of politicians not the people
That's more or less the case everywhere, isn't it?
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
Alan J. Flavell
> Probably, the legal definition of "City" in England has nothing to do with
> cathedrals.
It's about having a Charter. It's similar in Scotland (see e.g
http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/scotfaq/scottish-faq.txt ).
The association with Cathedrals is historic; but to have a Charter
it's not necessary to have a Cathedral.
The online OED agrees, but the terms of their licence seem to preclude
me from proving that to you. I'm not even allowed to show you the
words in their licence which forbid this :-)
Robert Lieblich
>
> Peter Hoogenboom wrote:
>
> > > New York, New York, it's a wonderful town ...
> >
> > I think it was a "helluva" town on Broadway.
>
> Correct:
>
> The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
> The people ride in a hole in the ground,
> New York, New York!
>
> the Town (1944). The same people (Leonard Bernstein--music--and Adolph
> Greene and Betty Comden--lyrics) also wrote a show called Wonderful Town
> (1953), another peon to the city, although it features a song that
> starts off "Why, oh why, oh why-O/Why did I ever leave Ohio?
I'm trusting to memory here, but as I recall the movie of *On the Town*,
they sang "wonderful town" rather than "helluva town." The censor still
reigned in Hollywood, and although Rhett Butler was allowed to utter his
famous "I don't give a damn" at the end of GWTW, other lines of dialogue
and song lyrics did not survive intact. Compare the lyrics of "It's
Wonderful" from *Annie Get Your Gun* in Broadway and movie versions.
Or consider the bowdlerization of "You are my Sunshine* (original lyric
-- "I dreamed you lay there by my side"; bowdlerized -- I dreamed I held
you in my arms)." This last is pretty pathetic on all counts; not only
was the singer lying down, so the "you" of the song would be lying with
him if in his arms, but the other word in the rhyme was "cried," which
kinda gives away the original anyway.
We don't have that sort of pantywaisting on AUE, do we? No, indeed.
Peter Hoogenboom
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Peter Hoogenboom wrote:
>
> > John Steele Gordon wrote:
> > > Then, of
> > > course, there are also counties. (The boroughs of New York City are also
> > > counties of New York State--only with different names, except for
> > > Queens, just to make sure everyone is hopelessly confused).
> >
> > Isn't the mainland borough also "Bronx County"?
>
> The mainland borough is "the Bronx". The conterminous county is "Bronx
> County". Slightly different.
>
> > Also, the borough of Staten Island
> > used to be called the borough of Richmond. It is and has been
> > Richmond County.
>
> I was under the impression that the borough conterminous with Richmond
> County was called Staten Island from the beginning, but perhaps I'm
> mistaken.
I read it here in this very newsgroup oh so many moons ago (IIRC).
> The geographical name Staten Island,
> being of Dutch origin, must of course be older than the assignment of the
> county name Richmond.
True. Though it was spelled differently! What I recall is that the borough was
originally called "Richmond," although it was always "Staten Island" in popular
speech. At some point there was a succesful campaign to rename the borough to
reflect common usage. But maybe I'm wrong.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
> Peter Hoogenboom wrote:
>
> > Aren't villages sub-units of towns? I have never quite figured this one out.
>
> I believe once the inhabitants of an area decide to incorporate as a
> village, they are totally separate, in New York State, but may decide to
> share services, such as snow plowing or what have you.
> >
> > > Then, of
> > > course, there are also counties. (The boroughs of New York City are also
> > > counties of New York State--only with different names, except for
> > > Queens, just to make sure everyone is hopelessly confused).
> >
> > Isn't the mainland borough also "Bronx County"? Also, the borough of Staten Island
> > used to be called the borough of Richmond. It is and has been Richmond County.
>
> It's Bronx County, but the Borough of THE Bronx.
I would argue that this is not quite the same thing as two distinct names.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
John Steele Gordon
> >
> > The confusion comes, I suspect, from the fact that this song is from On
> > the Town (1944).
>
> versions of the song, which substituted "wonderful" for "helluva." I think
> the existence of the musical "Wonderful Town" is merely a complicating
> factor.
I have always hated movie musicals (with a few notable exceptions, Fame
and Cabaret being two of them), so I am rarely familiar with the ghastly
things they did to the Broadway originals.
> I can think of two examples from Cole Porter:
>
> "Some like a bop-type refrain" (or "... that perfume from Spain") for "I get
> no kick from cocaine."
> "And we suddenly know what heaven we're in" for "... the sweetness of sin"
I think one Cole Porter line that slipped through was "She got pinched
in the Astor Bar."
I have never seen the movie of Pal Joey, so I don't know if Lorenz
Hart's marvelous anti-Hollywood line got through or not:
His thoughts are seldom consecutive,
He just can't write.
I know a movie executive
Who's twice as bright.
JSG
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > Or consider the bowdlerization of "You are my Sunshine* (original lyric
> > -- "I dreamed you lay there by my side"; bowdlerized -- I dreamed I held
> > you in my arms)." This last is pretty pathetic on all counts; not only
> > was the singer lying down, so the "you" of the song would be lying with
> > him if in his arms, but the other word in the rhyme was "cried," which
> > kinda gives away the original anyway.
> >
> > We don't have that sort of pantywaisting on AUE, do we? No, indeed.
>
Okay, "nethergarmentwaisting." But under duress.
William R Ward
> Peter Cooper wrote:
> > I learnt, and have taught, that there is a distinct difference between a city
> > and a town.
> >
> > A city being a place that has a cathedral, and a town merely being a large
> > conurbation (in relation to surrounding settlings). For example, there is a
> > city in Wales called St. Davids which has a population of under 10,000. It's
> > called a city because it has a cathedral.
> >
> > I would assume that this is merely the UK English meaning of 'city', and is
> > not used elsewhere, such as the US. Could anyone clarify that?
>
> constitutions, not the federal one, so it varies widely. In New York,
> where I live, and which has the most complicated, convoluted,
> inefficient, backward, and politics-ridden government structure on the
> face of the earth, there are Class A cities (New York City is the only
> one), Class B cities (a dozen or so), towns, and villages. Then, of
> course, there are also counties. (The boroughs of New York City are also
> counties of New York State--only with different names, except for
> subject to, besides Congress, the State Legislature, the County
> Legislature, and the Town Board, all happily passing laws, hiring
> bureaucrats, and working at cross purposes. If I lived in a village, I
> would have a village board to contend with as well.
Fortunately for me, the situation is much simpler in California. The
state is divided into counties, and inside counties there are cities.
However, some of the cities incorporate using the word "Town" instead
of "City", but legally it's all the same thing. For example, Los
Gatos is legally the "Town of Los Gatos" while all the other nearby
cities are "City of San Jose" etc. The choice is made in hopes of
giving a certain ambience. Los Gatos, for example, looks for
conservative yuppie suburbanites to settle, and they apparently felt
that using the word "Town" would further that goal.
San Francisco is an exception - the County and City are co-terminous.
I believe this is the only such case in California. The County
government still exists technically, but the City pretty much runs the
show. For example, the San Francisco Sheriff's Department consists
entirely of court bailiffs and jail guards, I believe. SFPD does all
the "real" police work. See below for more on CA law enforcement.
Interestingly enough, all local government elections are nonpartisan.
I believe this is a state law. The ballots and campaigns do not
mention the parties that the candidates belong to. You have to pick
who you like based on their claims and promises, rather than their
party affiliation. Cities have elected City (or Town in cases like
Los Gatos) Councils and Mayors.
Interestingly enough, in the city I live in, Santa Cruz, the mayor is
not an elected official. Instead, the council members take turns
(using some strange rotation system that I don't understand) serving
as mayor for a year or two. Also, all the council members are elected
"at large" rather than representing an area of the City. Most cities,
however, have more conventional setups.
Anyway, everything in the county that isn't part of a city is called
"unincorporated areas" and those governmental functions normally
provided by city government are instead provided by county
governments, districts, or private companies. As a result, county
governments (except for SF) tend to have a lot more power than they
would in other parts of the country.
The law enforcement in a city is provided by the Police Department,
but in an unincorporated area by the Sheriff's Office. And of course
we have state police in the form of the California Highway Patrol, who
generally just do traffic enforcement (primarily on state highways),
but if a CHP car is closer to the scene than the Sheriff's deputy,
often CHP will come to the call. In cities, though, you almost never
see the CHP except cruising past on the freeway.
Fire departments on the other hand are district-based, at least in
unincorporated areas. A section of the county is set up as a Fire
District, and the fire department serves that district. I believe
there is a district council to administer it, and they levy property
taxes within that district. Water is often also provided by a Water
District, and in some cases the small craft harbors (marinas) are run
by a Port District or Harbor District. Districts may or may not
overlap with cities - an example is the Santa Cruz Port District which
is partly in the City of Santa Cruz and partly in unincorporated parts
of the County.
Garbage collection and ambulance service in unincorporated areas are
usually contracted out to private companies (Waste Management and
American Medical Response, respectively, in my area at least). In
cities, the city usually provides more, but not always.
As for towns and villages as they are generally used in my part of the
world:
A lot of areas that people live in are called "towns" colloquially,
but have no legal status other than a post office and ZIP code. In
some cases there is an older downtown shopping area that is called a
"village." This is the only use of the word "village" that I'm aware
of in California. For instance, I grew up in Aptos, which is part of
Santa Cruz County. Aptos Village is the name for a particular area
where some of the oldest buildings are located (some over 100 years
old! [;-) for those of you living in areas with longer histories]),
antique shops, etc. Soquel Village, just a few miles north, is
similar. Capitola Village is in the City of Capitola, but is the same
sort of thing. These villages have no legal status - they are just
called that by the citizens & shopkeepers of the area. (The City of
Santa Cruz has a "downtown" instead, however.)
This is probably a lot more than anyone wanted to hear, but once I got
started I just kept going and going and going....
--Bill.
--
William R Ward her...@bayview.com http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
William R Ward
> In New Zealand I believe that there also used to be an allowance for
> smaller population centres to become a city if there was a cathedral.
> The only example that I can call to mind is Nelson. I think that it had
> a population of less than 10,00 when it became a city because of the
> presence of a cathedral. Naturally enough for a British colony, it was
> an Anglican cathedral (and still is).
I remember when I was traveling through New Zealand in the early
1980's with my parents (I was just a kid though) that we saw a lot of
signs for such and such Township. You don't mention Townships in your
message - what of those? (This was mainly in rural parts of South
Island, if that matters).
Peter Hoogenboom
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 04:09:58 +0200, Peter Hoogenboom
> <phooge...@weSPAMsleyan.edu> wrote:
>
> >> For a Londoner, the phrase the City is therefore roughly the
> >> equivalent to Wall Street.
> >
> >When using "Wall Street" in a geographical sense, New Yorkers generally intend
> >to indicate Wall Street, not the entire financial district.
>
> Ah...things may well have changed since I last lived in New York -
> back in the late sixties. I had an apartment in the Village, but
> worked for a large brokerage firm which was technically in Maiden
> Lane, if memory serves. However, I'm sure that everyone working for
> Merrill Lynch back then described themselves as working "on Wall
> Street" when in fact we did nothing of the sort.
I would argue that working "on Wall Street" is not strictly a geographical sense.
It means, rather, I am working in the financial industry. Would someone with an
office on Maiden Lane or even Broad Street say "Wall Street" when asked "where is
your office"?
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
> Peter Hoogenboom wrote:
>
> > > New York, New York, it's a wonderful town ...
> >
> > I think it was a "helluva" town on Broadway.
>
> Correct:
>
> New York, New York, it's a helluva town.
> The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
> The people ride in a hole in the ground,
> New York, New York!
>
> The confusion comes, I suspect, from the fact that this song is from On
> the Town (1944).
Not entirely. This confusion comes from the movie (and, I assume, radio)
versions of the song, which substituted "wonderful" for "helluva." I think
the existence of the musical "Wonderful Town" is merely a complicating
factor.
I can think of two examples from Cole Porter:
"Some like a bop-type refrain" (or "... that perfume from Spain") for "I get
no kick from cocaine."
"And we suddenly know what heaven we're in" for "... the sweetness of sin"
> The same people (Leonard Bernstein--music--and Adolph
> Greene and Betty Comden--lyrics) also wrote a show called Wonderful Town
> (1953), another peon to the city, although it features a song that
> starts off "Why, oh why, oh why-O/Why did I ever leave Ohio?
And ends:
"Oh why, oh why-o did I leave Ohio? Maybe I'd better go, Ho-H-I-O, Maybe
I'd better go home."
Sheer brilliance.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
> In article <39881F51...@worldnet.att.net>, John Steele Gordon
> <JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >New York, New York, it's a helluva town.
> >The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
> >The people ride in a hole in the ground,
> >New York, New York!
> >
> Now this I have never understood. 'The battery's down' presumably means
> that the singer is exhausted. We might say 'the battery's flat', but
> then, that wouldn't rhyme with town.
ACK! No! The Battery, from which Battery Park takes its name, is at the
southern (that is, downtown) tip of the island. It's an old fort; "battery"
in the artillery sense of the word.
The Bronx is north of, that is to say, uptown of, Manhattan.
(Manhattan is much longer along its (roughly) north-south axis; the
cross-town, roughly east-west, streets on most of the island are numbered;
the higher the number, the more "uptown" or north the street is.)) <- this
extra closing parenthesis is a refugee from an earlier posting of mine.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
It's worth pointing out that the Bronx was not part of New York City in 1895,
so chaging the political boundary would have been more signicficant. In
fact, I think it was part of Westchester county then, but I am not at all
certain about that.
Peter Hoogenboom
Aaron J Dinkin
> John Steele Gordon <JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> The confusion comes, I suspect, from the fact that this song is from On
>> the Town (1944). The same people (Leonard Bernstein--music--and Adolph
>> Greene and Betty Comden--lyrics) also wrote a show called Wonderful Town
>> (1953), another peon to the city, although it features a song that
>> starts off "Why, oh why, oh why-O/Why did I ever leave Ohio?
>
> Is there any reason that's written with the unaesthetic "why-O" instead of
> using the more symmetrical "Why, oh why, oh why, oh / Why did I ever leave
> Ohio?"
I chanced to hear the song this evening; John's original transcription
with "why-O" better conveys what the lyric actually sounds like than my
supposedly "more symmetrical" rewriting.
Aaron J Dinkin
> Or consider the bowdlerization of "You are my Sunshine* (original lyric
> -- "I dreamed you lay there by my side"; bowdlerized -- I dreamed I held
> you in my arms)." This last is pretty pathetic on all counts; not only
> was the singer lying down, so the "you" of the song would be lying with
> him if in his arms, but the other word in the rhyme was "cried," which
> kinda gives away the original anyway.
>
> We don't have that sort of pantywaisting on AUE, do we? No, indeed.
<ahem> I think you mean "undershortswaisting". Thank you.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Gwen Lenker
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>Aaron J Dinkin wrote:
>>
>> Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> > We don't have that sort of pantywaisting on AUE, do we? No, indeed.
>>
>> <ahem> I think you mean "undershortswaisting". Thank you.
>
>Okay, "nethergarmentwaisting." But under duress.
"Smallclotheswaisting," please!
Aaron J Dinkin
Jitze Couperus
wrote:
>Gwen Lenker <gale...@mail.com> wrote:
Today I heard on the radio that a certain well-known purveyor
of naughty garments (located in Hollywood) is trying to change
its image to something more upscale.
They are now selling "Butterfly Lingerie".
Formerly known as crotchless panties...
Clever marketing man there somewhere.
Jitze
Stephen Toogood
<phooge...@weSPAMsleyan.edu> writes
>
>ACK! No! The Battery, from which Battery Park takes its name, is at the
>southern (that is, downtown) tip of the island. It's an old fort; "battery"
>in the artillery sense of the word.
facetious reference to what I believed when I were a lad (and the song
was new).
>
>The Bronx is north of, that is to say, uptown of, Manhattan.
>
>(Manhattan is much longer along its (roughly) north-south axis; the
>cross-town, roughly east-west, streets on most of the island are numbered;
>the higher the number, the more "uptown" or north the street is.)) <- this
>extra closing parenthesis is a refugee from an earlier posting of mine.
>
past, but until now I hadn't realised the fundamental difference:
New York 'up' assumes Cartesian co-ordinates, whereas London is polar.
--
Stephen Toogood
R. Fontana
> Stephen Toogood wrote:
>
> > In article <39881F51...@worldnet.att.net>, John Steele Gordon
> > <JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> > >
> > >New York, New York, it's a helluva town.
> > >The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
> > >The people ride in a hole in the ground,
> > >New York, New York!
> > >
> > Now this I have never understood. 'The battery's down' presumably means
> > that the singer is exhausted. We might say 'the battery's flat', but
> > then, that wouldn't rhyme with town.
>
> ACK! No! The Battery, from which Battery Park takes its name, is at the
> southern (that is, downtown) tip of the island. It's an old fort; "battery"
> in the artillery sense of the word.
>
> The Bronx is north of, that is to say, uptown of, Manhattan.
We recently discussed the use of uptown/downtown. I don't think your
usages above are really correct -- one wouldn't say that the Bronx is
"uptown of Manhattan". I think uptown properly can only refer to
Manhattan, and I don't feel comfortable with the "uptown of" usage.
Somewhat similarly, I wouldn't call the Battery the "downtown tip". That
is to say, "downtown" and "uptown" are not always substitutable for
"south(ern) and north(ern)". In particular, when you speaking in terms of
geography that doesn't depend on the existence of the street grid, I
woudn't use "uptown" or "downtown".
RF
R. Fontana
> > > Also, the borough of Staten Island
> > > used to be called the borough of Richmond. It is and has been
> > > Richmond County.
> >
> > I was under the impression that the borough conterminous with Richmond
> > County was called Staten Island from the beginning, but perhaps I'm
> > mistaken.
>
> I read it here in this very newsgroup oh so many moons ago (IIRC).
>
> > The geographical name Staten Island,
> > being of Dutch origin, must of course be older than the assignment of the
> > county name Richmond.
>
> True. Though it was spelled differently! What I recall is that the borough was
> originally called "Richmond," although it was always "Staten Island" in popular
> speech. At some point there was a succesful campaign to rename the borough to
> reflect common usage. But maybe I'm wrong.
The limited info I have available says that that the Dutch named it
Staaten Eylandt, and the *island* was renamed Richmond by the English
after they captured New Amsterdam. So you may be correct.
RF
John Steele Gordon
> It's worth pointing out that the Bronx was not part of New York City in 1895,
> so chaging the political boundary would have been more signicficant. In
> fact, I think it was part of Westchester county then, but I am not at all
> certain about that.
I believe the part of the Bronx with which we are concerned here was
annexed by the city in 1874, the rest in 1895. Before annexation, they
were part of Westchester County, afterwards part of New York County
(Manhattan). Bronx County came into existence in 1914.
JSG
John Steele Gordon
I posted on this yesterday. The Dutch named it Staaten Eylandt, which
was anglicized to Staten Island, it was renamed Richmond in 1675 to
celebrate the birth of the Duke of Richmond. New Yorkers paid no
attention whatever to the name change, and in 1975 the city renamed it
the Borough of Staten Island. It remains Richmond County.
By the way, there's another Staten Island. It's off Tierra del Fuego.
It's a nice place I hear, if you happen to be a penguin.
JSG
Greybeard
wrote in alt.usage.english:
I couldn't bear to snip it. Perhaps if there are follow-ups, their
authors will do the honors.
Here in Ohio, I am given to understand, the situation is much simpler.
There are cities and there are villages. There are, of course,
unincorporated areas, as Bill points out.
I live in a village. If we should attain a population of 5,000
people, we will become a city. It could yet happen in my lifetime.
Won't it be grand?
Regards,
Greybeard
--
John Estill
Inglés nativo, español al estilo mexicano
Millersburg, Ohio, EE.UU.
AUS FAQs: http://www.terra.es/personal/angelarn/aus/index.htm
Greybeard
wrote in alt.usage.english:
>PaulP <ppu...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>> In New Zealand I believe that there also used to be an allowance for
>> smaller population centres to become a city if there was a cathedral.
>> The only example that I can call to mind is Nelson. I think that it had
>> a population of less than 10,00 when it became a city because of the
>> presence of a cathedral. Naturally enough for a British colony, it was
>> an Anglican cathedral (and still is).
>
>I remember when I was traveling through New Zealand in the early
>1980's with my parents (I was just a kid though) that we saw a lot of
>signs for such and such Township. You don't mention Townships in your
>message - what of those? (This was mainly in rural parts of South
>Island, if that matters).
I don't know a thing about New Zealand, and I don't remember noticing
townships when I lived in California, but here in Ohio townships are
subdivisions of counties, useful for the administration of building
permits, maintenance of local roads, etc. I seem to recall reading
that the townships were established (or at least their boundaries
were) when the Northwest Territory (which is what we were, then) was
surveyed for settlement.
Aaron J Dinkin
> Here in Ohio, I am given to understand, the situation is much simpler.
> There are cities and there are villages. There are, of course,
> unincorporated areas, as Bill points out.
Don't be so quick to say "of course". In Massachusetts, there are no
incorporated areas: any point in the state is in part of some city or town.
> I live in a village. If we should attain a population of 5,000
> people, we will become a city. It could yet happen in my lifetime.
> Won't it be grand?
Ah, in Massachusetts it's not that simple. There is a minimum population for a
city (significantly more than 5,000; I don't remember what it is - 15,000? - but
Ben Krefetz has quoted the number elsewhere in this thread), but it is optional
for a community attaining that population to make the changeover; there are also
significant governmental changes that accompany becoming a city. (And there are
some communities that did become cities upon achieving the population, but still
like to call themselves towns: thus the Town of Methuen is a city, not a town.)
Richard Fontana
> "R. Fontana" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Peter Hoogenboom wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Toogood wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <39881F51...@worldnet.att.net>, John Steele Gordon
> > > > <JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> > > > >
> > > > >New York, New York, it's a helluva town.
> > > > >The Bronx is up and the Battery's down,
> > > > >The people ride in a hole in the ground,
> > > > >New York, New York!
> > > > >
> > > > Now this I have never understood. 'The battery's down' presumably means
> > > > that the singer is exhausted. We might say 'the battery's flat', but
> > > > then, that wouldn't rhyme with town.
> > >
> > > ACK! No! The Battery, from which Battery Park takes its name, is at the
> > > southern (that is, downtown) tip of the island. It's an old fort; "battery"
> > > in the artillery sense of the word.
> > >
> > > The Bronx is north of, that is to say, uptown of, Manhattan.
> >
> > We recently discussed the use of uptown/downtown. I don't think your
> > usages above are really correct -- one wouldn't say that the Bronx is
> > "uptown of Manhattan". I think uptown properly can only refer to
> > Manhattan, and I don't feel comfortable with the "uptown of" usage.
> >
> > Somewhat similarly, I wouldn't call the Battery the "downtown tip". That
> > is to say, "downtown" and "uptown" are not always substitutable for
> > "south(ern) and north(ern)". In particular, when you speaking in terms of
> > geography that doesn't depend on the existence of the street grid, I
> > woudn't use "uptown" or "downtown".
>
> I would.
>
> But anyway, would you say "going down to the Bronx" or "up to Battery Park"?
"Up to the Bronx" (from anywhere in NYC) and "down to Battery Park"
(if in Manhattan or Queens, or, presumably, the Bronx) and "downtown to
Battery Park" (if in Manhattan). Never "uptown to the Bronx". I think I
would say "up to Battery Park" if I were in Brooklyn.
RF
Richard Fontana
> I was thinking of the consolidation in 1898. The city's web site seems to say
> nothing about its growth before that date, however. But it does say this:
>
> New York City was 360 square miles in 1898 — it is now 321.8 square miles
> Almost 50 percent of all the immigrants in the city were from Germany and Ireland
> (Are you listening, Richard Fontana?)
Er, yeah...
RF
Peter Hoogenboom
> Anyway, everything in the county that isn't part of a city is called
> "unincorporated areas" and those governmental functions normally
> provided by city government are instead provided by county
> governments, districts, or private companies. As a result, county
> governments (except for SF) tend to have a lot more power than they
> would in other parts of the country.
Are you saying that other parts of the country don't have "unincorporated areas"? In
Virginia, for example, the county governments are responsible for the unincorporated
areas and, at least in the more rural cases, the incorporated towns. I suspect that
most states have extensive unincorporated areas under county control.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
> Greybeard <jmes...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > Here in Ohio, I am given to understand, the situation is much simpler.
> > There are cities and there are villages. There are, of course,
> > unincorporated areas, as Bill points out.
>
> Don't be so quick to say "of course". In Massachusetts, there are no
> incorporated areas: any point in the state is in part of some city or town.
This explains why a friend of mine visiting from Massachusetts reacted why she did
when I slowed down for the sherrif's car on the side of the road in Virginia. She
seemed to think the deputy would be powerless to ticket me. Hah!
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
I was thinking of the consolidation in 1898. The city's web site seems to say
nothing about its growth before that date, however. But it does say this:
New York City was 360 square miles in 1898 — it is now 321.8 square miles
Almost 50 percent of all the immigrants in the city were from Germany and Ireland
(Are you listening, Richard Fontana?)
Interesting.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Peter Hoogenboom
I would.
--
Peter Hoogenboom
Aaron J Dinkin
> William R Ward wrote:
>
>> Anyway, everything in the county that isn't part of a city is called
>> "unincorporated areas" and those governmental functions normally
>> provided by city government are instead provided by county
>> governments, districts, or private companies. As a result, county
>> governments (except for SF) tend to have a lot more power than they
>> would in other parts of the country.
>
> Are you saying that other parts of the country don't have
> "unincorporated areas"? In Virginia, for example, the county
> governments are responsible for the unincorporated areas and, at least
> in the more rural cases, the incorporated towns. I suspect that
> most states have extensive unincorporated areas under county control.
In Massachusetts, as I said elsewhere in the thread, there are no
unincorporated areas - there is no place that is not part of one of the
state's 351 cities and towns. Perhaps relatedly, there is virtually no
county government - counties that are anything more than administrative
subdivisions used by the state government are the exception rather than
the rule.
Benjamin Krefetz
> Peter Hoogenboom <phooge...@wespamsleyan.edu> wrote:
I believe Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are the only states
where every square inch of land belongs to some city or town. New Jersey also
doesn't have any unincorporated land, but it has a more complicated system
involving such districts as townships and boroughs. The rest of the Northeast
(PA, NY, VT, NH, and ME) have unincorporated areas (such as Indian Lake, NY,
mentioned earlier in the thread) which are administered by their counties, but
these areas are all named (or in Maine's case numbered) and given definite
boundaries, and in any case they only contain at most a couple of hundred
people each. So nowhere in the Northeast is there any sort of population center
which is not part of a city, town, or some other district administered on a more
local level than county.
Ben
John Steele Gordon
> "Up to the Bronx" (from anywhere in NYC) and "down to Battery Park"
> (if in Manhattan or Queens, or, presumably, the Bronx) and "downtown to
> Battery Park" (if in Manhattan). Never "uptown to the Bronx". I think I
> would say "up to Battery Park" if I were in Brooklyn.
I don't think any Brooklynite would. Wouldn't they just say, "I'm going
to Battery Park"? People who live in Brooklyn and Queens habitually
refer to Manhattan as "the city," as though it were a separate world
(which, of course, it is).
JSG
John Steele Gordon
> I believe Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are the only states
> where every square inch of land belongs to some city or town. New Jersey also
> doesn't have any unincorporated land, but it has a more complicated system
> involving such districts as townships and boroughs. The rest of the Northeast
> (PA, NY, VT, NH, and ME) have unincorporated areas (such as Indian Lake, NY,
> mentioned earlier in the thread) which are administered by their counties, but
> these areas are all named (or in Maine's case numbered) and given definite
> boundaries, and in any case they only contain at most a couple of hundred
> people each. So nowhere in the Northeast is there any sort of population center
> which is not part of a city, town, or some other district administered on a more
> local level than county.
There are no unincorporated areas in New York State. Counties are
tessellated by towns and cities (except New York City, where the city is
tessellated by counties). Hamlets, which have no government, are
administered by the towns in which they lie, not the county. I haven't a
clue as to the status of Indian reservations, however. New York State
has several of those, including one on some very pricey land in
Southampton.
JSG