Bee's knees: another suggestion
S Z Hanley
Yes, I've read the FAQ. It doesn't mention that _bee's knees_ may be a
humorous pronunciation of _business_. I have seen this offered as a
genuine derivation and it seems as plausible as the current favourite for
_OK_.
Incidentally, the tone of the FAQ suggests a blissful lack of awareness
that Cerf and Beard's _Official Politically Correct Dictionary_ is a
satire. It is NOT a serious textbook and shouldn't be relied upon as a
citable source. It is funny though.
--
Zac
_________________________________________________________________________
s.z.h...@durham.ac.uk One mucous membrane is
mb...@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk as good as another
_________________________________________________________________________
Mark Israel
In article <50m89o$9...@mercury.dur.ac.uk>, S.Z.H...@durham.ac.uk (S.Z.H...@durham.ac.uk) writes:
> Incidentally, the tone of the [alt.usage.english] FAQ suggests a
> blissful lack of awareness that Cerf and Beard's _Official
> Politically Correct Dictionary_ is a satire. It is NOT a serious
> textbook and shouldn't be relied upon as a citable source. It is
> funny though.
(Cross-posted from alt.usage.english; followups set back there.)
Evidence, please?
The book is "satire" in the sense that its authors are opposed
to "political correctness", and cite the silliest instances of it
that they can find, mostly from the fringe rather than the
mainstream. But the 680 citations look genuine enough to me (and I
*know* that some of them are).
What is the evidence that it "shouldn't be relied on as a citable
source"?
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Bob Cunningham
mis...@scripps.edu (Mark Israel) wrote:
[...]
> [S.Z.H...@durham.ac.uk writes:]
> Incidentally, the tone of the [alt.usage.english] FAQ suggests a
> blissful lack of awareness that Cerf and Beard's _Official
> Politically Correct Dictionary_ is a satire. It is NOT a serious
> textbook and shouldn't be relied upon as a citable source. It is
> funny though.
> Evidence, please?
> The book is "satire" in the sense that its authors are opposed
>to "political correctness", and cite the silliest instances of it
^
Intrusive comma. See MEU2 page 588.
>that they can find, mostly from the fringe rather than the
>mainstream. But the 680 citations look genuine enough to me (and I
>*know* that some of them are).
>
> What is the evidence that it "shouldn't be relied on as a citable
>source"?
Repetitious. Reorganize to avoid asking the same question twice.
Steve Caskey
In Article <50miqk$l...@riscsm.scripps.edu>
mis...@scripps.edu (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <50m89o$9...@mercury.dur.ac.uk>, S.Z.H...@durham.ac.uk (S.Z.H...@durham.ac.uk) writes:
>> Incidentally, the tone of the [alt.usage.english] FAQ suggests a
>> blissful lack of awareness that Cerf and Beard's _Official
>> Politically Correct Dictionary_ is a satire. It is NOT a serious
>> textbook and shouldn't be relied upon as a citable source. It is
>> funny though.
>
Sorry, but I'm resetting followups to keep AFU in the loop, as some of the
content of the book _does_ interface with contemporary beliefs of the type
that interest us.
> Evidence, please?
>
> The book is "satire" in the sense that its authors are opposed
>to "political correctness", and cite the silliest instances of it
>that they can find, mostly from the fringe rather than the
>mainstream. But the 680 citations look genuine enough to me (and I
>*know* that some of them are).
>
> What is the evidence that it "shouldn't be relied on as a citable
>source"?
First, discard anything attributed to _The American Hyphen Society_. This
is basically a joke "organisation" comprising the compilers of the book and
various associates.
Second, many of the cites are of humorous articles, and the expressions in
question are fabrications. For example, from memory, a magazine for the
physically disabled ran a competition seeking expressions of doublespeak
for their target audience. The winner: "severely euphemized." I also
suspect one or two entries which appear to be genuine examples are in fact
merely ponderous attempts at academic humour, and properly belong in this
category; can Bina Goldfield _really_ be that daft, for example?
The remainder, and certainly not a minority, of the entries are the genuine
article, but of these many appear to be single uses or the utterings of
figures who are less than credible even within the circles whose creeds
they espouse, as indeed Mark concedes above.
In conclusion, if you want to believe that _everything_ in the book
represents a literal truth (and this is where AFU would take an active
interest) you're in big trouble, especially since it is usually - though
sadly not always - abundantly clear which of the three classes above a cite
belongs in.
I would concur that the _Official Politically Correct Dictionary_ is
basically satire, but I would also maintain that this does not render it
totally worthless. It's certainly not a "serious" reference, but this just
means the reader must be aware of its tongue-in-cheek nature when weighing
the value of a cite. If you're really interested in a cite, the trick
would be to consult it, no?
Unfortunately, both (all?) sides of this particular battlefield tend to
wave agendas around with reckless abandon, and that particular slippery
slope is _definitely_ off-charter for alt.folklore.urban, unless you want
to claim that someone lost an eye as a result. If you're responding to
that facet of this thread, please do feel free to reset followups.
Steve "they shoot Equine-Americans, don't they?" Caskey
--
Just another mindless public servant at the Ministry of Education
"If the Andrews Sisters, the Three Stooges and Vivienne Westwood were
trapped on a desert island for a weekend with a case of kiwifruit liqueur,
the resulting love child would be When The Cat's Been Spayed."