a question
facco
Franke
facco wrote:
> What's the difference between "AD236"and"236AD"?thank you.
yerwelkum.
Martin Ambuhl
>
> What's the difference between "AD236"and"236AD"?thank you.
One difference is that AD 235 is correct and 235 AD is not. Did you
have something more subtle in mind?
John H
Both forms are often used. Why is the latter incorrect?
Google results:
2000AD 17,200
AD2000 21,400
Surely 17,200 web authors can't be wrong? On the other hand ...
--
John H
www.jfhopkin.com
Remove hat before emailing
Martin Ambuhl
>
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:12:17 GMT, Martin Ambuhl
> <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >facco wrote:
> >>
> >> What's the difference between "AD236"and"236AD"?thank you.
> >
> >One difference is that AD 235 is correct and 235 AD is not. Did you
> >have something more subtle in mind?
>
> Both forms are often used. Why is the latter incorrect?
>
> Google results:
>
> 2000AD 17,200
> AD2000 21,400
>
> Surely 17,200 web authors can't be wrong? On the other hand ...
If you really think that the "web authors" know a damn thing about
English, you are a very sick puppy.
The UCLE entry has been at
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/ucle/ucle5.html#anchor242382
AD = Anno Domini = "In the year of the Lord."
AD 235 = "In the year of the Lord 235"
235 AD = "235 in the year of the Lord," as in
Q: How many drachmas did Tiberius give you?
A: Well, I haven't done my taxes recently, but he gave me 235 in
the year of the Lord.
Frances Kemmish
>
> John H wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:12:17 GMT, Martin Ambuhl
> > <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >facco wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What's the difference between "AD236"and"236AD"?thank you.
> > >
> > >One difference is that AD 235 is correct and 235 AD is not. Did you
> > >have something more subtle in mind?
> >
> > Both forms are often used. Why is the latter incorrect?
> >
> > Google results:
> >
> > 2000AD 17,200
> > AD2000 21,400
> >
> > Surely 17,200 web authors can't be wrong? On the other hand ...
>
> If you really think that the "web authors" know a damn thing about
> English, you are a very sick puppy.
>
Whether web-authors know anything or not is irrelevant, since "235 AD"
is perfectly acceptable.
The aue FAQ entry follows:
"A.D."
------
"A.D." stands for _Anno Domini_ = "in the year of the Lord", not
for "after the death".
Most stylebooks prescribe placing "A.D." before the year:
"Arminius died A.D. 21." WDEU calls this "the traditional and still
most frequently used styling" (the OED has citations from 1579 on);
but Collins English Dictionary says "this is no longer general
practice." Placing "A.D." after the year is, if anything, better
supported by precedents from Classical Latin (whose word order was
flexible enough that either placement would be grammatical): the
ancient Romans did not use A.D. dating, but Cicero (_Pro Flacco_ I)
has _quingentesimo anno rei publicae_ = "in the five-hundredth year
of the state".
Fran
R H Draney
<fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>The aue FAQ entry follows:
>
>"A.D."
>------
>
> "A.D." stands for _Anno Domini_ = "in the year of the Lord", not
>for "after the death".
>
> Most stylebooks prescribe placing "A.D." before the year:
>"Arminius died A.D. 21." WDEU calls this "the traditional and still
>most frequently used styling" (the OED has citations from 1579 on);
>but Collins English Dictionary says "this is no longer general
>practice." Placing "A.D." after the year is, if anything, better
>supported by precedents from Classical Latin (whose word order was
>flexible enough that either placement would be grammatical): the
>ancient Romans did not use A.D. dating, but Cicero (_Pro Flacco_ I)
>has _quingentesimo anno rei publicae_ = "in the five-hundredth year
>of the state".
For true analogy with the Ciceronian example, wouldn't the phrase have
to be "2001th year AD" rather than just "2000 AD"?...(ordinal number
seems an obligatory part of the phrasing)....
And while we're at it, why is the equivalent expression "CE" said to
stand for "Common Era" when it's so much more obviously "Christian
Era"?...maybe we should even make it "XE" to reflect the Greek
spelling...but then we'd have to change "era" to "epoch" to avoid a
linguistic chimera....r
N.Mitchum
----
> What's the difference between "AD236"and"236AD"?thank you.
Neither would be written thus. You would separate the numbers and
letters and write "A.D. 236" or 236 A.D."
"B.C." always goes after the year. "A.D." traditionally comes
before the date, but there are plenty of instances in which it
follows. You can write "236 A.D." with little fear of being
called incorrect, but be careful -- there are those who do indeed
consider it wrong. It follows the date when expressed as a
century: "the third century A.D."
----NM
Truly Donovan
<mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I think the shift from 236 to 235 is pretty damn subtle,
myself. Or is this part of the when-did-the-millennium-
start debate?
--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com
mplsray
"R H Draney" <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3bac9fc3...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 09:01:40 -0400, Frances Kemmish
> <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >The aue FAQ entry follows:
> >
> >"A.D."
> >------
> >
> > "A.D." stands for _Anno Domini_ = "in the year of the Lord", not
> >for "after the death".
> >
> > Most stylebooks prescribe placing "A.D." before the year:
> >"Arminius died A.D. 21." WDEU calls this "the traditional and still
> >most frequently used styling" (the OED has citations from 1579 on);
> >but Collins English Dictionary says "this is no longer general
> >practice." Placing "A.D." after the year is, if anything, better
> >supported by precedents from Classical Latin (whose word order was
> >flexible enough that either placement would be grammatical): the
> >ancient Romans did not use A.D. dating, but Cicero (_Pro Flacco_ I)
> >has _quingentesimo anno rei publicae_ = "in the five-hundredth year
> >of the state".
>
> For true analogy with the Ciceronian example, wouldn't the phrase have
> to be "2001th year AD" rather than just "2000 AD"?...(ordinal number
> seems an obligatory part of the phrasing)....
>
It is absurd in any case to determine correct English usage based upon how a
given word was used in its original language. The only exception is when all
sides of a dispute have decided to turn to an etymological argument to help
resolve their dispute--which is a political solution rather than a scholarly
one.[1] If we cared about what the French had to say about the English word
"fleur-de-lis," for example, we would pronounce its last syllable "LEES",
/'lis/, and we would spell the word "fleur-de-lys," since that is the
spelling the French currently favor.
2001 AD is correct because that is how AD is actually used in English by
educated speakers and writers. AD 2001 is also correct, because it has not
yet lost enough support to be considered archaic (and perhaps it never
will). Merriam-Webster, in their Collegiate dictionary, do not discuss this
question of usage, nor does *The American Heritage Dictionary,* 4th ed.
Shame on them. Encarta does tackle it, in their entry for "A.D.1, AD":
[quote]
*CORRECT USAGE* Because of its literal Latin meaning, A.D. is traditionally
put before the numeral to which it relates, so that it makes grammatical
sense if understood in its expanded form: A.D. _1453._ In practice, A.D. is
often put after the numeral, and it is normally acceptable to put it after
the identification of a century, as in _the fifth century_ A.D. When using
this abbreviation, students are advised to follow their professor's
individual style guidelines. Some writers prfer to use P.E. (Present Era) or
C.E. (Common Era) as alternatives in order to avoid the association with
Christianity.
[end quote]
This is yet another example of how Encarta--which one of its editors
identified as being a prescriptive dictionary--is, like all other large
modern dictionaries, a descriptive one.
That is the first time I can remember seeing "P.E." for "Present Era."
> And while we're at it, why is the equivalent expression "CE" said to
> stand for "Common Era" when it's so much more obviously "Christian
> Era"?...maybe we should even make it "XE" to reflect the Greek
> spelling...but then we'd have to change "era" to "epoch" to avoid a
> linguistic chimera....r
Besides which, you might cause momentary confusion among those for whom
"epoch" means the date upon which a calendar is fixed: The epoch of the
Christian Era/Common Era calendar is January 1, 1 AD.
CE has the advantage of having been in long use in the sense of "Common
Era," this even though the average person may never have run across it. PE
is thus, in my view, unlikely to succeed. You might consider CE to have the
"defect" of being liable to be mistaken for "Christian Era," but the fact is
it is mostly used by scholars who accept that it means "Common Era." The
large usage base[2] would make a change to some other substitute for AD
difficult.
Notes:
[1] Something of the sort was once done in zoological nomenclature, where
the original published scientific name for a species was given precedence
over any subsequent names published for the same species. That explains why
"brontosaurus" is no longer a part of the scientific nomenclature. It
appears that this rule has recently been changed, so that there is now the
option of choosing the popular name, rather than the name first published.
Even zoologists, it seems, have decided to follow a type of popular usage.
[2]"Large" is relative here. The number of scholars who regularly need to
write dates in AD and BC is no doubt tiny compared to the total of all
people who write in English.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Rob Bannister
More Americanisms! We don't just write 235 AD, that's how we say it too:
"Two three five Ay Dee" or "Two hundred and thirty-five Ay Dee".
-- Rob Bannister
Maria Conlon
Rob Bannister wrote in message
Not commenting on the placement of "AD," or on your "More
Americanisms!" I wonder how many people say "Two three five..." or
"Two hundred and thirty-five...."
In speaking of this date, I would be inclined to say "two
thirty-five." "Two hundred thirty-five" is possible but unlikely.
Is this pondian? I vaguely recall discussing this before, but I'm
not sure when or what the consensus (if any) was.
Maria (Tootsie)
Charles Riggs
<mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
He may have had nothing more subtle in mind than to want the correct
answer instead of an off-the-wall answer. There is nothing incorrect
about 235 AD. If anything, it is "more correct" than the other way
around.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>facco wrote:
>----
>> What's the difference between "AD236"and"236AD"?thank you.
>>....
>
>Neither would be written thus. You would separate the numbers and
>letters and write "A.D. 236" or 236 A.D."
I agree about the space, but is there any indication that facco was
writing from America? "235 AD" is fine in this neck of the woods.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
As I recall, Donna says we say "two hundred thirty-five" and some
agreed; I say we say "two hundred and thirty-five" and some agreed.
But we were talking about numbers in general. For dates, I say it like
you say it, unless I'm referring to 2001, 2002, ..., 2009 where I say
"two thousand and one", etc. or to 1901, 1902, ..., 1909, and other
series of that ilk, where I say "nineteen oh one", etc.
Charles Riggs
Maria Conlon
Charles Riggs wrote in message
>Maria Conlon wrote:
[to Rob Bannister]:
>>Not commenting on the placement of "AD," or on your "More
>>Americanisms!" I wonder how many people say "Two three five..." or
>>"Two hundred and thirty-five...."
>>
>>In speaking of this date, I would be inclined to say "two
>>thirty-five." "Two hundred thirty-five" is possible but unlikely.
>>
>>Is this pondian? I vaguely recall discussing this before, but I'm
>>not sure when or what the consensus (if any) was.
>As I recall, Donna says we say "two hundred thirty-five" and some
>agreed; I say we say "two hundred and thirty-five" and some agreed.
>But we were talking about numbers in general. For dates, I say it
like
>you say it, unless I'm referring to 2001, 2002, ..., 2009 where I
say
>"two thousand and one", etc. or to 1901, 1902, ..., 1909, and other
>series of that ilk, where I say "nineteen oh one", etc.
I think[1] I said (before) that I'd say "two thousand one" etc., but
now that we're almost ten months into it, I find myself saying "two
thousand and one."[2] I guess that's the way it's commonly said by
people around me and I've just picked it up from them.
I'm with you on 1901, etc.
[1] I really don't recall what I said. You have a better memory than
I do.
[2] "Two thousand'n one" is more what I really say.
Maria
P&D Schultz
>
> John H wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:12:17 GMT, Martin Ambuhl
> > <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >facco wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What's the difference between "AD236"and"236AD"?thank you.
> > >
> > >One difference is that AD 235 is correct and 235 AD is not. Did you
> > >have something more subtle in mind?
> >
> > Both forms are often used. Why is the latter incorrect?
> >
> > Google results:
> >
> > 2000AD 17,200
> > AD2000 21,400
> >
> > Surely 17,200 web authors can't be wrong? On the other hand ...
>
> If you really think that the "web authors" know a damn thing about
But usage *defines* correctness.
We're in one of those cycles again -- the ones that Robert Cunningham
considers personal attacks. Watch out.
\\P. Schultz
P&D Schultz
> <...>
> I'm with you on 1901, etc.
>
> [1] I really don't recall what I said. You have a better memory than
> I do.
> [2] "Two thousand'n one" is more what I really say.
I wondered why I sometimes said "two thirty-five ay dee," and sometimes
"two hundred thirty-five ay dee."
So I kept real good track, and it turned out that whenever I inserted
the word "hundred," I happened to have had blueberries on my cereal at
breakfast that morning.
\\P. Schultz
Maria Conlon
P&D Schultz wrote in message
Jeez, you mean you didn't know that about blueberries before? It was
well known in Detroit -- how could you have missed it?
Have you figured out (or remembered) yet what strawberries do? I
can't say more than that without being risque.
Maria
Charles Riggs
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>I think[1] I said (before) that I'd say "two thousand one" etc., but
>now that we're almost ten months into it, I find myself saying "two
>thousand and one."
Natch. People say it now as I predicted over a year they'd say it; you
can't argue with the influence of Stanley Kubrick. Same with the euro
insofar as my predictions go. It'll be euros for more than one, not
euro as the guidelines say it should be. You heard it here.
>I'm with you on 1901, etc.
Good. There's no other way to say it, really, but "nineteen oh one",
unless you say "nineteen hundred one", paralleling the way some
oddballs say "two thousand one".
>[1] I really don't recall what I said. You have a better memory than
>I do.
>[2] "Two thousand'n one" is more what I really say.
Sticks and beans, same thing.
Charles Riggs
Maria Conlon
Charles Riggs wrote in message ...
>Sticks and beans, same thing.
What?
Maria
Martin Ambuhl
Now we know why Chuck hates the Summer Doldrums competition.
Martin Ambuhl
>
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >
> > John H wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:12:17 GMT, Martin Ambuhl
> > > <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >facco wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> What's the difference between "AD236"and"236AD"?thank you.
> > > >
> > > >One difference is that AD 235 is correct and 235 AD is not. Did you
> > > >have something more subtle in mind?
> > >
> > > Both forms are often used. Why is the latter incorrect?
> > >
> > > Google results:
> > >
> > > 2000AD 17,200
> > > AD2000 21,400
> > >
> > > Surely 17,200 web authors can't be wrong? On the other hand ...
> >
> > If you really think that the "web authors" know a damn thing about
> > English, you are a very sick puppy. <...>
>
> But usage *defines* correctness.
Big deal. "Web authors" do not define usage.
Bob Cunningham
<schult...@erols.com> said:
[...]
>We're in one of those cycles again -- the ones that Robert Cunningham
>considers personal attacks. Watch out.
Defamation by erroneous allusion.
Raymond S. Wise
Interesting. I never knew there was a pondian distinction. At
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ , the *Cambridge Dictionary of
American English* has only "A.D.," while the *Cambridge International
Dictionary of English.* has only "AD."
Well, at least I can take solace in the fact that *Encarta* lists both
spellings, with no usage note concerning American versus British
usage.
Charles Riggs
<mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I hate it only because it sucks donkey dongs. Reason enough?
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
>What?
Sorry. An expression my father used and, since it's so familiar to me,
I used it without thinking that others might not know its meaning.
He'd quote his Sergeant who used to say about his men in Germany when
something they had to do didn't matter in the least to him, "Mox nix,
pick up sticks, feed `em beans". My father shortened this to "Sticks
and beans", especially if I'd complain about having to wash his car,
or somepin like that.
If I must further explain, "mox nix" is GI for "machts nichts" which
is German for "it doesn't matter", more-or-less.
Charles Riggs
Ben Zimmer
Charles Riggs wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:15:36 -0400, "Maria Conlon"
> <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> >I think[1] I said (before) that I'd say "two thousand one" etc., but
> >now that we're almost ten months into it, I find myself saying "two
> >thousand and one."
>
> Natch. People say it now as I predicted over a year they'd say it; you
> can't argue with the influence of Stanley Kubrick. Same with the euro
> insofar as my predictions go. It'll be euros for more than one, not
> euro as the guidelines say it should be. You heard it here.
>
> >I'm with you on 1901, etc.
>
> Good. There's no other way to say it, really, but "nineteen oh one",
> unless you say "nineteen hundred one", paralleling the way some
> oddballs say "two thousand one".
Well, there was "nineteen {o/a}ught one" of course... and I think also
"nineteen one" in Rightpondian usage.
--Ben
N.Mitchum
----
> >Neither would be written thus. You would separate the numbers and
> >letters and write "A.D. 236" or 236 A.D."
>
> I agree about the space, but is there any indication that facco was
> writing from America? "235 AD" is fine in this neck of the woods.
I allowed for that in my reply: "A.D. traditionally comes before
the date, but there are plenty of instances in which it follows."
----NM
Steve MacGregor
> I've read the FAQ--and even lurked for the suggested month--and
> have yet to see the following discussed. I may have missed it,
> or perhaps it belongs in alt.peeves, but here goes anyway.
> Increasingly there's many instances (I just used one--yuck!) in
> which "there are" is contracted to "there's." I believe that usage
> is incorrect, but it seems to be appearing more and more frequently.
> Would anyone care to share their thoughts on the matter?
It may be incorrect in some people's minds, but if you're going to
allow contractions in the first one, why not allow this one as well?
I accept "there's" as a contraction of either "there is" or "there
are", as appropriate. It's a queer contraction, just like "won't" for
"will not.
--
____ "Go: It's all fun and games,
(_) /: ,/ till someone loses an eye!"
/___/ (_) Steve MacGregor, Phoenix, AZ
<http://www.steve-and-pattie.com>
Charles Riggs
"Nineteen ought one" wouldn't surprise me, but "nineteen one" would. I
don't know an easy way to verify this one way or another.
Charles Riggs
dcw
Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>"Nineteen ought one" wouldn't surprise me, but "nineteen one" would. I
>don't know an easy way to verify this one way or another.
Does anyone on the Right say "aught" (I don't think the spelling "ought"
is possible) for "naught" or "nought"?
David
Ben Zimmer
Charles Riggs wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 02:56:02 -0500, Ben Zimmer
> <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Charles Riggs wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:15:36 -0400, "Maria Conlon"
> >> <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I'm with you on 1901, etc.
> >>
> >> Good. There's no other way to say it, really, but "nineteen oh one",
> >> unless you say "nineteen hundred one", paralleling the way some
> >> oddballs say "two thousand one".
> >
> >Well, there was "nineteen {o/a}ught one" of course... and I think also
> >"nineteen one" in Rightpondian usage.
>
> "Nineteen ought one" wouldn't surprise me, but "nineteen one" would. I
> don't know an easy way to verify this one way or another.
Claimed as British usage by:
http://home.cfl.rr.com/happysurfer/english.htm
In "The One Before the Last" (http://www.bartleby.com/232/211.html) the
British poet Rupert Brooke wrote:
How the faded dreams of Nineteen-ten
Were Hell in Nineteen-five.
But some Googling shows it was common Leftpondian usage too, most
prominently in the high school and college "class cheers" from those
years:
Beloit College, Wisc.:
http://www.beloit.edu/~libhome/Archives/PAP/woman/woman.html
We'll sing about a jolly class,
The class of Nineteen Three,
We'll tell of many a lad and lass,
For many a pair have we.
In athletics we can swipe you.
In our classes we don't flunk (Oh, no!)
And now to prove that this is true,
We'll show we've lots of spunk.
University of Buffalo, NY:
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/archives/Fun/IRIS_Yells.html
Boomerang! Boomerang!
Siz! Boom! Roar!
Buffalo Dental
Nineteen Four!
M-e! M-e-d! M-e-d-i-c! U.B.!
Five! Five! Nineteen-five!
U.B. Medics! Freshman!
Coe College, Iowa:
http://jade.coe.edu/~rroeder/scrap/FlagFight.htm
Oskie, wow, wow
Who rah hi,
Wiskie, wow, wow,
Nineteen five!
Newaygo (Mich.) High School:
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/gen/ohio/rr01/rr01_023.html
Wa hoo! Wa hoo! Hoo! Wa hoo!
Newaygo High School
Nineteen-two!
Ree-Rah! Ree-Rah! Ree-rah! Read!
Nineteen-two is in the lead.
Naught-two, naught-two,
Rah! Rah! Rah!
Hobble, Gobble,
Razzle. Dazzle.
Siss, Boom, ah!
Shawnee (Neb.) High School:
http://www.premiernet.net/~ccarley/DAIGH%201.htm
Hi, linkity, lankilty lo!
We're not slow! Who says so?
He's out of his mind! Solo! Solo!
Rickety, rackety, rockity, roo!
Hurrah for the Class of Nineteen-two!
See also the old union song "The Uprising of the Twenty Thousands" about
the New York City Shirtwaist Strike of 1909-10:
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/texts/songs/uprising.html
In the black of the winter of nineteen nine,
When we froze and bled on the picket line,
We showed the world that women could fight
And we rose and won with women's might.
Hail the waistmakers of nineteen nine,
Making their stand on the picket line,
Breaking the power of those who reign,
Pointing the way, smashing the chain.
--Ben
Ben Zimmer
Ben Zimmer wrote:
>
> Charles Riggs wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 02:56:02 -0500, Ben Zimmer
> > <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Charles Riggs wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:15:36 -0400, "Maria Conlon"
> > >> <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >I'm with you on 1901, etc.
> > >>
> > >> Good. There's no other way to say it, really, but "nineteen oh one",
> > >> unless you say "nineteen hundred one", paralleling the way some
> > >> oddballs say "two thousand one".
> > >
> > >Well, there was "nineteen {o/a}ught one" of course... and I think also
> > >"nineteen one" in Rightpondian usage.
> >
> > "Nineteen ought one" wouldn't surprise me, but "nineteen one" would. I
> > don't know an easy way to verify this one way or another.
>
> Claimed as British usage by:
> http://home.cfl.rr.com/happysurfer/english.htm
Whoops, this site actually claims it's *American* usage. But the site
has so many errors I wouldn't necessarily trust this judgment.
--Ben
Matti Lamprhey
> Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> >"Nineteen ought one" wouldn't surprise me, but "nineteen one" would. I
> >don't know an easy way to verify this one way or another.
>
> Does anyone on the Right say "aught" (I don't think the spelling "ought"
> is possible) for "naught" or "nought"?
For aught I know they may well do, but it's incorrect. "Aught" means
"anything", not "nothing".
Matti
Mike Lyle
You ought to know that the only times I've seen the American slang usage in
print it's been given an apostrophe -- "thirty-'ought-six". The form is not used
in European English.
Mike.
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> >"dcw" <D.C....@ukc.ac.uk> wrote...
> >> Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Nineteen ought one" wouldn't surprise me, but "nineteen one" would.
> >> >I don't know an easy way to verify this one way or another.
> >>
> >> Does anyone on the Right say "aught" (I don't think the spelling
> >> "ought" is possible) for "naught" or "nought"?
> >
> >For aught I know they may well do, but it's incorrect. "Aught" means
> >"anything", not "nothing".
>
> You ought to know that the only times I've seen the American slang usage
> in print it's been given an apostrophe -- "thirty-'ought-six". The form
> is not used in European English.
Well you do surprise me. I usually see "thirty-aught-six" from Leftpondia.
Or are you making a distinction between professionally-edited stuff and the
rest?
Matti
Mike Lyle
No, I'm not in a position to make the distinction. When I said "the only times"
I was referring to something like twice, and a long time ago at that. But it
would be nice to think "'ought" was regarded as the correct transcription, since
"aught" is still current in its original and only rational sense.
Mike.
Raymond S. Wise
But the word "aught" meaning "zero" is not the same word as "aught"
meaning "any." The only logic which should be called on here is the
logic of usage, and "aught" and "ought" were at one time clearly used
to mean "zero." I would not be surprised if some centenarians still
use them.
The spelling "'ought" strikes me as a learned error more than anything
else. It is certainly true that "aught" and "ought" are descended from
"naught" and "nought," but if the people who actually used the words
did not spell them with an apostrophe, I don't see what our excuse is
to do so.
Rob Bannister
> Rob Bannister wrote in message
> >Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >> facco wrote:
>
> >> > What's the difference between "AD236"and"236AD"?thank you.
>
> >> One difference is that AD 235 is correct and 235 AD is not. Did
> you
> >> have something more subtle in mind?
>
> >More Americanisms! We don't just write 235 AD, that's how we say it
> too:
> >"Two three five Ay Dee" or "Two hundred and thirty-five Ay Dee".
>
> Not commenting on the placement of "AD," or on your "More
> Americanisms!" I wonder how many people say "Two three five..." or
> "Two hundred and thirty-five...."
>
> In speaking of this date, I would be inclined to say "two
> thirty-five." "Two hundred thirty-five" is possible but unlikely.
>
> Is this pondian? I vaguely recall discussing this before, but I'm
> not sure when or what the consensus (if any) was.
Think it is - Two thirty-five is OK, but we'd never say Two hundred
thirty-five.
-- Rob Bannister
Rob Bannister
Yes, my grandparents (Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire) always said it.
Further North, I believe they say 'owt'.
-- Rob Bannister
dcw
Rob Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>Think it is - Two thirty-five is OK, but we'd never say Two hundred
>thirty-five.
Similarly, the aircraft is called "Seven four seven" on the Right,
and "Seven forty-seven" on the Left.
David
Charles Riggs
<bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 02:56:02 -0500, Ben Zimmer
>> <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Charles Riggs wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:15:36 -0400, "Maria Conlon"
>> >> <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I'm with you on 1901, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Good. There's no other way to say it, really, but "nineteen oh one",
>> >> unless you say "nineteen hundred one", paralleling the way some
>> >> oddballs say "two thousand one".
>> >
>> >Well, there was "nineteen {o/a}ught one" of course... and I think also
>> >"nineteen one" in Rightpondian usage.
>>
>> "Nineteen ought one" wouldn't surprise me, but "nineteen one" would. I
>> don't know an easy way to verify this one way or another.
>
>Claimed as British usage by:
...
Interesting quotes. I stand corrected.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
Curiouser and curiouser. If Americans say that (what does it mean,
anyway?) they are not using the word with the definition I see from
one of my American dictionaries:
aught
noun. anything, anything at all; a whit, jot.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
I started to argue with you but I see, from the COD, that ought and
aught can have either meaning. Funny language, English.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
Ought is colloquial British English. Nought is more acceptable.
Charles Riggs
dcw
Raymond S. Wise <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>But the word "aught" meaning "zero" is not the same word as "aught"
>meaning "any." The only logic which should be called on here is the
>logic of usage, and "aught" and "ought" were at one time clearly used
>to mean "zero." I would not be surprised if some centenarians still
>use them.
I think most of us on the Right are surprised to hear that there _is_
a word "aught" meaning "zero". It's just unknown used here, although
I think I remember that Tennyson uses it. I assume it's like "apron"
and "adder".
"Aught" meaning "any" is pretty rare in England, though not in
Yorkshire.
David
dcw
Rob Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>Yes, my grandparents (Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire) always said it.
>Further North, I believe they say 'owt'.
In Yorkshire, "owt" is "anything", and "nowt" is nothing: "If ever tha
does owt for nowt, do it for thisen" (not sure about the spelling).
David
Ben Zimmer
as it ought, "aught" got covered in:
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwhatwo.html
Matti Lamprhey
> dcw wrote:
> > Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
> >
> > >"Nineteen ought one" wouldn't surprise me, but "nineteen one" would. I
> > >don't know an easy way to verify this one way or another.
> >
> > Does anyone on the Right say "aught" (I don't think the spelling
> > "ought" is possible) for "naught" or "nought"?
>
> Yes, my grandparents (Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire) always said it.
> Further North, I believe they say 'owt'.
But "owt" means "anything", not "nothing" -- as in "You can't get owt for
nowt". I think you're answering a slightly different question.
Not that there's owt wrong with that.
Matti
Matti Lamprhey
>
> But the word "aught" meaning "zero" is not the same word as "aught"
> meaning "any." The only logic which should be called on here is the
> logic of usage, and "aught" and "ought" were at one time clearly used
> to mean "zero." I would not be surprised if some centenarians still
The word "aught" has never truly meant "zero" other than by mistake.
"Naught" abbreviates "not aught", not anything.
But tell us more about this "logic of usage" idea of yours -- it sounds as
if it aught to have a great future!
Matti
John H
>In article <47dd044c.01092...@posting.google.com>,
>Raymond S. Wise <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>But the word "aught" meaning "zero" is not the same word as "aught"
>>meaning "any." The only logic which should be called on here is the
>>logic of usage, and "aught" and "ought" were at one time clearly used
>>to mean "zero." I would not be surprised if some centenarians still
>>use them.
>
>I think most of us on the Right are surprised to hear that there _is_
>a word "aught" meaning "zero". It's just unknown used here, although
>I think I remember that Tennyson uses it.
Agreed.
> I assume it's like "apron"
>and "adder".
How do you mean?
>
>"Aught" meaning "any" is pretty rare in England, though not in
>Yorkshire.
I think it's normal to spell the Yorkshire version phonetically as
"owt". "Aught" looks to me to be pronounced "ort". Is it not?
--
John H
www.jfhopkin.com
Remove hat before emailing
Jacqui
> >and "adder".
>
> How do you mean?
Napron and Nadder. As opposed to ekenames.
Jac
dcw
>> I assume it's like "apron"
>>and "adder".
>
>How do you mean?
"A napron" reanalysed as "an apron", etc.
>>"Aught" meaning "any" is pretty rare in England, though not in
>>Yorkshire.
>
>I think it's normal to spell the Yorkshire version phonetically as
>"owt". "Aught" looks to me to be pronounced "ort". Is it not?
Yes. "Aught" is /Ot/ ("ort" to the non-rhotic) and "owt" is /aUt/,
but it's clearly the came word in a different accent. "Naught" and
"nowt" likewise.
David
Brian J Goggin
<chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>I started to argue with you but I see, from the COD, that ought and
>aught can have either meaning. Funny language, English.
You aught to have looked it up first.
bjg
Tony Cooper
>
>
> Similarly, the aircraft is called "Seven four seven" on the Right,
> and "Seven forty-seven" on the Left.
>
One exception to our way of saying numbers is the NYPD
stations that are referred to as the "twenty three" or the
"two three" instead of the "twenty third" precinct.
John H
>In article <r5n0rtsjkk1fqd9ds...@4ax.com>,
>John H <jfhoH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 01 08:41:51 GMT, D.C....@ukc.ac.uk (dcw) wrote:
>
>>> I assume it's like "apron"
>>>and "adder".
>>
>>How do you mean?
>
>"A napron" reanalysed as "an apron", etc.
Thanks (and to Jacqui, too). I'd heard of "an ewt" and "a napple",
but wasn't sure if they were correct etymologies, and didn't know
about "naprons" and "nadders". Is there a list of these somewhere?
>>>"Aught" meaning "any" is pretty rare in England, though not in
>>>Yorkshire.
>>
>>I think it's normal to spell the Yorkshire version phonetically as
>>"owt". "Aught" looks to me to be pronounced "ort". Is it not?
>
>Yes. "Aught" is /Ot/ ("ort" to the non-rhotic) and "owt" is /aUt/,
>but it's clearly the came word in a different accent. "Naught" and
>"nowt" likewise.
While I'm requesting links, is there an explanation of that phonetic
standard anywhere? Or a definition of "rhotic" (M-W doesn't have it)?
Sorry to seem so ignorant.
dcw
John H <jfhoH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks (and to Jacqui, too). I'd heard of "an ewt" and "a napple",
>but wasn't sure if they were correct etymologies, and didn't know
>about "naprons" and "nadders". Is there a list of these somewhere?
I've never seen a list. I don't think there can be very many of them,
since the same examples are quoted whenever the subject is mentioned.
Newts and nicknames (and nuncles?) have gone one way; aprons, adders,
and oranges the other (though oranges may have done it in French).
I'm dubious about napples, but I don't have any references to hand.
>While I'm requesting links, is there an explanation of that phonetic
>standard anywhere? Or a definition of "rhotic" (M-W doesn't have it)?
It helps if you have some idea of the International Phonetic Alphabet,
used in many dictionaries. Someone else will have to point you to the
Official AUE ASCII version.
"Rhotic" means pronouncing the letter "r" wherever it occurs, as in most
American accents. In England many accents, including RP, are non-rhotic,
so "r" is pronounced only before vowels. Elsewhere it affects the
value of the preceeding vowel, as in "pat" and "part".
David
Raymond S. Wise
And as opposed to "a newt" from "an ewt" and "the nonce" from "then anes." See
http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=443030&secid=.5.-
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Jacqui" <sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<FhZr7.1666$L4.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
> > John H wrote
> > > > I assume it's like "apron" and "adder".
> > >
> > > How do you mean?
> >
> > Napron and Nadder. As opposed to ekenames.
> >
>
> And as opposed to "a newt" from "an ewt" and "the nonce" from "then
> anes."
But like "umpire" from "a noumpere" ("peerless one") and auger. The
process is called "metanalysis" (or "misdivision"). There may be a
few more in English, but it's a pretty small set.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Voting in the House of
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |Representatives is done by means of a
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |little plastic card with a magnetic
|strip on the back--like a VISA card,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |but with no, that is, absolutely
(650)857-7572 |*no*, spending limit.
| P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
dcw
>In article <en51rtc7g5i9vi53k...@4ax.com>,
>John H <jfhoH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks (and to Jacqui, too). I'd heard of "an ewt" and "a napple",
>>but wasn't sure if they were correct etymologies, and didn't know
>>about "naprons" and "nadders". Is there a list of these somewhere?
>
>I've never seen a list.
I have now: The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology gives adder,
apron, auger, eyas, ouch, and umpire; and newt and nickname in the
other direction. Nuncle is from "mine uncle". Thanks to Raymond
Wise for nonce.
David
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote...
> >
> > But the word "aught" meaning "zero" is not the same word as
> > "aught" meaning "any." The only logic which should be called on
> > here is the logic of usage, and "aught" and "ought" were at one
> > time clearly used to mean "zero." I would not be surprised if some
> > centenarians still use them. [...]
>
> The word "aught" has never truly meant "zero" other than by mistake.
A mistake first cited in 1872 which became common in the early
twentieth century.
> "Naught" abbreviates "not aught", not anything.
Not according to MWCD/ol. Both go back to Middle English. "Aught"
was "Awiht", from "A (ever[sic]) wiht (thing/creature)", while
"naught" was "nAwiht", from "nA (no) wiht".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |sing; it wastes your time and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Skitt
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:o9f0rt8jucovae25q...@4ax.com...
Yabut, MWCD10 has it pegged:
Main Entry: 3aught
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration (resulting from false division of a naught) of naught
Date: 1872
1 : ZERO, CIPHER
2 archaic : NONENTITY, NOTHING
"Thirty aught-six" would be the familiar .30-06 hunting rifle.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Richard Fontana
> I think it's normal to spell the Yorkshire version phonetically as
> "owt". "Aught" looks to me to be pronounced "ort". Is it not?
Not in my accent; I rhyme it with "caught". "Ort" rhymes with "court".
John H
I think I need to do some Googling. I never could understand the
cot/caught thing.
For what it's worth, "caught" and "court" sound identical to me.
Rob Bannister
True - I pressed 'Send' a bit too soon. My grandparents' use of 'ought'
(or aught, if people insist) always meant anything. Sorry for misleading
everyone.
-- Rob Bannister
Ben Zimmer
Others in the "adder" class: aitchbone, eyas
Others in the "newt" class: nother, nidiot/nidget, naunt (from "mine
aunt"), Ned for Edward (from "mine Ed"), Nol for Oliver (from "mine Ol")
--Ben
Ben Zimmer
Whoops, how did "nother" get on there? Also a reanalysis, but not like
"newt" et al. obviously. Along those lines, there's also "tother" (from
"the other").
--Ben
mplsray
"dcw" <D.C....@ukc.ac.uk> wrote in message news:62...@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk...
I was hoping that the AHD4 entry for *ouch* would show me an interesting
etymology for the interjection (just as I was amused recently to find there
was an etymology for "aitch," the name for the letter "h"). No such luck,
this "ouch" is another word entirely:
From
http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/O0151300.html
[quote]
ouch2
[...]
NOUN: 1. A setting for a precious stone. 2. A brooch or buckle set with
jewels. 3. _Obsolete_ A clasp; a brooch.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English _ouche,_ from Anglo-Norman _(une) ouche,_
alteration of (une) nouch, (a) brooch, of Germanic origin. See ned- in
Appendix I.
[end quote]
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>"Thirty aught-six" would be the familiar .30-06 hunting rifle.
Thank you. I knew I'd heard it somewhere but I know nothing from
rifles or hunting so I couldn't remember where.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>The word "aught" has never truly meant "zero" other than by mistake.
Did the COD make a mistake by stating:
ought2 n. (also aught) colloq.
a figure denoting nothing; nought.
Is aught even?
Charles Riggs
mplsray
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
news:9opjsj$elppb$8...@ID-103223.news.dfncis.de...
> "Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote...
> >
> > But the word "aught" meaning "zero" is not the same word as "aught"
> > meaning "any." The only logic which should be called on here is the
> > logic of usage, and "aught" and "ought" were at one time clearly used
> > to mean "zero." I would not be surprised if some centenarians still
> > use them. [...]
>
> The word "aught" has never truly meant "zero" other than by mistake.
> "Naught" abbreviates "not aught", not anything.
>
"Aught" means "zero" to those people who were taught that it meant zero. It
is thus the true meaning of the word, and certainly cannot be considered a
mistake.
In another post, Skitt mentioned the "thirty-aught-six" hunting rifle.
"Aught" is to that extent not yet extinct in American English. Furthermore
there is at least one dialect of English in which it is very much current.
The following is from the *Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage,* edited by
Richard Allsopp, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (C) 1996:
[quote]
*aught (ought)* [...] , _n._ (Belz [Belize], Guyn [Guyana]) Nought; zero.
_SI: What played in the boledo tonight? / S2: Aught eight.--(Belz) Usage
current in _Belz,_ and among older folk in _Guyn,_ though rare in IAE
[Internationally Accepted English].
[end quote]
(IAE is used by this author (and some other Caribbean linguists, according
to him) to represent World English, by which he means that core of English
which is shared by the various "brands of Standard English.")
> But tell us more about this "logic of usage" idea of yours -- it sounds as
> if it aught to have a great future!
>
A great future and a great past! It goes back at least to the plans to
develop the dictionary which later became the Oxford English Dictionary.
Even further back, a work was written on it in the 18th century, at the same
time as the "traditional grammarians" (that is, the prescriptivists) were
beginning, and the people of that century drew on ideas from the ancients,
including the following words of Horace quoted by the AHD4 at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/7a.html
[quote]
The doctrine that correctness rests on use is hardly an invention of modern
linguistics. Horace insisted that the laws of speech are fixed by custom,
"whose arbitrary sway/Words and the forms of language must obey," a dictum
quoted with approval by the grammarians of every succeeding era.
[end quote]
Of course, the editors of the AHD4 have their own take on what that means.
If the subject interests you, and especially if you are interested in the
early history of the controversy between prescriptivism and descriptivism, I
suggest you read *The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage, 1700-1800*
by Sterling Andrus Leonard (New York: Russell & Russell, Inc, 1962), a
reprint from the 1929 edition.
(By the way, yes, I know you misspelled "ought." And if you are under the
misapprehension that descriptivists believe that "anything goes" [some
people are], you should know that descriptivists certainly recognize that
the spelling of words has a strong tendency to be resistant to change. Some
take spelling advice to thus be "prescriptive," but that is just as absurd
as saying it is "prescriptive" to insist that "It's time for lunch" is
correct English and "Time for lunch it's." is incorrect English. It is not
prescriptive, it is descriptive.)
dcw
John H <jfhoH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think I need to do some Googling. I never could understand the
>cot/caught thing.
Nobody can. For some unknown reason, Americans abandoned the English
"short o" phoneme, /A./, as in "cot". They're now desperately shuffling
all their remaining vowels around trying to fill the gap.
>For what it's worth, "caught" and "court" sound identical to me.
And me, because we're non-rhotic. They're /kOt/.
David
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>
> >The word "aught" has never truly meant "zero" other than by mistake.
>
> Did the COD make a mistake by stating:
>
> ought2 n. (also aught) colloq.
> a figure denoting nothing; nought.
I think this demonstrates the perils of Concision. The New Shorter sibling
is rather more explicit as one aught to expect, giving two entries for
"ought" as a noun and one as a verb. The only one which gives "aught" as a
variant is the verb, and then only in senses 5 and 6 of that entry which
are about "owing". The second noun entry is the one which gives "ought" as
a misdivision of "nought", and this one certainly doesn't cite "aught" as a
variant.
> Is aught even?
Yes, except on the odd occasions.
By the way, you're late today.
Matti
Ross Howard
O, were it were as simple as that. I'm non-rhotic and they're very
different: [kOt] and (something like) [kU@t]. It's not a question of
rhoticity -- but rather the presence of an "our/oor" combination. My
"gored" and "gawd" are homophones, but my "gourd" is different, while
my "pore/paw" and "more"/"maw", on the one hand, and "pour/poor" and
"moor" on the other, are completely different animals.
Ross Howard
Ross Howard
wrote:
>O, were it were as simple as that.
Strike that first were. In AUE, I often can't see the would for the
cheese.
Ross Howard
dcw
I have the same distinction, but in a different place. My "pore" =
"pour" = "paw" = [pO:], but "poor" = [pU@]. It seems that the old
"pour" = [pO@] has gone different ways with different speakers.
Estuary has [pO:] for all of them.
David
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
> > "Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote...
> > >
> > > But the word "aught" meaning "zero" is not the same word as "aught"
> > > meaning "any." The only logic which should be called on here is the
> > > logic of usage, and "aught" and "ought" were at one time clearly used
> > > to mean "zero." I would not be surprised if some centenarians still
> > > use them. [...]
> >
> > The word "aught" has never truly meant "zero" other than by mistake.
> > "Naught" abbreviates "not aught", not anything.
>
> "Aught" means "zero" to those people who were taught that it meant zero.
> It is thus the true meaning of the word, and certainly cannot be
> considered a mistake.
I'm not denying that some people -- but very few if any in Britain -- use
"aught" to mean "nought" or "zero". To say that this is "the true meaning"
of the word and that "it cannot be considered a mistake" is your opinion
rather than an undisputed fact, of course, and one which I and others don't
share. It would be reasonable to expect transpondial opinion to be
divided, of course.
> In another post, Skitt mentioned the "thirty-aught-six" hunting rifle.
> "Aught" is to that extent not yet extinct in American English.
What did you mean by that phrase "not yet extinct"? One way of reading it
is an acceptance that the usage has arisen by mistake, and that its
benefits have been judged to have been outweighed by the confusion caused.
Thus do mistaken usages perish, perhaps.
> ... Furthermore
> there is at least one dialect of English in which it is very much
> current. The following is from the *Dictionary of Caribbean English
> Usage,* edited by Richard Allsopp, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
> (C) 1996: [quote]
>
> *aught (ought)* [...] , _n._ (Belz [Belize], Guyn [Guyana]) Nought; zero.
> _SI: What played in the boledo tonight? / S2: Aught eight.--(Belz) Usage
> current in _Belz,_ and among older folk in _Guyn,_ though rare in IAE
> [Internationally Accepted English]. [end quote]
>
> (IAE is used by this author (and some other Caribbean linguists,
> according to him) to represent World English, by which he means that core
> of English which is shared by the various "brands of Standard English.")
I was originally responding to a question about whether "aught" is ever
used in Rightpondia to mean "nought", so I'm relatively unfazed by
Caribbean counterexamples! I assume "aught eight" is being taken to mean
"nothing" here?
> > But tell us more about this "logic of usage" idea of yours -- it sounds
> > as if it aught to have a great future!
>
> A great future and a great past! It goes back at least to the plans to
> develop the dictionary which later became the Oxford English Dictionary.
> Even further back, a work was written on it in the 18th century, at the
> same time as the "traditional grammarians" (that is, the prescriptivists)
> were beginning, and the people of that century drew on ideas from the
> ancients, including the following words of Horace quoted by the AHD4 at
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/7a.html
>
> [quote]
>
> The doctrine that correctness rests on use is hardly an invention of
> modern linguistics. Horace insisted that the laws of speech are fixed by
> custom, "whose arbitrary sway/Words and the forms of language must
> obey," a dictum quoted with approval by the grammarians of every
> succeeding era.
>
> [end quote]
>
> Of course, the editors of the AHD4 have their own take on what that
> means. If the subject interests you, and especially if you are interested
> in the early history of the controversy between prescriptivism and
> descriptivism, I suggest you read *The Doctrine of Correctness in English
> Usage, 1700-1800* by Sterling Andrus Leonard (New York: Russell &
> Russell, Inc, 1962), a reprint from the 1929 edition.
But the "logic" of usage? Are there principles or heuristics we can apply
in order to predict where usage will take things? That I would find very
interesting. Retrospective rationalization is a poor substitute for
predictive logic.
Matti
Ross Howard
Now that you mention it, maybe I do say "pour" as "pore".... hang on a
sec while a paw the tea.
Hmm. Yep.
Ross Howard
Charles Riggs
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>"Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote...
>> Is aught even?
>
>Yes, except on the odd occasions.
>
>By the way, you're late today.
Must have someone to do with the moon.
Charles Riggs
Raymond S. Wise
> "mplsray" <illi...@NOSPAM.mninter.net.invalid> wrote...
> > "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
> > > "Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote...
> > > >
> > > > But the word "aught" meaning "zero" is not the same word as "aught"
> > > > meaning "any." The only logic which should be called on here is the
> > > > logic of usage, and "aught" and "ought" were at one time clearly used
> > > > to mean "zero." I would not be surprised if some centenarians still
> > > > use them. [...]
> > >
> > > The word "aught" has never truly meant "zero" other than by mistake.
> > > "Naught" abbreviates "not aught", not anything.
> >
> > "Aught" means "zero" to those people who were taught that it meant zero.
> > It is thus the true meaning of the word, and certainly cannot be
> > considered a mistake.
>
> I'm not denying that some people -- but very few if any in Britain -- use
> "aught" to mean "nought" or "zero". To say that this is "the true meaning"
> of the word and that "it cannot be considered a mistake" is your opinion
> rather than an undisputed fact, of course, and one which I and others don't
> share. It would be reasonable to expect transpondial opinion to be
> divided, of course.
>
Well, I have been puzzling over how to answer this post for several
days now. It is the above paragraph which causes the problem, not the
questions you pose below. So I think I will answer those first, then
return to matters brought up by the above paragraph at the end of this
post.
> > In another post, Skitt mentioned the "thirty-aught-six" hunting rifle.
> > "Aught" is to that extent not yet extinct in American English.
>
> What did you mean by that phrase "not yet extinct"? One way of reading it
> is an acceptance that the usage has arisen by mistake, and that its
> benefits have been judged to have been outweighed by the confusion caused.
> Thus do mistaken usages perish, perhaps.
>
I said "not yet extinct" because I expected, as you could infer by
something I wrote in a previous post, that the word "aught," meaning
"zero," exists in the speech of only certain Americans, and those very
aged. When they die, the word will be extinct. It may live on in
"thirty-aught-six," but it would do so as a kind of linguistic fossil.
(Note that it exists in the recognition vocabulary of a much larger
number of Americans.)
Now for the idea that a usage which arose by mistake may be predicted
to go extinct because it causes more confusion than help. This is the
sort of thing which cannot be predicted. The fact that a usage is even
known on a national level makes it, in one sense, an evolutionary
success. If this usage and another usage are recognized to be the
source of confusion, this does not help you predict which usage will
prevail. It may be the first, it may be the second, it may be that
both usages die out, or it may be that both will continue
indefinitely. Just because a usage causes confusion does not say
anything about its potential for dying out. Consider the term
"Indian," which continues to cause confusion among speakers of
American English. There is no sign that either use of the word is
becoming extinct--the label for the indigenous people of North
America, or the label for a people of the country of India and those
descended from people who came from the country of India. There are
other examples in English--consider the various situations in which
"who" and "whom" appear. Much confusion, little evidence that the
situation is going to settle down and cause the extinction of any
particular usage of "who" or "whom." There are, of course, other
examples.
As a general rule, I would say that if a usage achieves national
success, whether it originated as a mistake is irrelevant--it's future
success or failure depends upon other factors.
> > ... Furthermore
> > there is at least one dialect of English in which it is very much
> > current. The following is from the *Dictionary of Caribbean English
> > Usage,* edited by Richard Allsopp, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
> > (C) 1996: [quote]
> >
> > *aught (ought)* [...] , _n._ (Belz [Belize], Guyn [Guyana]) Nought; zero.
> > _SI: What played in the boledo tonight? / S2: Aught eight.--(Belz) Usage
> > current in _Belz,_ and among older folk in _Guyn,_ though rare in IAE
> > [Internationally Accepted English]. [end quote]
> >
> > (IAE is used by this author (and some other Caribbean linguists,
> > according to him) to represent World English, by which he means that core
> > of English which is shared by the various "brands of Standard English.")
>
> I was originally responding to a question about whether "aught" is ever
> used in Rightpondia to mean "nought", so I'm relatively unfazed by
> Caribbean counterexamples! I assume "aught eight" is being taken to mean
> "nothing" here?
>
My point was to illustrate the fact--new to me--that there exists
nowadays a dialect in which "aught" for "zero" is current. This is
another example, besides the historical use from the beginning of the
20th century, that "aught," meaning "zero" was taught to the people
who used it and thus cannot be said to be a mistake. More on this
below.
All that is involved in the "logic of usage" is the realization that
the meaning of a word is determined by how that word is used. It is
not a question of "retrospective rationalization," it is a question of
looking at the language as a linguist unfamiliar with the language
would look at it. If there were linguists who knew absolutely nothing
about English and who were asked to determine what the word "aught"
meant for English speakers, their research would show them that one
meaning of the word, among one subset of English speakers, was "zero."
Alien linguists, that is, extraterrestrials (and they would be the
only linguists who could truly be expected to know absolutely nothing
about English), would come to the very same conclusion.
> >
> > (By the way, yes, I know you misspelled "ought." And if you are under the
> > misapprehension that descriptivists believe that "anything goes" [some
> > people are], you should know that descriptivists certainly recognize that
> > the spelling of words has a strong tendency to be resistant to change.
> > Some take spelling advice to thus be "prescriptive," but that is just as
> > absurd as saying it is "prescriptive" to insist that "It's time for
> > lunch" is correct English and "Time for lunch it's." is incorrect
> > English. It is not prescriptive, it is descriptive.)
Now to treat the questions which came up at the beginning of this
post. I said:
> > "Aught" means "zero" to those people who were taught that it meant zero.
> > It is thus the true meaning of the word, and certainly cannot be
> > considered a mistake.
To which you replied:
>
> I'm not denying that some people -- but very few if any in Britain -- use
> "aught" to mean "nought" or "zero". To say that this is "the true meaning"
> of the word and that "it cannot be considered a mistake" is your opinion
> rather than an undisputed fact, of course, and one which I and others don't
> share. It would be reasonable to expect transpondial opinion to be
> divided, of course.
>
First, I must question the assumption that we are dealing with one
word. As far as I can tell, we are dealing with two words, two lexical
items (and unrelated lexical items, at that): "aught," also spelled
"ought," meaning "anything whatever," and "aught," also spelled
"ought," meaning "zero." These are two separate words, with two
separate etymologies , and, incidentally, they are both unrelated to
the verb "ought."
I have no reason to believe that there ever *was* any confusion
between "aught #1" and "aught #2." I expect that "aught #2" arose in
dialects in which "aught #1" was unknown.
Now, on to the "true meaning of 'aught #1.'" By using the term "true
meaning," I was making a contrast with the idea, held by the ancient
Greeks, that the etymology of a word was its "true meaning." I would
expect that very few people of our time agree with the Greeks on this,
and certainly linguists do not. If you hold to that belief, you should
realize that it is a belief which is more like a religious tenet than
anything else: there is nothing scientific about such a belief, nor,
as far as I can tell, is there even any logical argument in favor of
it.
I would note, however, that I would not expect a linguist, except when
speaking in the most casual manner, to say that a given meaning is the
"true meaning" of a word. At best, that given meaning is the "most
useful meaning" for that word, and in actual practice, I would expect
a linguist to speak of "useful meanings" rather than a "most useful
meaning." So no, I do not believe, strictly speaking, that the meaning
of "aught," as used among the people of Belize (for example), has the
"true meaning" of "zero." Rather, it is useful to say that "aught"
means "zero," and dictionaries may simply indicate that it is a
synonym of "zero."
Finally, and here was the part that I struggled with the most, in
response to my statement "'Aught' means 'zero' to those people who
were taught that it meant zero. [It thus] certainly cannot be
considered a mistake," you replied "that 'it cannot be considered a
mistake' is your opinion rather than an undisputed fact, of course,
and one which I and others don't share." Now, one problem in dealing
with this, of course, was that it was entangled with the question of
the "true meaning," which I have just dealt with. Having done that, I
must say that if you indeed remain convinced that the use of the word
"aught" for "zero" by people who have been raised using it is a
"mistake," then the burden is on you to demonstrate it. It is such an
outrageous statement, both logically and morally, that it is not up to
me to demonstrate to you that you are wrong. It is up to you to show
me that it is I who am in the wrong, if indeed you can.
Matti Lamprhey
(Raymond, I must thank you for your thought-provoking comments which I have
read thoroughly. I've snipped them from this response because I think you
and I are approaching all this from quite different backgrounds and I can't
hope to compete with your technical knowledge of linguistics. I recommend
others to look back at your full response.)
> [...]
> Finally, and here was the part that I struggled with the most, in
> response to my statement "'Aught' means 'zero' to those people who
> were taught that it meant zero. [It thus] certainly cannot be
> considered a mistake," you replied "that 'it cannot be considered a
> mistake' is your opinion rather than an undisputed fact, of course,
> and one which I and others don't share." Now, one problem in dealing
> with this, of course, was that it was entangled with the question of
> the "true meaning," which I have just dealt with. Having done that, I
> must say that if you indeed remain convinced that the use of the word
> "aught" for "zero" by people who have been raised using it is a
> "mistake," then the burden is on you to demonstrate it. It is such an
> outrageous statement, both logically and morally, that it is not up to
> me to demonstrate to you that you are wrong. It is up to you to show
> me that it is I who am in the wrong, if indeed you can.
I've tried to demonstrate that "aught" meaning "zero" or "nothing"
originates as a misspelling of "ought", which itself originates as a
misdivision of "a nought". I'm not sure whether you're disputing that
chain of "mistakes" or simply accepting it as a normal series of usage
developments. If it's the latter, I'm not sure whether you would call one
of these transitions a "mistaken usage" during a particular "survival"
period, after which it's no longer a "mistake".
My position is that "aught" used for "nought" is indeed and continues to be
a mistake, and this will be true for those who were mistakenly taught it.
I will be prepared to drop my dislike of it when "aught" no longer means
it's almost-opposite, "anything". I'm a very practical sort of chap
really.
Matti