ten-foot pole
Jeremy Chen
programs in this country with a ten-foot pole.
I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a slang?
What does it account for?
Robert Lieblich
It's a cliche. The standard phraseology is "I wouldn't touch it
with a ten-foot pole," meaning that the speaker finds "it" (whatever
"it" is) so offensive that he or she would stay at least ten feet
away from it and even then would not want to make any sort of
contact with it. In most contexts you'll find it a lot easier just
to say something like "I consider it very offensive."
--
Bob Lieblich
Whose mother was a five-foot Pole
Jack Gavin
... or "scary", or otherwise "to be avoided".
I've never seen the proverbial Ten-Foot Pole, but the NBA has a
Seven-and-a-Half-Foot Yugoslav. (Slavko Vranes of the Portland Trail
Blazers)
--
Jack Gavin
Enrico C
in <news:btl36d$rhq$1...@news.ethome.net.tw>
Hi Jeremy,
I am not an English native speaker, anyway I came across this idiom a
few times.
I think it's usually said as "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot
pole".
As I understand it, it means you advise against getting involved in
something, because you distrust it or just because that would get you
into trouble.
http://www.knls.org says it is an American idiom:
"A fun American idiom is I WOULDN'T TOUCH THAT WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE
The speaker is usually saying he doesn't want to get involved The pole
refers to the long poles used to push barges down a canal or river You
might hear an American say, 'Charlie, I don't have a clue how you get
yourself involved in these situations, but I wouldn't touch that one
with a ten-foot pole' Here's another example 'That salesman doesn't
seem very honest I wouldn't touch one of his contracts with a ten foot
pole I WOULDN'T TOUCH THAT WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE"
Hope that helps :)
--
Enrico C
Peter Morris
"Jeremy Chen" <sur...@kimichen.com> wrote in message
news:btl36d$rhq$1...@news.ethome.net.tw...
Often given as "10-foot bargepole". (A long pole with a hook on the
end used for pulling canal boats to the bank of the canal.)
HTH.
Tony Mountifield
Enrico C <enri...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> http://www.knls.org says it is an American idiom:
>
> "A fun American idiom is I WOULDN'T TOUCH THAT WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE
> The speaker is usually saying he doesn't want to get involved The pole
> refers to the long poles used to push barges down a canal or river
In fact the British equivalent is simply "I wouldn't touch that with
a barge-pole".
Cheers,
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: to...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: to...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
Can you still buy "Spangles"?
> What does it account for?
It is a mis-quote. The correct term is "a ten-foot barge pole."
100 years ago they used barges in England to convey good via the British
canals. Barges were a common form of public transport. Slow, but cheaper
than a coach, but both were horse-drawn. The barge workers used a 10-foot
pole to push the barge away from the canal bank, to steer the barge under
bridges, through tunnels and to fender off other canal traffic. The barge
pole was a usefull tool for keeping things at bay.
Harvey Van Sickle
>> I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it
>> a slang? What does it account for?
>
> It is a mis-quote. The correct term is "a ten-foot barge pole."
Not really a "mis-quote": the US and UK versions are different.
In the US, it's "...with a ten-foot pole"; in the UK the wording is
"...with a barge-pole".
I've never heard "...with a ten-foot barge pole"; sounds redundant to
my ear.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
David
> >> I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a
> >> slang? What does it account for?
> >
> > It is a mis-quote. The correct term is "a ten-foot barge pole."
> Not really a "mis-quote": the US and UK versions are different.
> In the US, it's "...with a ten-foot pole"; in the UK the wording is
> "...with a barge-pole".
> I've never heard "...with a ten-foot barge pole"; sounds redundant
> to my ear.
Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure again -- by
two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/07-0.htm
...can you tell me what is the correct time to boil an egg?
Matti Lamprhey
> Jeremy Chen wrote:
> >
> > I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a
> > slang? What does it account for?
>
Is this some new usage of "cliché"?
Matti
Donna Richoux
Are you asking about the accent? M-W gives "cliche" as a variant
spelling of "cliché". They don't date variants.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Matti Lamprhey
No -- that was my spellchecker keeping me sufficiently foreign. I was
wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche.
Matti
Donna Richoux
"I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is definitely a cliche in
the US. I believe this thread has said that the British equivalent is "I
wouldn't touch that with a barge-pole." (However that last may be
spelled -- open, closed, or hyphenated?)
Simon R. Hughes
I think Matti is under the impression that a cliché is nothing
but a dysfunctional metaphor. There is nothing metaphorical about
"I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole".
It is a trite, hackneyed phrase, however, which the NSOED grants
may be called a cliché.
--
Simon R. Hughes
Enrico C
in <news:1n5wrviu5utad$.tfdrfqpo0q7m$.d...@40tude.net>
> There is nothing metaphorical about
> "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole".
Hmmmmmmm...
--
Enrico C ~ No native speaker
Gary Vellenzer
nos...@totally-official.com says...
I'm here to tell you that it's been around for long enough to be called
a cliche.
Gary
Matti Lamprhey
> matti-...@totally-official.com says...
I'm not claiming that it's new. So is a cliché just a phrase that's
been around a long time?
Matti
Simon R. Hughes
> "Gary Vellenzer" <nyc...@seznam.cz> wrote...
[...]
> I'm not claiming that it's new. So is a cliché just a phrase that's
> been around a long time?
Look in the dictionary. Hackneyed phrase (which "10-foot pole"
undoubtedly is), dead metaphor, whatever: all clichés.
--
Simon R. Hughes
Jody Bilyeu
"Enrico C" <enri...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:a38avejn8qz$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net...
> Simon R. Hughes | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english
> in <news:1n5wrviu5utad$.tfdrfqpo0q7m$.d...@40tude.net>
>
> > There is nothing metaphorical about
> > "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole".
>
>
> Hmmmmmmm...
Right you are.
"I am strongly disgusted by X, to such an extent that if X were a tangible
object, and I were called upon for some reason to touch X, I would be so averse
to doing so that even the seemingly safe remove granted by a ten-foot pole would
be insufficient to mitigate my disgust."
That's a metaphor, where:
Tenor is disgust.
Vehicle is pole.
--
Cheers,
Jody
jodyb...@smsu.edu
Matti Lamprhey
What is a "dead metaphor"?
How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"? NB: I'm looking for something a
little more objective than "over-used" here.
Matti
Simon R. Hughes
Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost
its _je ne sais pas_?
--
Simon R. Hughes
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché"
> lost its _je ne sais pas_?
Quoi.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/contents13.html
Gary Vellenzer
a57998.no...@yahoo.no says...
Gary
Michael Hemmer
>>its _je ne sais pas_?
>
> Mais qu'est ce que tu dis la? Je ne ne sais quoi.
Posting in ISO-8859-15 leaves you no excuse for omitting the grave :-)
Michael
Matti Lamprhey
> Thus spake Matti Lamprhey:
> > "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.no...@yahoo.no> wrote...
> >> Thus spake Matti Lamprhey:
> >>> I'm not claiming that it's new. So is a cliché just a phrase
> >>> that's been around a long time?
> >>
> >> Look in the dictionary. Hackneyed phrase (which "10-foot pole"
> >> undoubtedly is), dead metaphor, whatever: all clichés.
> >
> > What is a "dead metaphor"?
> >
> > How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"? NB: I'm looking for
> > something a little more objective than "over-used" here.
>
> Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché" lost
> its _je ne sais pas_?
I'd go along with Partridge, who described the following types:
* "fly-blown phrases" (good cliché material in itself!),
eg "explore every avenue"
* "soubriquets that have lost all point and freshness",
eg "The Iron Duke"
* "debased quotations", eg "cups that cheer but not inebriate"
"empty formulas", eg "far be it from me to ..."
and "metaphors that are now pointless", which I take it is your "dead
metaphor". He gives no example of this, but I assume that it describes
a metaphor whose referent is now unfamiliar to most people. I expect
you'll propose that a ten-foot pole, or a bargepole, is now an
unfamiliar object and hence gives rise to a dead metaphor. All I can
say is that I've used the object many many times, and the metaphor
upconjures a very effective image.
So, at the end of the day, when all's said and done the bottom line is
that long-established and frequently-used phrases are not for those
reasons alone cliché candidates, unless you wish to dilute the label
beyond utility.
Matti
Simon R. Hughes
> Simon R. Hughes wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Go for it. How would you define "cliché"? Or has "cliché"
>> lost its _je ne sais pas_?
>
> Quoi.
Oh, I don't know...
--
Simon R. Hughes
Jody Bilyeu
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
news:btmlm7$8h7rk$1...@ID-103223.news.uni-berlin.de...
Less effective in discourse for being fly-blown, I'm afraid. There are
presumably people for whom "throw the baby out with the bathwater" conjures up a
vivid image, but that doesn't make it any less a cliche. I suppose the metaphor
is technically "dead" when the vehicles of the metaphor are no longer words in
common speech, and survive only in the phrase, as in the case of pitard
hoisting, but between the birth and death of a common metaphor there's a long
stretch of torpor, which at some early point becomes well-covered by the term
<cliche>.
> So, at the end of the day, when all's said and done the bottom line is
> that long-established and frequently-used phrases are not for those
> reasons alone cliché candidates, unless you wish to dilute the label
> beyond utility.
Oft-repeated metaphors wear even less well than other set phrases, maybe because
of their suspect nature as, well, borrowed originality.
--
Cheers,
Jody
jodyb...@smsu.edu
Enrico C
in <news:1wmiwbbuv4io5.1...@40tude.net>
For a start, is it "cliche" or "chliché"?
Merriam-Webster online has both, but the accented word comes first,
the non accented term follows as a variant
Other dictinaries choose one form or another.
What about usage?
Anglophone keyboards haven't got accented vowels, have they?
So, writing down the original French term could spell some headache, I
guess :)
Of course, the "e acute" is available by key combinations.
Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s, so counting them would be useless
My impression is that they are more or less evenly matched on web
pages, but I could dead wrong. It seems to me that the plural is
usually non accented, "cliches", but it's just my rough estimate.
Encarta has "cliché, clichés", though.
Then, looking for to the exact meaning and usage of the word, I came
across this sort of cliché acid test. It's on the "Cliché Finder"
site
| I have my own test to see if a phrase is a cliche or not
| I read the first half of the sentence, then I ask myself,
| "do I just know (because everyone knows)
| how the sentence ends?"
I agree with that only to a point, as a cliche is a trite, overused
remark. And there are many idioms and sayings you know how they end,
but they are not necessarely cliches, in my opinion
At least they are not cliches in the strict, negative sense of the
word.
cliché (plural clich?s)
noun
1 overused expression: a phrase or word that has lost its original
effectiveness or power from overuse
2 overused idea: an overused activity or notion
[Mid-19th century From French, the past participle of clicher "to
stereotype," imitative of the sound made when a mold is dropped into
molten metal to produce a stereotype plate]
*Encarta*
On the other hand, there are fixed combinations of words that are not
idioms or sayings, i.e. they haven't any traditional or metaphorical
meaning, but they are cliches just because they are overused.
John Dean
Hey, Bobby, what's the French for 'va-va-voom'?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Mike Lyle
> In article <Xns946B547A...@194.168.222.40>, Harvey Van Sickle
> <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On 09 Jan 2004, Can you still buy "Spangles"? wrote
>
> > >> I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a
> > >> slang? What does it account for?
> > >
> > > It is a mis-quote. The correct term is "a ten-foot barge pole."
>
> > Not really a "mis-quote": the US and UK versions are different.
>
> > In the US, it's "...with a ten-foot pole"; in the UK the wording is
> > "...with a barge-pole".
>
> > I've never heard "...with a ten-foot barge pole"; sounds redundant
> > to my ear.
>
> Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure again -- by
> two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain.
Never mind that: I wouldn't touch her (nobody here) with yours!
Mike.
Mike Lyle
> <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On 09 Jan 2004, Can you still buy "Spangles"? wrote
>
> > >> I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a
> > >> slang? What does it account for?
> > >
> > > It is a mis-quote. The correct term is "a ten-foot barge pole."
>
> > Not really a "mis-quote": the US and UK versions are different.
>
> > In the US, it's "...with a ten-foot pole"; in the UK the wording is
> > "...with a barge-pole".
>
> > I've never heard "...with a ten-foot barge pole"; sounds redundant
> > to my ear.
>
> Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure again -- by
> two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain.
Oh, and didn't somebody once say that Roman Polanski was the original
five-foor Pole you wouldn't touch anything with?
Mike.
Molly Mockford
<D7rLb.3299$qM1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>Often given as "10-foot bargepole". (A long pole with a hook on the
>end used for pulling canal boats to the bank of the canal.)
No, the long pole and the boathook are completely different implements.
The boathook is usually no more than about six feet long. The long pole
(or bargepole, although that term is not much used because most canal
craft are now narrowboats rather than barges) is indeed around ten foot
long, and plain at both ends.
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Erick Andrews
Nah, it was Alexander Graham Belsky. He was the first telephone pole.
[with no apologies to my Polish friends...after all, it wuz they what told me!]
--
Best,
Erick Andrews
delete bogus to reply
John Varela
wrote:
> It's a cliche. The standard phraseology is "I wouldn't touch it
> with a ten-foot pole," meaning that the speaker finds "it" (whatever
> "it" is) so offensive that he or she would stay at least ten feet
> away from it and even then would not want to make any sort of
> contact with it. In most contexts you'll find it a lot easier just
> to say something like "I consider it very offensive."
I don't think it means "offensive", rather something like "to be avoided".
A co-worker makes a proposal that the boss is sure to dislike if she hears it,
and you say, "I wouldn't touch that one..." or someone makes an unintended
double entendre that could be sexist, and you say, "I wouldn't touch that
one..."
--
John Varela
(Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.)
I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much.
Voicer
"Erick Andrews" <eand...@bogusstar.net> wrote in message
news:sGi8lzkop2Rq-pn2-J3OX0ydD7iS0@HAL9000...
Surely as we centimetre our way toward metric usage, it should be updated to
a 3.048 metre pole, or rounded out at three metres.
Enrico C
in
<news:ZKRm3c4Ddl7U-p...@dialup-171.75.33.144.Dial1.Washington1.Level3.net>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 03:09:08 UTC, Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> It's a cliche. The standard phraseology is "I wouldn't touch it
>> with a ten-foot pole," meaning that the speaker finds "it" (whatever
>> "it" is) so offensive that he or she would stay at least ten feet
>> away from it and even then would not want to make any sort of
>> contact with it. In most contexts you'll find it a lot easier just
>> to say something like "I consider it very offensive."
>
> I don't think it means "offensive", rather something like "to be avoided".
>
> A co-worker makes a proposal that the boss is sure to dislike if she hears it,
> and you say, "I wouldn't touch that one..." or someone makes an unintended
> double entendre that could be sexist, and you say, "I wouldn't touch that
> one..."
There is an example on Wayne Magnuson English Idioms
"If anyone in your audience asks a question about religion, don't
touch it with a ten-foot pole."
In this case, you are not saying that you find offensive questions on
religion, or religion itself. You are just suggesting that one
should avoid answering questions on that subject.
Erick Andrews
>
> "Erick Andrews" <eand...@bogusstar.net> wrote in message
> news:sGi8lzkop2Rq-pn2-J3OX0ydD7iS0@HAL9000...
[...]
> Surely as we centimetre our way toward metric usage, it should be updated to
> a 3.048 metre pole, or rounded out at three metres.
Interesting. I recall met in England, 1978 I think, who remarked at our dinner table
during a discussion of Napoleon's Measure, that we should "bring back the rod,
the pole, and the perch". (I don't know "perch").
Anyways, what expressions are there in metric that would be comparable?
And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)?
Gary Vellenzer
says...
Gary
Mike Stevens
news:D7rLb.3299$qM1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Often given as "10-foot bargepole". (A long pole with a hook on the
> end used for pulling canal boats to the bank of the canal.)
Well, I've been into canal boating for over 30 years and into Thames
Barges for over 20 and have never come across anything called a
bargepole. I think it's essentially a term used by landspeople about a
piece of equipment they only vaguely recognise. A working narrow-boat
would have a long shaft and a (short) cabin shaft (which had a hook on
the end). Sailing barges have various things called "poles" and
"hooks",but no "bargepoles".
"Bargee" is another word only ever used by landsmen. People who get
saddled with that name usually call themselves "boaters", "boatmen",
"sailormen", "lightermen", "wherrymen" or one of quite a few other terms
depending on what kind of vessel they work.
Incidentally on a working narrowboat, a long shaft would be considerably
more than 10 foot and a cabin shaft considerably less.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
"Million-to-one chances come up nine times out of ten." (Terry
Pratchett)
Mark Brader
> Interesting. I recall met in England, 1978 I think, who remarked at our
> dinner table during a discussion of Napoleon's Measure, that we should
> "bring back the rod, the pole, and the perch". (I don't know "perch").
> And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)?
Rod, pole, and perch are all the same thing. 16.5 feet, 5.5 yards,
1/4 chain, 1/40 furlong, or 1/320 mile.
"Perch" is unknown to me as an English word having a meaning related
to rods or poles, but not so in French. At least, the French term
for a boom operator (the movie/TV crew member who holds the microphone
near the actors' heads using a long boom, rod, or pole) is "perchiste",
and the same word also means a pole vaulter.
--
Mark Brader | "The problem with waiting for a 'smoking gun' is
Toronto | that it means the gun has already been fired."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Chance
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Adrian Bailey
news:1g7apdf.14w6zk91eogfz7N%tr...@euronet.nl...
> "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is definitely a cliche in
> the US. I believe this thread has said that the British equivalent is "I
> wouldn't touch that with a barge-pole." (However that last may be
> spelled -- open, closed, or hyphenated?)
Chambers and I write it as one word: bargepole. I have an image of a
bargepole being about 10 feet long, so I guess both poles refer to the same
item.
Adrian
Jack Gavin
> Erick Andrews:
>> Interesting. I recall met in England, 1978 I think, who remarked at
>> our dinner table during a discussion of Napoleon's Measure, that we
>> should "bring back the rod, the pole, and the perch". (I don't know
>> "perch").
> ...
>> And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)?
>
> Rod, pole, and perch are all the same thing. 16.5 feet, 5.5 yards,
> 1/4 chain, 1/40 furlong, or 1/320 mile.
>
> "Perch" is unknown to me as an English word having a meaning related
> to rods or poles, but not so in French. At least, the French term
> for a boom operator (the movie/TV crew member who holds the microphone
> near the actors' heads using a long boom, rod, or pole) is
> "perchiste", and the same word also means a pole vaulter.
Perhaps it was no more than a bad pun: One uses a fishing rod (aka fishing
pole) to catch perch.
--
Jack Gavin
Dave Swindell
<enri...@spamcop.net> writes
>Jeremy Chen | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english
>in <news:btl36d$rhq$1...@news.ethome.net.tw>
>
>> Recently I came across this sentence: I wouldn't get near one of the new
>> programs in this country with a ten-foot pole.
>>
>> I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it a slang?
>> What does it account for?
>
>
>I am not an English native speaker, anyway I came across this idiom a
>few times.
>
>I think it's usually said as "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot
>pole".
>
Or in Britain, with a "barge pole".
--
Dave OSOS#24 dswindel...@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies
Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one
Erick Andrews
I decided to suss out the OED.
After all the first references to 'fish', we get on to "...pole, rod, stick, or stake,
used for various purposes, e.g. for a weapon, a prop, etc.'
However, several OED columns later...'A rod of definite length for measuring land,
etc. ; hence a. A measure of length, esp. for land, palings, walls, etc. ; in Standard
Measure equal to 5 1/2 yards, or 16 1/2 feet, but varying locally...'
There are more odd definitions, but I don't feel like doing the math.
Charles Riggs
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote...
>> Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>> > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote...
>> > > Jeremy Chen wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it
>> > > > a slang? What does it account for?
>> > >
>> > > It's a cliche. [...]
>> >
>> > Is this some new usage of "cliché"?
>>
>> Are you asking about the accent? M-W gives "cliche" as a variant
>> spelling of "cliché". They don't date variants.
>
>No -- that was my spellchecker keeping me sufficiently foreign. I was
>wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche.
Because it is, er, a cliche.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggsŚatŚeircomŚdotŚnet
Enrico C
in <news:MPG.1a69143b8...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>
An acute pun ;-)
--
Enrico C
| 40tude Dialog - www.40tude.com/dialog
| freeware newsreader with multilingual GUI in English, Italian,
| French, German, Dutch, Croatian, Greek and Polish
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> >
> >[...] I was
> >wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche.
>
> Because it is, er, a cliche.
I expect by now you've read my apologia for the phrase, so please
explain what makes it a cliché for you.
If you think it's overused, then I'll be asking you how many times it's
appeared (as something other than a topic _per se_) in AUE or UCLE over
the last few years.
Matti
Donna Richoux
Matti, I don't get what all these questions are about. But here's a
count of *all* newsgroups via Google Advanced Groups Search:
"touch that with a ten-foot pole" 687
"touch that with a six-foot pole" 4
"touch that with a seven-foot pole" 0
I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old
phrase I've heard all my life.
The snigger factor might be driving it out, though.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Wanderer
> Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> I expect by now you've read my apologia for the phrase, so please
>> explain what makes it a cliché for you.
>> If you think it's overused, then I'll be asking you how many times it's
>> appeared (as something other than a topic _per se_) in AUE or UCLE over
>> the last few years.
> Matti, I don't get what all these questions are about. But here's a
> count of *all* newsgroups via Google Advanced Groups Search:
> "touch that with a ten-foot pole" 687
> "touch that with a six-foot pole" 4
> "touch that with a seven-foot pole" 0
> I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old
> phrase I've heard all my life.
I decided to pop back and have a look at UCLE after a gap of a good few
months, and see the discussions are as esoteric as ever! :-)
I would concur with DR that popular useage seems to have variations of a
common theme, although IME of many years in the UK 'ten foot barge pole'
has been the most common.
The one thing I've never heard, but which would arguably be the most
correct, is 'I wouldn't touch that with a quant pole'! :-)
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> > "Charles Riggs" <CHA...@aircom.net> wrote...
> > > "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >[...] I was
> > > >wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a
> > > >cliche.
> > >
> > > Because it is, er, a cliche.
> >
> > I expect by now you've read my apologia for the phrase, so please
> > explain what makes it a cliché for you.
> >
> > If you think it's overused, then I'll be asking you how many times
> > it's appeared (as something other than a topic _per se_) in AUE or
> > UCLE over the last few years.
>
> Matti, I don't get what all these questions are about. But here's a
> count of *all* newsgroups via Google Advanced Groups Search:
>
> "touch that with a ten-foot pole" 687
> "touch that with a six-foot pole" 4
> "touch that with a seven-foot pole" 0
>
> I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old
> phrase I've heard all my life.
>
> The snigger factor might be driving it out, though.
What I'm getting at is that, for me, the phrase is familiar, evocative,
unhackneyed: in short -- not a cliché. You and others (not exclusively
Americans) seem to take it for granted that it IS one, but no-one has
explained what in their view qualifies it for that pejorative label.
I'm wondering whether a cliché has simply come to mean a "well-known
phrase".
Matti
Simon R. Hughes
In my opinion, it is hackneyed, and therefore a cliché. Hackneyed
is not something that can be measured, so we're not going to get
any further.
--
Simon R. Hughes
David
> > old phrase I've heard all my life.
> >
> > The snigger factor might be driving it out, though.
> What I'm getting at is that, for me, the phrase is familiar,
> evocative, unhackneyed: in short -- not a cliché. You and others
> (not exclusively Americans) seem to take it for granted that it IS
> one, but no-one has explained what in their view qualifies it for
> that pejorative label.
> I'm wondering whether a cliché has simply come to mean a "well-known
> phrase".
Isn't "a well-known phrase" a cliche?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/23cct-0.htm
2 Curd Cheese Tart Recipes
David
<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:<4c6e000...@dacha.freeuk.com>...
> >
> > -- by two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain.
> Never mind that: I wouldn't touch her (nobody here) with yours!
I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. It sounds insulting,
especially terminated by the exclamation mark.
I can assure you though that if "her" is yours, I certainly wouldn't
even dream of touching her with my pole.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/06-0.htm
I have this extremely large growth on my lower chest
Phil C.
wrote:
>I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old
>phrase I've heard all my life.
>
>The snigger factor might be driving it out, though.
I'm reminded of the man who went to his doctor with severe flatulence.
The doctor got out a long pole with a hook at the end. "What are you
going to do to me?" wailed the man. "I don't know yet", replied the
doctor, "but first I'm going to open some windows". An oldie but
goodie.
Zero Relevance Corner. The phrase "had a ten foot willy" gets a mere
17 Google hits, BTW. A pretty poor show for such a fine piece of lyric
poetry. "Tenpole Tudor", for those with long memories, clocks up over
2000 hits. No? Just me then.
--
Phil C.
Matti Lamprhey
> >>> > "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >[...] I was
> >>> > >wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a
> >>> > >cliche.
>
> is not something that can be measured, so we're not going to get
> any further.
NSOED:
hackneyed: 1. trite, uninteresting, or commonplace through familiarity
or indiscriminate or frequent use.
How does this apply to the phrase in your view, then?
Matti
Simon R. Hughes
It is trite (a synonym for hackneyed, note), it is uninteresting,
and it is commonplace.
--
Simon R. Hughes
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
matti-...@totally-official.com "Matti Lamprhey" writes:
> How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"?
Perhaps the unrepealed English law that requires the driver of a "Hackney
Carriage" to convey with him a bale of hay (in case the horse is hungry).
As a concession, the law also permits said driver to urinate _in public_
against the rear off-side wheel of his vehicle, but only /in extremis/.
???
:-)
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:04:31 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
>wrote:
>
>>I swear to you, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole" is an old
>>phrase I've heard all my life.
>>
>>The snigger factor might be driving it out, though.
>
>I'm reminded of the man who went to his doctor with severe flatulence.
>The doctor got out a long pole with a hook at the end. "What are you
>going to do to me?" wailed the man. "I don't know yet", replied the
>doctor, "but first I'm going to open some windows". An oldie but
>goodie.
>
I wonder how many readers saw any humor to the above. I did, but
that's because the windows in one of my grade school classes were
those tall, narrow, double-sash ones. I can't quite visualize how
they worked, but I do remember being assigned to take a long pole with
a hook-like thing at the end of it and use it to lift up the lower
sashes.
Anyone that does not have any experience with such windows would be
completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would
be....50?...60?
Adrian Bailey
> For a start, is it "cliche" or "chliché"?
> Merriam-Webster online has both, but the accented word comes first,
> the non accented term follows as a variant
> Other dictinaries choose one form or another.
Really? Which dictionary lists only the unaccented form?
> What about usage?
"cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the
word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent.
> Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s,
Since when can't it?
Adrian
david56
Certainly not in the UK. Window poles were common in the end of the
1970s to my knowledge, and I doubt that my school has since installed
electrical devices to make them redundant.
--
David
=====
Adam D. Barratt
<gje000tbempb6go4j...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
<tony_co...@mungedyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:00:47 +0000, Phil C. <nob...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>>I'm reminded of the man who went to his doctor with severe flatulence.
>>The doctor got out a long pole with a hook at the end. "What are you
>>going to do to me?" wailed the man. "I don't know yet", replied the
>>doctor, "but first I'm going to open some windows". An oldie but
>>goodie.
> Anyone that does not have any experience with such windows would be
> completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would
> be....50?...60?
In the US, perhaps. The UK is another matter entirely - I'm 24,
understood the joke perfectly and suspect that the same could be said
for most people I know of a similar (and probably younger) age.
Adam
--
"...an initial underscore already conveys strong feelings of magicalness
to a C programmer."
-- Larry Wall in <1992Nov9.1...@netlabs.com>
Donna Richoux
> Enrico C <enri...@spamcop.net> wrote i
> > Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s,
>
> Since when can't it?
I will assume you mean to say that it can tell them apart. How do you
know this?
When I search on <cliché> with an accent, the results include some pages
that only have "cliche" without an accent.
Vicing the versa, a search on <cliche> turns up some pages that only
have "cliché" with an accent. I even checked the HTML Source, to make
sure it wasn't finding a hidden "cliche". For example, this page:
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0786866748.asp
I don't know what would account for the above except for Google
disregarding the presence of the accent sign.
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
John Dean
Google on cliche - 313,000 hits
cliché - 310,000
[cliche -cliché] 224,000 hits
[cliché -cliche] 187,000 hits
No, I have no idea what it means.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Richard Chambers
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote
>
> When I search on <cliché> with an accent, the results include some pages
> that only have "cliche" without an accent.
>
> Vicing the versa, a search on <cliche> turns up some pages that only
> have "cliché" with an accent. I even checked the HTML Source, to make
> sure it wasn't finding a hidden "cliche". For example, this page:
> http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0786866748.asp
>
> I don't know what would account for the above except for Google
> disregarding the presence of the accent sign.
>
> --
Not only for Google searches, but with e-mail addresses as well. I have a
friend in France, surname Godé.
Both e-mail addresses work as below:-
xxx....@yyyy.co.fr
xxx.godé@yyyy.co.fr
(The use of "xxx" and "yyyy" to protect the innocent).
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Mike Lyle
> In article <3fa4d950.04010...@posting.google.com>, Mike Lyle
> <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > news:<4c6e000...@dacha.freeuk.com>...
> > >
> > > Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure again
> > > -- by two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain.
>
> > Never mind that: I wouldn't touch her (nobody here) with yours!
>
> I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. It sounds insulting,
> especially terminated by the exclamation mark.
>
> I can assure you though that if "her" is yours, I certainly wouldn't
> even dream of touching her with my pole.
My dear chap, feel free! I try not to be possessive. (As if. Or If only.)
Mike.
Wanderer
> In article <btmh5r$929dd$1...@ID-103223.news.uni-berlin.de>
> matti-...@totally-official.com "Matti Lamprhey" writes:
>> How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"?
> Perhaps the unrepealed English law that requires the driver of a "Hackney
> Carriage" to convey with him a bale of hay (in case the horse is hungry).
> As a concession, the law also permits said driver to urinate _in public_
> against the rear off-side wheel of his vehicle, but only /in extremis/.
I thought it was the rear nearside wheel. Perhaps that's why the police
are always stopping when I........
Richard Maurer
I wonder how many readers saw any humor to the above. I did, but
that's because the windows in one of my grade school classes were
those tall, narrow, double-sash ones. I can't quite visualize how
they worked, but I do remember being assigned to take a long pole with
a hook-like thing at the end of it and use it to lift up the lower
sashes.
Anyone that does not have any experience with such windows would be
completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would
be....50?...60?
[end quote] >>
<< [Adam D. Barratt]
In the US, perhaps. The UK is another matter entirely - I'm 24,
understood the joke perfectly and suspect that the same could be said
for most people I know of a similar (and probably younger) age.
[end quote] >>
I would say age 6. I know I saw the pole used last month
in the auditorium of a grammar school; and when I recently revisited
one of my own grammar schools, the windows looked the same.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David
<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:<4c6ea14...@dacha.freeuk.com>...
> > In article <3fa4d950.04010...@posting.google.com>, Mike
> > Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<4c6e000...@dacha.freeuk.com>...
> > > >
> > > > Not only is it redundant but the US is giving short measure
> > > > again -- by two whole metres! The pole is a quarter of a chain.
> >
> > > Never mind that: I wouldn't touch her (nobody here) with yours!
> >
> > I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. It sounds insulting,
> > especially terminated by the exclamation mark.
> >
> > I can assure you though that if "her" is yours, I certainly
> > wouldn't even dream of touching her with my pole.
> My dear chap, feel free! I try not to be possessive. (As if. Or If
> only.)
My sympathies.
Actually, it's the Peyronie's which stops me vaulting. They always say,
"Well, that'll take care of the wine and women but what about the song?"
O Sole Mio....
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/12vp-0.htm
12 Vegan Parkin Recipes
David
Richard Maurer <rcpb1_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> << [Tony Cooper]
> I wonder how many readers saw any humor to the above. I did, but
> that's because the windows in one of my grade school classes were
> those tall, narrow, double-sash ones. I can't quite visualize how
> they worked, but I do remember being assigned to take a long pole with
> a hook-like thing at the end of it and use it to lift up the lower
> sashes.
> Anyone that does not have any experience with such windows would be
> completely baffled by the joke. I wonder what the cut-off age would
> be....50?...60?
> [end quote] >>
> << [Adam D. Barratt]
> In the US, perhaps. The UK is another matter entirely - I'm 24,
> understood the joke perfectly and suspect that the same could be said
> for most people I know of a similar (and probably younger) age.
> [end quote] >>
> I would say age 6. I know I saw the pole used last month
> in the auditorium of a grammar school; and when I recently revisited
> one of my own grammar schools, the windows looked the same.
This is new to me. I never knew that they had grammar schools in the
USA. Are they much the same as grammar schools in England?
Robert Bannister
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:36:59 UTC, "Voicer" <Voi...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>"Erick Andrews" <eand...@bogusstar.net> wrote in message
>>news:sGi8lzkop2Rq-pn2-J3OX0ydD7iS0@HAL9000...
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>>Surely as we centimetre our way toward metric usage, it should be updated to
>>a 3.048 metre pole, or rounded out at three metres.
>
>
> Interesting. I recall met in England, 1978 I think, who remarked at our dinner table
> during a discussion of Napoleon's Measure, that we should "bring back the rod,
> the pole, and the perch". (I don't know "perch").
>
> Anyways, what expressions are there in metric that would be comparable?
>
> And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)?
>
Exactly the same as a rod or pole.
--
Rob Bannister
Richard Maurer
I would say age 6. I know I saw the pole used last month
in the auditorium of a grammar school; and when I recently revisited
one of my own grammar schools, the windows looked the same.
<< [David]
This is new to me. I never knew that they had grammar schools in the
USA. Are they much the same as grammar schools in England?
[end quote] >>
For me (in the US) grammar school means grades 1 to 6,
for others it means grades 1 to 8 (starting about age 6).
Other terms are nudging it out of currency.
I am sure we have done this before in a.u.e., and more completely,
Michael J Hardy
> I never knew that they had grammar schools in the
> USA. Are they much the same as grammar schools in England?
Much geographic variation exists in matters of this kind
within the USA. Far more, I suspect, than most USAns realize.
I have tended to assume "grammar school" means the same
thing as what I have called "elementary school" or "primary
school" or "grade school", i.e., what one attends from about
age 5 or 6 through age 12. Is it not so? -- Mike Hardy
David
Richard Maurer <rcpb1_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> << [Richard Maurer ]
> I would say age 6. I know I saw the pole used last month
> in the auditorium of a grammar school; and when I recently revisited
> one of my own grammar schools, the windows looked the same.
> [end quote] >>
> << [David]
> This is new to me. I never knew that they had grammar schools in the
> USA. Are they much the same as grammar schools in England?
> [end quote] >>
> For me (in the US) grammar school means grades 1 to 6,
> for others it means grades 1 to 8 (starting about age 6).
> Other terms are nudging it out of currency.
> I am sure we have done this before in a.u.e., and more completely,
You might have done it in aue but in the real world "grades 1 to 8"
doesn''t mean quite as much as giving the ages of the children.
Once again, I have to cry US-centric! "Grades"?
My grammar school (founded 1392, 100 years before Columbus rediscovered
Brasil), educated children from the ages of 11 to 18. Most left at the
age of 16; the few made it to 18 and to university (For British
readers: when a degree meant more than A-levels, and A-levels meant a
little more then the 11-plus).
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/8sco-0.htm
Scorpio (October 24th - November 22nd)
Images, Associations, Qualities, Careers, Health
David
Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
> Erick Andrews wrote:
> > And, if you know, what's a "perch", in feet (or "centipedes";-)?
> >
> Exactly the same as a rod or pole.
Gawd, are you still on about that? We'd finished with all that
historical nonsense circa 1955 and, although it was still printed in
the backs of our exercise books, had moved on to working out the
relationship between Imperial and metric.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/gay/11-0.htm
The Voices Die
Adrian Bailey
news:1g7d2je.1yeg41i1j9qlr5N%tr...@euronet.nl...
> Adrian Bailey <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Enrico C <enri...@spamcop.net> wrote i
>
> > > Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s,
> >
> > Since when can't it?
>
> I will assume you mean to say that it can tell them apart. How do you
> know this?
I searched for English-language webpages containing accented Hungarian
words, eg. béka, pók, and the accented/unaccented results were quite
different.
Adrian
David
In the UK, "grammar school" generally means a school for the
academically inclined from the age of 11 to 18, although recently, age
16 to 18 might move on from grammar school (or secondary school) to
sixth form college.
It's really just a historical hangover from when grammar schools really
did teach Greek and/or Latin grammar.
By the time I attended (in the 1950s), the nearest grammar school had 8
forms: the top three were "grammar school", the lowest 5 were
"secondary modern".
Over the years, I have watched standards fall so that now, the whole
intake of the school is of a standard that once would not have attained
the top three forms; Yet now, 50% of students might go to university as
opposed to about half of 20% in my day.
Now, doctors commonly use "of" instead of "have" and think "Tolpuddle"
is a wet thursday in central London.
How is university entrance in the US?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/penny/
do not click this link if you are
in the 1st or 3rd trimester of pregnancy (thin women)
in the 1st or 7th trimester of pregnancy (elephants)
Charles Riggs
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>"Charles Riggs" <CHA...@aircom.net> wrote...
>> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >[...] I was
>> >wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche.
>>
>> Because it is, er, a cliche.
>
>I expect by now you've read my apologia for the phrase, so please
>explain what makes it a cliché for you.
Simple: I've heard it ten zillion times -- who hasn't? -- and it has
lost all zest by now.
>If you think it's overused, then I'll be asking you how many times it's
>appeared (as something other than a topic _per se_) in AUE or UCLE over
>the last few years.
Life, as I know it, does not revolve around AUE. I haven't seen my two
uncles in twenty years -- one I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole
even if he weren't well dead -- and I can't comment on UCLEs at all.
Let's stick with clichés.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggsŚatŚeircomŚdotŚnet
Charles Riggs
It applies because the phrase is, er, trite, uninteresting, and
commonplace through familiarity, indiscriminate use, and frequent use.
(How do you like *dem* commas?)
Is Cardiff English related to ordinary Earth English, I'm beginning to
wonder? No poles, no feet either, or just a paucity of clichés, is it?
Charles Riggs
In what way is xxx innocent, and what is poor Godé guilty of?
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net
Enrico C
in <news:91c106fc.04011...@posting.google.com>
> Enrico C <enri...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<jd1j3yalmurr$.d...@news.lillathedog.net>...
>> For a start, is it "cliche" or "chliché"?
>> Merriam-Webster online has both, but the accented word comes first,
>> the non accented term follows as a variant
>> Other dictinaries choose one form or another.
>
> Really? Which dictionary lists only the unaccented form?
lookwayup.com , for instance.
Main dictionaries show both forms, anyway.
>> What about usage?
>
> "cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the
I see some clichés on the net, actually, but a very few cafés :)
> word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent.
But if you always write cafe and cliche on the keyboard you get used
to that, don't you? :)
>> Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s,
>
> Since when can't it?
That was my impression trying some searches, and I read of others
having similar experiences, for instance:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/12724.htm
--
Enrico C
| 40tude Dialog Italy Cafe Screenshots
| http://www.lillathedog.net/dialog/screenshots.html
Graeme Thomas
<b...@dsl.co.uk> writes
>In article <btmh5r$929dd$1...@ID-103223.news.uni-berlin.de>
> matti-...@totally-official.com "Matti Lamprhey" writes:
>
>> How do you define a "hackneyed phrase"?
>
>Perhaps the unrepealed English law that requires the driver of a "Hackney
>Carriage" to convey with him a bale of hay (in case the horse is hungry).
>As a concession, the law also permits said driver to urinate _in public_
>against the rear off-side wheel of his vehicle, but only /in extremis/.
A couple of years ago I was chatting to a London taxi driver, and I
asked him where his bale of hay was. After a rather curious
conversation trying to overcome the confusion this caused, he gave me a
copy of the book of regulations covering London cabbies. I searched
through it carefully, and there was no mention of keeping bales of hay
for the horse, or for using the rear off-side wheel. The booklet
claimed to be comprehensive. Either it was mistaken, or the two laws
have been repealed.
--
Graeme Thomas
John Hall
Graeme Thomas <gra...@graemet.demon.co.uk> writes:
>A couple of years ago I was chatting to a London taxi driver, and I
>asked him where his bale of hay was. After a rather curious
>conversation trying to overcome the confusion this caused, he gave me a
>copy of the book of regulations covering London cabbies. I searched
>through it carefully, and there was no mention of keeping bales of hay
>for the horse, or for using the rear off-side wheel. The booklet
>claimed to be comprehensive. Either it was mistaken, or the two laws
>have been repealed.
Or perhaps the whole thing is an urban legend?
--
John Hall
"One half of the world cannot understand
the pleasures of the other."
From "Emma" by Jane Austen (1775-1817)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I think Matti is under the impression that a cliché is nothing
> but a dysfunctional metaphor. There is nothing metaphorical about
> "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole".
Typically it's used to refer to a topic, not an actual object. This
seems highly metaphorical to me, as it treats a topic as an object
that can be touched, and also as one to which physical proximity would
be unpleasant.
Anybody else familiar with "Stanley Kowalski, the proverbial ten-foot
Pole"?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring
|bankers.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Gary Vellenzer
> "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.no...@yahoo.no> writes:
>
> > I think Matti is under the impression that a cliché is nothing
> > but a dysfunctional metaphor. There is nothing metaphorical about
> > "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole".
>
> Typically it's used to refer to a topic, not an actual object. This
> seems highly metaphorical to me, as it treats a topic as an object
> that can be touched, and also as one to which physical proximity would
> be unpleasant.
>
> Anybody else familiar with "Stanley Kowalski, the proverbial ten-foot
> Pole"?
>
Gary
Grontesca Bladthranx
> Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>
> > "Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote...
> > > Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> > > > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote...
> > > > > Jeremy Chen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I cannot find the meaning of the phrase "a ten-foot pole." Is it
> > > > > > a slang? What does it account for?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a cliche. [...]
> > > >
> > > > Is this some new usage of "cliché"?
> > >
> > > Are you asking about the accent? M-W gives "cliche" as a variant
> > > spelling of "cliché". They don't date variants.
> >
> > No -- that was my spellchecker keeping me sufficiently foreign. I was
> > wondering why Bob described the phrase "a ten-foot pole" as a cliche.
>
> the US. I believe this thread has said that the British equivalent is "I
> wouldn't touch that with a barge-pole." (However that last may be
> spelled -- open, closed, or hyphenated?)
My biology teacher (1970s London) once said, "I wouldn't touch it with
a forty-foot, plastic, sterilised barge-pole".
Jeremy |-)
Mark Brader
> "cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the
Excuse? We're speaking English here. 26 letters, no accents.
--
Mark Brader | "But [he] had already established his own reputation
Toronto | as someone who wrote poetry that mentioned the el."
m...@vex.net | --Al Kriman
Mark Brader
> > > Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s,
Adrian Bailey:
> > Since when can't it?
Donna Richoux:
> When I search on <cliché> with an accent, the results include some pages
> that only have "cliche" without an accent.
That's because you forgot to use "allintext:" (or equivalently, to
specify "in the text of the page" via the advanced search form).
You were getting pages containing "cliche" that were *linked to* from
pages contaning "cliché".
> Vicing the versa, a search on <cliche> turns up some pages that only
> have "cliché" with an accent.
Mutatis mutandis.
Try a case where a relatively rare French word has an accent and has
a spelling that also differs in another way from the corresponding
English, and you don't need to use allintext: to see that Google does
indeed respect accents.
elegiac 68,300
elégiac 5
élegiac 0
élégiac 8
elegiaque 2,140
elégiaque 410
élegiaque 32
élégiaque 5,620
I was surprised by the number of "elegiaque" hits. Looking at the
synopses for the top 20, most of them are non-French text quoting a
title that's in French, exactly when you'd expect accents to vanish.
I expect the "elégiaque" hits are the same thing with the French
word misspelled, but I haven't checked.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Domine, defende nos
m...@vex.net | Contra hos motores bos!" -- A. D. Godley
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Enrico C
in <news:1004bj8...@corp.supernews.com>
> Enrico C:
>>> > Google can't tell "e"s from "é"s,
>
> Adrian Bailey:
>>> Since when can't it?
>
> Donna Richoux:
>> When I search on <cliché> with an accent, the results include some pages
>> that only have "cliche" without an accent.
>
> That's because you forgot to use "allintext:" (or equivalently, to
> specify "in the text of the page" via the advanced search form).
> You were getting pages containing "cliche" that were *linked to* from
> pages contaning "cliché".
>> Vicing the versa, a search on <cliche> turns up some pages that only
>> have "cliché" with an accent.
>
> Mutatis mutandis.
Thank you for this useful tip and sorry if I gave an incorrect bit of
information :)
Anyway, even searching only for "allintext: cliche" , Google gives
surprisingly similar numbers: "cliche" ( 234,000+) and "cliché"
(248,000+).
> Try a case where a relatively rare French word has an accent and has
> a spelling that also differs in another way from the corresponding
> English, and you don't need to use allintext: to see that Google does
> indeed respect accents.
>
> elegiac 68,300
> elégiac 5
> élegiac 0
> élégiac 8
> elegiaque 2,140
> elégiaque 410
> élegiaque 32
> élégiaque 5,620
>
> I was surprised by the number of "elegiaque" hits. Looking at the
> synopses for the top 20, most of them are non-French text quoting a
> title that's in French, exactly when you'd expect accents to vanish.
> I expect the "elégiaque" hits are the same thing with the French
> word misspelled, but I haven't checked.
I also tried a search for the Italian word "poiché" (as / because),
and the results seem even odder to me!
allintext: poiché 344,000+ (correct accent)
allintext: poichè 343,000+ (wrong form)
allintext: poiche 343,000+ (wrong form)
I suspect that Google guys are trying to distinguish between accented
and non accented forms, but they don't always completely succeed
doing so, yet, due to some technical reason.
Daniel Titley
> Now, doctors commonly use "of" instead of "have"
In what context?
Donna Richoux
What I get for those is way different. (Preference set to All languages)
elegiac 45,800
elégiac 49.600
élegiac 46,600
élégiac 46,600
elegiaque 5,280
elégiaque 5,530
élegiaque 5,300
élégiaque 5,290
So, (a) I'm getting counts that show essentially no difference from one
to another, and (b) the differences between yours and mine might be do
to the wild geographic variations we've been seeing the last year.
I noticed that this same hit came up the last four times, and there are
no accents anywhere on the "elegiaque"s, including Viewing Source.
http://classical.onino.co.uk/classical/
rachmaninov_trios_elegiaque_1.html
Google is calling up results with no accents, when accents are asked
for. And vice versa.
> >
> > I was surprised by the number of "elegiaque" hits. Looking at the
> > synopses for the top 20, most of them are non-French text quoting a
> > title that's in French, exactly when you'd expect accents to vanish.
> > I expect the "elégiaque" hits are the same thing with the French
> > word misspelled, but I haven't checked.
>
>
> I also tried a search for the Italian word "poiché" (as / because),
> and the results seem even odder to me!
>
> allintext: poiché 344,000+ (correct accent)
> allintext: poichè 343,000+ (wrong form)
> allintext: poiche 343,000+ (wrong form)
>
>
> I suspect that Google guys are trying to distinguish between accented
> and non accented forms, but they don't always completely succeed
> doing so, yet, due to some technical reason.
I repeated your poiche search, Enrico, just on the words themselves
without any allintext. As long as I had the Preferences set to All
Languages, I got nearly the same results you did" 343,000, 341,000, and
345,000. If I switched to English Only, I got 6810, 6830, and 6810.
We've never had to determine what "the same" meant for Google counts,
when two numbers weren't identical, but I'd say these are damned close
to illustrating "the same."
What is "allintext" supposed to do, anyway... The Help pages say
Starting a query with the term "allintext:"
restricts the results to those with all of the query
words in only the body text, ignoring link, URL, and
title matches.
Okay, so that's a quick way to reduce the effect of the Key Words
section or words that might be part of HTML. As I said, it seemed to
make only a slight difference.
By the way, quite a few of your <poiche> hits turn out to be
<poiche'>. The person knew it had an accent, but only had the apostrophe
to make it with.
There are more things we can test, but so far this supports the
hypothesis "Google treats accented letters the same as unaccented," with
the possibility that its count estimation formulas (which we know to be
unreliable) appear to try to take them into account.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
David
> In what context?
I would of thought that was obvious.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/
Free Software: !Jess
- JPEG extractor
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Anybody else familiar with "Stanley Kowalski, the proverbial ten-foot
> Pole"?
No, but I've occasionally attempted to popularize, as an opposite for "I
wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot Pole," "I wouldn't sell that for a
five-hundred-pound Czech."
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Mike Lyle
> Adrian Bailey writes:
> > "cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the
> > word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent.
>
> Excuse? We're speaking English here. 26 letters, no accents.
That's a bit riche.
Mike.
John Hall
Not if their doctorate is DLitt, one hopes.
--
John Hall
"Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes."
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Bob Cunningham
Richoux) said:
[ . . . ]
> [...] (b) the differences between yours and mine might
> be [*]do[*] to the wild geographic variations we've been
> seeing the last year.
I did that a few years ago, used "do" for "due". A poster
found it interesting because it showed him that my "do" and
"due" are homophones, as opposed to his "doo" and "dyoo".
I guess we can similarly infer that you say "doo" rather
than "dyoo", as I due.
Pat Durkin
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ddr500pdojm26vc7k...@4ax.com...
Ol' Blew Eyes.
Isabelle Cecchini
[...]
>
> There are more things we can test, but so far this supports the
> hypothesis "Google treats accented letters the same as unaccented,"
> with the possibility that its count estimation formulas (which we
> know to be unreliable) appear to try to take them into account.
I've found that typing a <+> just before the word makes Google
definitely want to behave nicely with accents. The problem is that it
still behaves badly with capital letters, so that I get very similar
results for <+Élégiaque> and <+élégiaque> on the one hand, and for
<+Elégiaque> and <+elégiaque> on the other. The point being that whereas
<elégiaque> is faulty, <Elégiaque> isn't on the same level: after all,
many French-speakers have been taught not to accent capital letters.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Matthew Huntbach
> Michael J Hardy <mjh...@mit.edu> wrote:
> > I have tended to assume "grammar school" means the same
> > thing as what I have called "elementary school" or "primary
> > school" or "grade school", i.e., what one attends from about
> > age 5 or 6 through age 12. Is it not so? -- Mike Hardy
> In the UK, "grammar school" generally means a school for the
> academically inclined from the age of 11 to 18, although recently, age
> 16 to 18 might move on from grammar school (or secondary school) to
> sixth form college.
A grammar school in England (it needs to be recalled that Scotland has
a completely different education system from England) means a
secondary school
(i.e. ages 11-18) that is funded by the state but is permitted to
select on ability i.e. you have to pass an aptitude test to go into
it. The name for schools that take those that fail the test is
"secondary modern".
This used to be the standard pattern, but since the 1970s there has
been pressure from national government to switch to a system where
there is no selection on academic ability. Only in a few areas are
they holding on to the selective system. It is a politically
contentious matter - the issue is always put by those who advocate
selection at the age of 11 as "saving the grammar schools" as if most
kids end up in them - of course the problem with the syustem is that
most kids ended up in the secondary modern schools that were bad
because the top ability kids had neen sliced away from them.
Matthew Huntbach
Robert Bannister
> Adrian Bailey writes:
>
>>"cliche" is the keyboard-spelling (cf. cafe, blase, etc.). When the
>>word is handwritten there is no excuse not to add the accent.
>
>
> Excuse? We're speaking English here. 26 letters, no accents.
What form of English is that? 7-bit usenet English, perhaps?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Some time in the 60s, I recall.
--
Rob Bannister