Re: Cadillac and 3-wheelers
Dan McGrath
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>No: three-wheeled motorcycles are rare but familiar to N.American
>readers. They are usually big, high-powered bikes, thus likely to
There is no such word as "rare".
- Dan
--
Daniel G. McGrath
Binghamton, New York
e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com
R H Draney
>
>Dan McGrath wrote:
>>Don Phillipson wrote:
>>
>>>No: three-wheeled motorcycles are rare but familiar to N.American
>>>readers. They are usually big, high-powered bikes, thus likely to
>>
>>There is no such word as "rare".
>>
>
>ever gave an explanation for this, I missed it. You and I both know that
>"rare is in reputable English-dictionaries, so I think the weight of
>this claim is upon you to prove.
This coping mechanism may in part be Dan's response to my suggestion that there
are *two* such words that just happen to be spelled and pronounced the same....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
the Omrud
> Murray Arnow filted:
>> Dan McGrath wrote:
>>> Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>
>>>> No: three-wheeled motorcycles are rare but familiar to N.American
>>>> readers. They are usually big, high-powered bikes, thus likely to
>>> There is no such word as "rare".
>>>
>> Daniel, you keep insisting that there is no word such as "rare." If you
>> ever gave an explanation for this, I missed it. You and I both know that
>> "rare is in reputable English-dictionaries, so I think the weight of
>> this claim is upon you to prove.
>
> This coping mechanism may in part be Dan's response to my suggestion that there
> are *two* such words that just happen to be spelled and pronounced the same....r
After a recent more lucid discussion, I at least am persuaded that there
are three. "A rare talent" means something more than "unusual".
--
David
meal-twit: http://twitter.com/omrud
Default User
> After a recent more lucid discussion, I at least am persuaded that
> there are three. "A rare talent" means something more than "unusual".
It doesn't mean "unusual", but that doesn't make it a different word.
It's another sense of the same word that means "unusual". Yet another
is the one meaning "thin", as in air. It's not a distinct word as is
the case with the "rare" that means "lightly cooked". That one has a
separate etymology.
Brian
--
Day 20 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Dan McGrath
Again, I'm not convinced there. How is "a rare talent" different from
"an unusual talent"? I see them as being the same.
Dan McGrath
wrote:
>the Omrud wrote:
>
>> After a recent more lucid discussion, I at least am persuaded that
>> there are three. "A rare talent" means something more than "unusual".
>
>It doesn't mean "unusual", but that doesn't make it a different word.
>It's another sense of the same word that means "unusual". Yet another
>is the one meaning "thin", as in air. It's not a distinct word as is
>the case with the "rare" that means "lightly cooked". That one has a
>separate etymology.
The "rare" that means "unusual" and the "rare" that refers to "thin
air" are historically the same word, yes. And the "rare" that means
"lightly cooked" is indeed historically different from those. But
would this still be the way that the average English speaker would
perceive all these "rare"s?
In particular, is there not a curious correlation between the
connotations of "thin" and "lightly cooked"? I've wondered about this
since about February 2004, when I first started thinking of the two
"rare"s as "the same word" in some sense. (My fixation on the word
"rare" goes all the way back to September 2000, however. I was not
thinking much at all about the cooking-related meaning at that time.)
the Omrud
> On 23 Feb 2009 22:53:10 GMT, "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> the Omrud wrote:
>>
>>> After a recent more lucid discussion, I at least am persuaded that
>>> there are three. "A rare talent" means something more than "unusual".
>> It doesn't mean "unusual", but that doesn't make it a different word.
>> It's another sense of the same word that means "unusual". Yet another
>> is the one meaning "thin", as in air. It's not a distinct word as is
>> the case with the "rare" that means "lightly cooked". That one has a
>> separate etymology.
>
> The "rare" that means "unusual" and the "rare" that refers to "thin
> air" are historically the same word, yes. And the "rare" that means
> "lightly cooked" is indeed historically different from those. But
> would this still be the way that the average English speaker would
> perceive all these "rare"s?
Yep. Honest.
> In particular, is there not a curious correlation between the
> connotations of "thin" and "lightly cooked"? I've wondered about this
> since about February 2004, when I first started thinking of the two
> "rare"s as "the same word" in some sense. (My fixation on the word
> "rare" goes all the way back to September 2000, however. I was not
> thinking much at all about the cooking-related meaning at that time.)
No. I think that you are a human animal conditioned by evolution to
find patterns in nature. This is how and why human brains grew, to
process this complex pattern matching. You brain would perceives a
pattern in the meanings, just as we can all see a face on Mars even
though we know that it's just a formation of rocks and depressions in
the surface:
http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/face-on-mars.jpg
the Omrud
Not so much different from "unusual" as from "uncommon". It's a very
subtle extra meaning which gives a feeling of approval to the talent;
it's not just that there are few people with this talent, but also that
the talent is in some way special.
Dan McGrath
wrote:
>Murray Arnow filted:
>>
>>Dan McGrath wrote:
>>>Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>
>>>>No: three-wheeled motorcycles are rare but familiar to N.American
>>>>readers. They are usually big, high-powered bikes, thus likely to
>>>
>>>There is no such word as "rare".
>>>
>>
>>Daniel, you keep insisting that there is no word such as "rare." If you
>>ever gave an explanation for this, I missed it. You and I both know that
>>"rare is in reputable English-dictionaries, so I think the weight of
>>this claim is upon you to prove.
>
>This coping mechanism may in part be Dan's response to my suggestion that there
>are *two* such words that just happen to be spelled and pronounced the same....r
So you mean, when you referred to "two words" you were merely
*suggesting* that I think of "rare" that way?
Actually, I probably *did* think of "rare" as more or less two
different words for several years. Until Feb. 2004, that is. It was
then that I discovered that several correlations existed between
"rare" (< L. "rarus") and "rare" (< OE "hrer"). And, because of this,
I began to think of these as the same word -- I mentally married them,
so to speak. But I guess I'm no longer sure whether those
correlations make sense to me, and that's why I've been having trouble
with "rare". I certainly don't want to divorce the two "rare"s,
though.
Dan McGrath
Sorry. I see "rare" and "uncommon" as having the same meaning in that
context. To me, anything that can be called an "uncommon talent" can
also be called a "rare talent".
R H Draney
>
>On 23 Feb 2009 12:46:23 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Murray Arnow filted:
>>>
>>>Dan McGrath wrote:
>>>>
>>>>There is no such word as "rare".
>>>>
>>>
>>>Daniel, you keep insisting that there is no word such as "rare." If you
>>>ever gave an explanation for this, I missed it. You and I both know that
>>>"rare is in reputable English-dictionaries, so I think the weight of
>>>this claim is upon you to prove.
>>
>>This coping mechanism may in part be Dan's response to my suggestion that there
>>are *two* such words that just happen to be spelled and pronounced the same....r
>
>So you mean, when you referred to "two words" you were merely
>*suggesting* that I think of "rare" that way?
Pretty much...it's possible to think of it as either two words with convergent
spelling or one word with two origins...I thought it might help ease your
discomfort over the situation to train your mind to prefer the former
perspective...a sort of verbal Necker-cube illusion....
>Actually, I probably *did* think of "rare" as more or less two
>different words for several years. Until Feb. 2004, that is. It was
>then that I discovered that several correlations existed between
>"rare" (< L. "rarus") and "rare" (< OE "hrer"). And, because of this,
>I began to think of these as the same word -- I mentally married them,
>so to speak. But I guess I'm no longer sure whether those
>correlations make sense to me, and that's why I've been having trouble
>with "rare". I certainly don't want to divorce the two "rare"s,
>though.
Perhaps a trial separation is in order?...r
the Omrud
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:10:48 GMT, the Omrud
> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Again, I'm not convinced there. How is "a rare talent" different from
>>> "an unusual talent"? I see them as being the same.
>> Not so much different from "unusual" as from "uncommon". It's a very
>> subtle extra meaning which gives a feeling of approval to the talent;
>> it's not just that there are few people with this talent, but also that
>> the talent is in some way special.
>
> Sorry. I see "rare" and "uncommon" as having the same meaning in that
> context. To me, anything that can be called an "uncommon talent" can
> also be called a "rare talent".
Fair enough - that won't cause any misunderstandings.
--
David