The English word "sans"
daniel gerard mcgrath
in the English language? Using this word is a sort of peeve of mine.
Either that, or I wish it were used more often.
--------------------------------------------------
daniel g. mcgrath
a subscriber to _word ways: the journal of recreational linguistics_
http://www.wordways.com/
Henry Churchyard
daniel gerard mcgrath <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What are your comments on "sans" (from the French, "without") as used
> in the English language? Using this word is a sort of peeve of mine.
> Either that, or I wish it were used more often.
Might look at http://www.rhymezone.com/r/ss.cgi?q=sans&mode=k
--
"They have committed false report; moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanderers; sixth and lastly, they have belied a
lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust things; and, to conclude, they
are knaves." || Henry Churchyard http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
Brian M. Scott
mcgrath) wrote:
>What are your comments on "sans" (from the French, "without") as used
>in the English language? Using this word is a sort of peeve of mine.
>Either that, or I wish it were used more often.
Didn't we go through this just a while ago?
Brian
John Woodgate
>What are your comments on "sans" (from the French, "without") as used
>in the English language? Using this word is a sort of peeve of mine.
>Either that, or I wish it were used more often.
It's more or less a literary affectation. Certainly anyone using it in
conversation would be regarded as pretentious.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
This message and its contents are not confidential, privileged or protected
by law. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient - this means YOU!
The contents may be disclosed to, or used by, anyone and stored or copied in
any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender
yesterday at the latest.
Brion L. VIBBER
> It's more or less a literary affectation. Certainly anyone using it in
> conversation would be regarded as pretentious.
Unless, of course, they're discussing typography.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox,com)
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
E N D L E S S L Y.
Notice the lack of "alt.usage.english", the only truly appropriate news-
group for this query, in the headers. I suspect that the crowd there have
become so thoroughly sick of Mr McGrath's handful of dull pet peeves that
he doesn't dare post there any more.
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
Avi Jacobson
news:9KUb7.137$O4....@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <3b6f6b50....@enews.newsguy.com>,
> Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 03:58:33 GMT, dmcg...@yahoo.com (daniel gerard
> >mcgrath) wrote:
> >
> >>What are your comments on "sans" (from the French, "without") as used
> >>in the English language? Using this word is a sort of peeve of mine.
> >>Either that, or I wish it were used more often.
> >
> >Didn't we go through this just a while ago?
>
> E N D L E S S L Y.
>
> Notice the lack of "alt.usage.english", the only truly appropriate news-
> group for this query, in the headers. I suspect that the crowd there have
> become so thoroughly sick of Mr McGrath's handful of dull pet peeves that
> he doesn't dare post there any more.
Da, I don't know if you're fully familiar with Daniel's situation. I'd like
to believe that if you were, you would have had the sensitivity not to post
what you just did. Check Google if you like. It's all been thoroughly
corroborated, and he and his family have even appeared on public television.
--
Avi Jacobson, Manager of Language Localization, Gallery Systems
A...@GallerySystems.com - (510) 652-8950, ext. 246
Paul Townsend
news:3b6f66f0...@news.ggn.net...
> What are your comments on "sans" (from the French, "without") as used
> in the English language? Using this word is a sort of peeve of mine.
The only time I've seen "sans" used in English is in Book 1 of Spenser's
Faerie Queene, where the baddies are named Sans Foy, Sans Joy and Sans Loy.
--
Paul V. S. Townsend, M.Sc.
Spamtrapped: replace "plusam" with "prai" to respond.
Axel Harvey
> The only time I've seen "sans" used in English is in Book 1 of Spenser's
> Faerie Queene, where the baddies are named Sans Foy, Sans Joy and Sans Loy.
There is the famous Shaksperean "Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste,
sans everything", meaning the condition of old age. What is it...in
Hamlet, one of the folio versions? It's not in my Penguin Hamlet.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
I understand that Daniel McGrath is autistic. However, he's not an idiot.
He seems to function quite well--at least I've never noticed him exhibit
any echolalia or other prominent symptoms of his disease. Reasonable ac-
comodations should be made for him to participate in Usenet. But how much
are we required to indulge his tendency to fixate on a few trivial issues?
How many times should we be subjected to the selfsame discussion of them?
Mr McGrath doesn't like the word <sans>. Fine, he doesn't have to use it.
Can't he just accept that some people do, that this is a matter of person-
al preference, and move on? Does his disease really make this a psycho-
logical impossibility?
If it does, then I do apologise. But, even if that be the case, surely he
can grasp the concept of "off-topic"? This discussion is off-topic for
sci.lang and especially for sci.lang.translation. If it belongs anywhere,
it's alt.usage.english. But, like I said, I think the posters there are
every bit as sick of hearing it as I am.
But now I have a request for all the good Samaritans who don't mind hu-
mouring Mr McGrath by repeating themselves over and over to him: Could
you do it by e-mail? Since no real discussion takes place, there's no
question of building on what previous posters have said. Respondents don't
need to see what has been posted before to respond to the objections,
since these are fundamentally impervious to rational debate. You'd still
be helping out a learning-disabled young man, but without wasting tons of
bandwidth and annoying everyone else.
Peter T. Daniels
It's the "Seven Ages of Man"; isn't it Mercutio in R&J?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Einde O'Callaghan
>
> "daniel gerard mcgrath" <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b6f66f0...@news.ggn.net...
> > What are your comments on "sans" (from the French, "without") as used
> > in the English language? Using this word is a sort of peeve of mine.
>
> The only time I've seen "sans" used in English is in Book 1 of Spenser's
> Faerie Queene, where the baddies are named Sans Foy, Sans Joy and Sans Loy.
>
about the Seven Ages of Man, but I can't remember at the moment what
play that's in. So it would appear to have been quite a fashionable word
back in Elizabethan times. I can't, however, recall it in any more
recent texts, so it obviously didn't really catch on - a bit like the
1960s word "groovy", I suppose. ;-)
There seems to be a quite adequate word already in teh language,
"without", or "outwith" for some of our Scottish readers.
Regards, Einde O'callaghan
Brian M. Scott
<a...@gallerysystems.com> wrote:
[...]
>Da, I don't know if you're fully familiar with Daniel's situation. I'd like
>to believe that if you were, you would have had the sensitivity not to post
>what you just did. Check Google if you like. It's all been thoroughly
>corroborated, and he and his family have even appeared on public television.
It's never come up in sci.lang, so far as I know. Nor do I see why
you couldn't have simply told us that he was autistic and sent us to
<http://www.alt-usage-english.org/McGrath.html>; it would have
explained a great deal.
Brian
Avi Jacobson
news:3b71aef9....@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:06:11 -0700, "Avi Jacobson"
> <a...@gallerysystems.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Da, I don't know if you're fully familiar with Daniel's situation. I'd
like
> >to believe that if you were, you would have had the sensitivity not to
post
> >what you just did. Check Google if you like. It's all been thoroughly
> >corroborated, and he and his family have even appeared on public
television.
>
> It's never come up in sci.lang, so far as I know.
Well, with respect, Da brought it up. And had someone who doesn't know
about Daniel merely made a remark about the "sans" question being tiresome,
I would have understood. But Da knows about Daniel's posting history in
a.u.e., and even made snide reference to it.
> Nor do I see why
> you couldn't have simply told us that he was autistic and sent us to
> <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/McGrath.html>; it would have
> explained a great deal.
The issue is off-topic here, and in any case, I didn't remember the URL.
Daniel has long been a regular in a.u.e., and his unique circumstances are
as on-topic for _that_ group as are, say, Rey Aman's. What I wrote was
enough to send folks who cared -- like your self -- to the right place,
without burdening the others here with Daniel's history.
--
Avi Jacobson
Axel Harvey
the poster will be included in every expanded header, so we'll all know
whether and how to reply to a post.
Avi Jacobson
> I understand that Daniel McGrath is autistic. However, he's not an idiot.
> He seems to function quite well--at least I've never noticed him exhibit
> any echolalia or other prominent symptoms of his disease.
It seems to me that you are being very judgmental about something that is,
in fact, clearly a "prominent symptom of his disease". Have you really
never seen any of the nonsense and gibberish posts, the multiple postings of
the same subject line with nothing but the numbers changing in series, and
the tendency to focus upon specific linguistic phenomena such the use of
sans or an expression like "you send me"?
> Reasonable ac-
> comodations should be made for him to participate in Usenet. But how much
> are we required to indulge his tendency to fixate on a few trivial issues?
You're not required to read his postings. I do, because they are often
keenly interesting.
> How many times should we be subjected to the selfsame discussion of them?
No more and no less than you like. If you see "sans" or "govende", or even
his name in the Author field, you can always ignore the posting.
> Mr McGrath doesn't like the word <sans>. Fine, he doesn't have to use it.
> Can't he just accept that some people do, that this is a matter of person-
> al preference, and move on? Does his disease really make this a psycho-
> logical impossibility?
I don't know whether it does or not. By the looks of it (and judging by
explanations given by himself, his mother, and health professionals involved
in his life ), he has trouble "moving on" when he is troubled by something.
> If it does, then I do apologise.
As, I believe, you should indeed.
> But, even if that be the case, surely he
> can grasp the concept of "off-topic"?
I don't know if he can or can't. How can you use a word like "surely", even
with the question mark? (I interpret "surely" with a question mark to mean:
"I believe my assertion to be a certainty; do you not agree?") Again,
judging from what Catherine has said, the totality of his Usenet behavior
(to the extent that it is peculiar) is a symptom of his disease.
> This discussion is off-topic for
> sci.lang and especially for sci.lang.translation. If it belongs anywhere,
> it's alt.usage.english. But, like I said, I think the posters there are
> every bit as sick of hearing it as I am.
Perhaps. As sick, I suppose, as one is of blind people walking into us on
the street. But I would venture to suggest that civilized, compassionate
people can overcome their frustrations with the incovenience of having to
tolerate other people's disabilities.
> But now I have a request for all the good Samaritans who don't mind hu-
> mouring Mr McGrath by repeating themselves over and over to him: Could
> you do it by e-mail? Since no real discussion takes place,
I don't think that's true. And if you look through Google (as I suggested
earlier), you will see that this is not just a case of someone babbling.
Daniel's questions and contributions -- in a.u.e., at least -- have
stimulated much meaningful discourse.
> there's no
> question of building on what previous posters have said. Respondents don't
> need to see what has been posted before to respond to the objections,
> since these are fundamentally impervious to rational debate. You'd still
> be helping out a learning-disabled young man,
You know as well as I do that he is not learning-disabled.
but without wasting tons of
> bandwidth and annoying everyone else.
Are you speaking on behalf of everyone?
--
Avi Jacobson
Avi Jacobson
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10108...@localhost.localdomain...
> I suppose the time will come when a complete psychological report on
> the poster will be included in every expanded header, so we'll all know
> whether and how to reply to a post.
I wouldn't have said anything, were I not fully aware of that particular
respondent's familiarity with the history of the original poster.
Rob Bannister
Are you trying to put us off from replying to anyone!!! -:}
-- Rob Bannister
Perth, Western Australia.
Brian M. Scott
<a...@gallerysystems.com> wrote:
>"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>news:3b71aef9....@enews.newsguy.com...
[...]
>> It's never come up in sci.lang, so far as I know.
>Well, with respect, Da brought it up.
The tiresomeness, but not the cause.
> And had someone who doesn't know
>about Daniel merely made a remark about the "sans" question being tiresome,
>I would have understood. But Da knows about Daniel's posting history in
>a.u.e., and even made snide reference to it.
This may well be true, but it certainly wasn't obvious from his
original response to me. I don't read a.u.e. at all, and I could have
made just such an 'I suspect that' comment.
>> Nor do I see why
>> you couldn't have simply told us that he was autistic and sent us to
>> <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/McGrath.html>; it would have
>> explained a great deal.
>The issue is off-topic here, and in any case, I didn't remember the URL.
You could have done the Googling yourself and posted the result. And
you can't have it both ways: if it's off-topic in sci.lang, it
shouldn't have been raised in the first place. But I really don't see
why it should be: anything that affects the functioning of a group is
on-topic in that group, it seems to me. In any case, I'm grateful for
the information.
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
It's come up in sci.lang again and again. Don't you remember "This is
Daniel McGrath's mother, using his ID to post to the newsgroup"? Or "it
sends me, mng. 7b"?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:Piic7.44
>
> > I understand that Daniel McGrath is autistic. However, he's not an idiot.
> > He seems to function quite well--at least I've never noticed him exhibit
> > any echolalia or other prominent symptoms of his disease.
>
> It seems to me that you are being very judgmental about something that is,
> in fact, clearly a "prominent symptom of his disease". Have you really
> never seen any of the nonsense and gibberish posts, the multiple postings of
> the same subject line with nothing but the numbers changing in series, and
Never at sci.lang.
> the tendency to focus upon specific linguistic phenomena such the use of
> sans or an expression like "you send me"?
Only these.
Coby (Jacob) Lubliner
Here we go again. It's Jaques in AYLI.
Coby
Brian M. Scott
I certainly remember the 'it sends me' discussion, and I've seen some
of her posts, but none of the ones that I happened to read mentioned
the specific problem. I don't claim to have read all of them,
however.
Brian
John Woodgate
I wondered how far we'd get through the canon before we got the right
answer.
James Lee
Fitzgerald's translation of Omar Khayyam:
'Dust into Dust, and under Dust, to lie
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and - sans End!
Just to cheer you up.
James Lee
Avi Jacobson
news:3B728B...@att.net...
> Avi Jacobson wrote:
> >
> > "D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Piic7.44
> >
> > > I understand that Daniel McGrath is autistic. However, he's not an
idiot.
> > > He seems to function quite well--at least I've never noticed him
exhibit
> > > any echolalia or other prominent symptoms of his disease.
> >
> > It seems to me that you are being very judgmental about something that
is,
> > in fact, clearly a "prominent symptom of his disease". Have you really
> > never seen any of the nonsense and gibberish posts, the multiple
postings of
> > the same subject line with nothing but the numbers changing in series,
and
>
> Never at sci.lang.
I was asking Da, because he has posted 853 (also sprach Google) postings to
alt.usage english, including postings addressed specifically to Daniel
McGrath and poking fun at the issues which interest him.
>
> > the tendency to focus upon specific linguistic phenomena such the use of
> > sans or an expression like "you send me"?
>
> Only these.
Well, not Da. He has, in the past, addressed postings to Daniel in a.u.e
telling him how expasperating he is.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Avi Jacobson <a...@gallerysystems.com> wrote:
>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:3B728B...@att.net...
>> Avi Jacobson wrote:
>> >
>> > "D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:Piic7.44
>> >
>> > > I understand that Daniel McGrath is autistic. However, he's not an
>idiot.
>> > > He seems to function quite well--at least I've never noticed him
>exhibit
>> > > any echolalia or other prominent symptoms of his disease.
>> >
>> > It seems to me that you are being very judgmental about something that
>is,
>> > in fact, clearly a "prominent symptom of his disease". Have you really
>> > never seen any of the nonsense and gibberish posts, the multiple
>postings of
>> > the same subject line with nothing but the numbers changing in series,
>and
>>
>> Never at sci.lang.
>
>I was asking Da, because he has posted 853 (also sprach Google) postings to
>alt.usage english, including postings addressed specifically to Daniel
>McGrath and poking fun at the issues which interest him.
How many of those are from before I learned about his disability? I
haven't subscribed to alt.usage.english for some time now. I don't think
I've posted to it directly (i.e. to a thread which wasn't being crosspost-
ed in sci.lang) in over two years, though I could be wrong.
>> > the tendency to focus upon specific linguistic phenomena such the use of
>> > sans or an expression like "you send me"?
>>
>> Only these.
>
>Well, not Da. He has, in the past, addressed postings to Daniel in a.u.e
>telling him how expasperating he is.
Well, there you have it folks: I'm demonstrably a heartless bastard.
Fine. In the future, I will gently redirect Dan's off-topic postings to
appropriate newsgroups, much as one would guide a blind man who was about
to step into traffic back to the straight and narrow. Other than that, I
will have nothing to do with him, continuing to kill all threads in which
his name appears, and will cease to comment on his behaviour in a public
forum. Any other discussion on the subject of my treatment of Mr McGrath
should henceforth be addressed to me personally per e-mail.
Peter T. Daniels
What you mean "again," kimosabe? That hasn't been anyone else's guess.
My next choice was going to be Much Ado, because I know I've seen that
several times; which one is AYLI? Is that Rosalind rhyming with wind,
and Forest of Arden?
Axel Harvey
> Coby (Jacob) Lubliner wrote:
> >
> > >Axel Harvey wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Paul Townsend wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The only time I've seen "sans" used in English is in Book 1 of Spenser's
> > >> > Faerie Queene, where the baddies are named Sans Foy, Sans Joy and Sans Loy.
> > >>
> > >> There is the famous Shaksperean "Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste,
> > >> sans everything", meaning the condition of old age. What is it...in
> > >> Hamlet, one of the folio versions? It's not in my Penguin Hamlet.
> > >
> > >It's the "Seven Ages of Man"; isn't it Mercutio in R&J?
> >
> > Here we go again. It's Jaques in AYLI.
>
> What you mean "again," kimosabe? That hasn't been anyone else's guess.
As You Like It, II vii.
Confirmed by my old Onions (C.T.Onions, that is, _A_Shakespeare_
_Glossary_, Oxford, 1953), which is not without "sans".
Paul Davidson
pants. He thought it was the coolest phrase since...sliced bread.
--
Paul Davidson
daniel gerard mcgrath <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b6f66f0...@news.ggn.net...
> What are your comments on "sans" (from the French, "without") as used
> in the English language? Using this word is a sort of peeve of mine.
> Either that, or I wish it were used more often.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> daniel g. mcgrath
> a subscriber to _word ways: the journal of recreational linguistics_
> http://www.wordways.com/
daniel gerard mcgrath
<a...@gallerysystems.com> wrote:
>"D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:Piic7.44
>
>> Mr McGrath doesn't like the word <sans>.
Oh yes I do. I *love* the word "sans". But I don't understand why it
is hardly ever used. My mother explained my problem last year on
a.u.e. See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39500bc1.3622100%40news.liii.com
--------------------------------------------------
daniel g. mcgrath
an avid subscriber to _word ways: the journal of recreational linguistics_
(<URL:http://www.wordways.com/>) and 'alt.usage.english' newsgroup
i have AUTISM -- for more information, please see
<URL:http://www.alt-usage-english.org/McGrath.html>.
Brian M. Scott
mcgrath) wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:04:42 -0700, "Avi Jacobson"
><a...@gallerysystems.com> wrote:
>>"D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>news:Piic7.44
>>> Mr McGrath doesn't like the word <sans>.
>Oh yes I do. I *love* the word "sans". But I don't understand why it
>is hardly ever used.
There are several reasons. First, many people don't know it. Even
those who do know it generally learned it long after they learned the
everyday word 'without'; making the replacement would require a
conscious effort. This can certainly be done, but in this case what
would be the point? Most of the time they'd just make themselves
harder to understand. In other words, the fact that it's rarely used
tends to keep it from being used. (Of course it's conceivable that
some popular public could start a fad for it, but that's completely
unpredictable.) Finally, don't forget that words can be associated
with particular styles and contexts. <Sans> is very strongly
associated with a literary context, and a rather old-fashioned one at
that; as a result, most people would feel rather pretentious if they
used it as an everyday word.
Brian M. Scott
John Woodgate
<dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote (in <3b783a06...@news.ggn.net>) about
'The English word "sans"', on Mon, 13 Aug 2001:
>Oh yes I do. I *love* the word "sans". But I don't understand why it
>is hardly ever used.
It's hardly ever used because we have the word 'without'. But there is
usually no way to explain why one word is more often used than another
one of the same meaning. It just happens, unless maybe one of the words
is difficult to spell or pronounce.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Eat mink and be dreary!
daniel gerard mcgrath
Scott) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 20:49:05 GMT, dmcg...@yahoo.com (daniel gerard
>mcgrath) wrote:
>
>>>"D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:Piic7.44
>
>>>> Mr McGrath doesn't like the word <sans>.
>
>>Oh yes I do. I *love* the word "sans". But I don't understand why it
>>is hardly ever used.
>
>There are several reasons. First, many people don't know it.
I wish it would be taught more often so that it would become more
widely known! I actually had in school once, a list of vocabulary
words from a story about the Supremes, and for homework I needed to
use each of them in a sentence. One of the words was "sans".
>Even
>those who do know it generally learned it long after they learned the
>everyday word 'without'; making the replacement would require a
>conscious effort. This can certainly be done, but in this case what
>would be the point?
To teach the listener the word "sans"?
>Most of the time they'd just make themselves
>harder to understand.
Not if they immediately explain what "sans" means. Try doing a Google
(Web or Usenet) search for "sans +that means without", including the
quotes, and you'll see what I mean. (At first I had thought of doing
it this way as a complete waste of time, seeing no reason not to just
say "without" in the first place, but now I see a good reason for
doing so.)
>In other words, the fact that it's rarely used
>tends to keep it from being used.
You're making no sense here. You're saying that it's rarely used
because many people don't know it, and many people don't know it
because it's not used enough for people to be familiar with the word.
So which came first?
>(Of course it's conceivable that
>some popular public could start a fad for it, but that's completely
>unpredictable.)
Use it in a song or something!
>Finally, don't forget that words can be associated
>with particular styles and contexts. <Sans> is very strongly
>associated with a literary context, and a rather old-fashioned one at
>that; as a result, most people would feel rather pretentious if they
>used it as an everyday word.
>
So how did it *come* to be associated with a literary context?
Brian M. Scott
mcgrath) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:46:57 GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>Scott) wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 20:49:05 GMT, dmcg...@yahoo.com (daniel gerard
>>mcgrath) wrote:
[...]
>>>Oh yes I do. I *love* the word "sans". But I don't understand why it
>>>is hardly ever used.
>>There are several reasons. First, many people don't know it.
>I wish it would be taught more often so that it would become more
>widely known! I actually had in school once, a list of vocabulary
>words from a story about the Supremes, and for homework I needed to
>use each of them in a sentence. One of the words was "sans".
As in 'the Supremes sans Diana Ross', by any chance?
>>Even
>>those who do know it generally learned it long after they learned the
>>everyday word 'without'; making the replacement would require a
>>conscious effort. This can certainly be done, but in this case what
>>would be the point?
>To teach the listener the word "sans"?
That would be a very low priority in most normal conversations, I
should think. I've a sneaking suspicion that showing off one's
vocabulary might be rank higher than teaching on most people's
priority scales, though one hopes that communication ranks above both.
Besides, many people find that sort of teaching insulting unless it's
done by someone who in their opinion has a right to instruct them
(e.g., a teacher).
>>Most of the time they'd just make themselves
>>harder to understand.
>Not if they immediately explain what "sans" means. Try doing a Google
>(Web or Usenet) search for "sans +that means without", including the
>quotes, and you'll see what I mean.
Oh, you can phrase it that way, but I'd be a bit careful about doing
so. If you look closely at those three hits, you'll see that two of
the writers were intentionally implying that their readers were
stupid.
> (At first I had thought of doing
>it this way as a complete waste of time, seeing no reason not to just
>say "without" in the first place, but now I see a good reason for
>doing so.)
>>In other words, the fact that it's rarely used
>>tends to keep it from being used.
>You're making no sense here. You're saying that it's rarely used
>because many people don't know it, and many people don't know it
>because it's not used enough for people to be familiar with the word.
>So which came first?
I don't think that it matters much: by now they reinforce each other,
and there may be no way to tell for sure what started the cycle.
>>(Of course it's conceivable that
>>some popular public could start a fad for it, but that's completely
>>unpredictable.)
>Use it in a song or something!
>>Finally, don't forget that words can be associated
>>with particular styles and contexts. <Sans> is very strongly
>>associated with a literary context, and a rather old-fashioned one at
>>that; as a result, most people would feel rather pretentious if they
>>used it as an everyday word.
>So how did it *come* to be associated with a literary context?
According to the OED it was originally used mostly in whole phrases
borrowed from the French (e.g., <sans delay>, <sans doubt>) or with
native nouns substituted for a French noun in such a phrase (e.g.,
<sans biding>). This suggests that it was still felt to be somewhat
foreign. In Shakespeare's time the range of usage expanded, but by
then it must have been too late, since the word seems to have remained
somewhat marginal. Today many people encounter it memorably in a
literary setting: Keats's 'La Belle Dame Sans Merci', for instance, or
these lines from 'As You Like It':
... Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> So how did it *come* to be associated with a literary context?
Because Shakespeare needed a one-syllable word for 'without' -- and used
it in what became one of his most familiar speeches?
daniel gerard mcgrath
Scott) wrote:
Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some
people say that no two words ever mean _exactly_ the same thing and
that all apparently synonymous pairs have some subtle difference
between them.
Aaron Davies
[mega-snip]
> Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some people
> say that no two words ever mean _exactly_ the same thing and that all
> apparently synonymous pairs have some subtle difference between them.
Of course not. The difference is that "sans' is used when one wants to
sound pretentious, and "without" otherwise.
--
__ __
/ ) / )
/--/ __. __ ______ / / __. , __o _ _
/ (_(_/|_/ (_(_) / <_ /__/_(_/|_\/ <__</_/_)_
Brian M. Scott
(Aaron Davies) wrote:
>daniel gerard mcgrath <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[mega-snip]
>> Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some people
>> say that no two words ever mean _exactly_ the same thing and that all
>> apparently synonymous pairs have some subtle difference between them.
>Of course not. The difference is that "sans' is used when one wants to
>sound pretentious, and "without" otherwise.
Not necessarily. It occurs in a few set expressions (e.g., 'sans
serif'). One might use it for the sake of a Shakespearian allusion
without any intention or desire to sound pretentious. One might also
use it for mildly humorous effect. It's even possible that on some
occasion it might just pop out, if one is sufficiently familiar with
it.
Brian
Hoovph
>daniel gerard mcgrath <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[mega-snip]
>
>> Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some people
>> say that no two words ever mean _exactly_ the same thing and that all
>> apparently synonymous pairs have some subtle difference between them.
>
>Of course not. The difference is that "sans' is used when one wants to
>sound pretentious, and "without" otherwise.
>
Or maybe when someone doesn't want to type so many letters,
and knows the reader understands the word.
I suppose you feel the same way about "rather"? Or is your pet
peeve just with *certain* uppity sounding words?
Hoovph
John Woodgate
<dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote (in <3b8aef96...@news.ggn.net>) about
'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
>Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some
>people say that no two words ever mean _exactly_ the same thing and
>that all apparently synonymous pairs have some subtle difference
>between them.
Yes, they are absolute synonyms. It is not true that ALL apparently
synonymous pairs have some subtle difference, but many do. English has
more synonyms than many other languages; it has words derived from
Latin, Greek and Germanic roots with the same, or nearly the same
meaning. A good thesaurus or a dictionary of synonyms would provide
examples.
John Fisher
> aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com (Aaron Davies) writes:
> >Of course not. The difference is that "sans' is used when one wants to
> >sound pretentious, and "without" otherwise.
>
> Or maybe when someone doesn't want to type so many letters,
> and knows the reader understands the word.
>
> I suppose you feel the same way about "rather"? Or is your pet
> peeve just with *certain* uppity sounding words?
What is pretentious about 'rather'? What is it the pretentious
equivalent of?
--
John Fisher jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Hoovph (hoo...@cs.comremove) wrote:
> > aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com (Aaron Davies) writes:
>
> > >Of course not. The difference is that "sans' is used when one wants to
> > >sound pretentious, and "without" otherwise.
> >
> > Or maybe when someone doesn't want to type so many letters,
> > and knows the reader understands the word.
> >
> > I suppose you feel the same way about "rather"? Or is your pet
> > peeve just with *certain* uppity sounding words?
>
> What is pretentious about 'rather'? What is it the pretentious
> equivalent of?
Possibly "somewhat," as opposed to "instead"?
Armond Perretta
"daniel gerard mcgrath" <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some
They're not. Who ever heard of the "Without of Iwo Jima"?
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://members.tripod.com/kerrydeare
Brian M. Scott
<j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I read in sci.lang.translation that daniel gerard mcgrath
><dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote (in <3b8aef96...@news.ggn.net>) about
>'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
>>Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some
>>people say that no two words ever mean _exactly_ the same thing and
>>that all apparently synonymous pairs have some subtle difference
>>between them.
>Yes, they are absolute synonyms.
Only if you ignore matters of style and register. Aaron Davies
grossly overstated the point, but it's certainly true that in some
contexts one or the other would sound very odd.
[...]
Brian
Hoovph
writes:
>Hoovph (hoo...@cs.comremove) wrote:
>> aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com (Aaron Davies) writes:
>
>> >Of course not. The difference is that "sans' is used when one wants to
>> >sound pretentious, and "without" otherwise.
>>
>> Or maybe when someone doesn't want to type so many letters,
>> and knows the reader understands the word.
>>
>> I suppose you feel the same way about "rather"? Or is your pet
>> peeve just with *certain* uppity sounding words?
>
>What is pretentious about 'rather'? What is it the pretentious
>equivalent of?
>
Nothing pretentious about it to me; nothing pretentious about *sans*
either. There is a perception in the U.S., at least among some
people, that it is 'British sounding'; therefore is avoided.
An equivalent?... IMO most US speakers would use the second:
I'd rather not go. = I'd prefer not to go -- or -- I don't want to go.
Rather than stay, she went with us. = Instead of staying...
It's rather warm. = It's very warm
Hoovph
John Fisher
So to say "This house is rather big," has a pretentious or
uppity sound that "This house is somewhat big" does not?
If so, that's really odd to me. 'Rather' to me is a colloquial
register word (in this sense) which I wouldn't use in formal
writing. 'Somewhat' on the other hand I'd never use in
speech.
So how would you say, "He's rather an idiot"? "He's
somewhat of an idiot?"
daniel gerard mcgrath
You mean there are actually contexts in which "without" would sound
odd?
Brian M. Scott
>Peter T. Daniels (gram...@att.net) wrote:
>> John Fisher wrote:
>> > Hoovph (hoo...@cs.comremove) wrote:
>> > > I suppose you feel the same way about "rather"? Or is your pet
>> > > peeve just with *certain* uppity sounding words?
>> > What is pretentious about 'rather'? What is it the pretentious
>> > equivalent of?
>> Possibly "somewhat," as opposed to "instead"?
>So to say "This house is rather big," has a pretentious or
>uppity sound that "This house is somewhat big" does not?
The latter sounds rather incongruous; 'somewhat large' would be
better.
>If so, that's really odd to me. 'Rather' to me is a colloquial
>register word (in this sense) which I wouldn't use in formal
>writing. 'Somewhat' on the other hand I'd never use in
>speech.
I use both in both registers.
>So how would you say, "He's rather an idiot"? "He's
>somewhat of an idiot?"
I'd be perfectly happy with 'He's rather an idiot' and very unlikely
to say 'He's somewhat of an idiot', though 'He's something of an
idiot' is possible.. In casual speech I'd be likely to say 'He's a
bit of an idiot'. (I'm sticking to expressions that have roughly the
same basic form.)
Brian
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>On 28 Aug 2001 14:45:28 GMT, jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk (John Fisher) wrote:
>
>>Peter T. Daniels (gram...@att.net) wrote:
>>> John Fisher wrote:
[...]
>>So to say "This house is rather big," has a pretentious or
>>uppity sound that "This house is somewhat big" does not?
>
>The latter sounds rather incongruous; 'somewhat large' would be
>better.
>
>>If so, that's really odd to me. 'Rather' to me is a colloquial
>>register word (in this sense) which I wouldn't use in formal
>>writing. 'Somewhat' on the other hand I'd never use in
>>speech.
>
>I use both in both registers.
>
>>So how would you say, "He's rather an idiot"? "He's
>>somewhat of an idiot?"
>
>I'd be perfectly happy with 'He's rather an idiot'
For me, it's marked as British and British usage from a non-Britisher can
sound pretentious.
>and very unlikely
>to say 'He's somewhat of an idiot', though 'He's something of an
>idiot' is possible.. In casual speech I'd be likely to say 'He's a
>bit of an idiot'. (I'm sticking to expressions that have roughly the
>same basic form.)
Never "He's sort/kind of an idiot"? Boy, Brian, you do talk a bit funny,
doncha?
Brian M. Scott
mcgrath) wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:37:15 GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>Scott) wrote:
>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 06:35:07 +0100, John Woodgate
>><j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I read in sci.lang.translation that daniel gerard mcgrath
>>><dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote (in <3b8aef96...@news.ggn.net>) about
>>>'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
>>>>Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some
>>>>people say that no two words ever mean _exactly_ the same thing and
>>>>that all apparently synonymous pairs have some subtle difference
>>>>between them.
>>>Yes, they are absolute synonyms.
>>Only if you ignore matters of style and register. Aaron Davies
>>grossly overstated the point, but it's certainly true that in some
>>contexts one or the other would sound very odd.
>You mean there are actually contexts in which "without" would sound
>odd?
A few, mostly set expressions; the one that comes to mind is 'sans
serif' with reference to a type face. But I agree that 'sans' is much
likelier to sound out of place. (Interestingly enough, I recently
noticed an instance of 'sans' in a bit of military science fiction. I
don't remember the details, but there was no indication that the
author intended any particular effect.)
Brian
Phil Dragoman
Brian M. Scott wrote in message
>likelier to sound out of place. (Interestingly enough, I recently
>noticed an instance of 'sans' in a bit of military science fiction. I
>don't remember the details, but there was no indication that the
>author intended any particular effect.)
>
There is actually a third preposition with the same meaning
in the vernacular -- /hOlD@/. Hope I have that IPA thing correct.
In a previous life I was required to use it in a professional context
when my fastidious devotion to impeccable phraseology would have
preferred, "Hey, Moose, one BLT on rye sans mayo".
Regards,
Phil
Mark Brader
>>> ... it's certainly true that in some contexts one
>>> or the other ["sans" or "without"] would sound very odd.
>> You mean there are actually contexts in which "without" would sound
>> odd?
> A few, mostly set expressions; the one that comes to mind is 'sans
> serif' with reference to a type face.
A phrase which is also contracted to the single word "sans", which
then serves as a noun that "without" cannot replace. "He said he
wanted the whole book typeset in sans, but I talked him out of it."
--
Mark Brader "The design of the lowercase e in text faces
Toronto produces strong feelings (or should do so)."
m...@vex.net -- Walter Tracy
Axel Harvey
> >> You mean there are actually contexts in which "without" would sound
> >> odd?
Yes, especially "Dr Withoutbury was an expert in Withoutkrit."
> A phrase which is also contracted to the single word "sans", which
> then serves as a noun that "without" cannot replace. "He said he
> wanted the whole book typeset in sans, but I talked him out of it."
> --
> Mark Brader "The design of the lowercase e in text faces
> Toronto produces strong feelings (or should do so)."
> m...@vex.net -- Walter Tracy
Aye.
There are a thousand mannerisms in typography that are as impudent and
arbitrary as putting port in tumblers of red or green glass!
-- Beatrice Warde, "Printing should be invisible".
John Woodgate
<sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote (in <3b8b9009....@enews.newsguy.com
>) about 'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 06:35:07 +0100, John Woodgate
><j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I read in sci.lang.translation that daniel gerard mcgrath
>><dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote (in <3b8aef96...@news.ggn.net>) about
>>'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
>
>>>Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some
>>>people say that no two words ever mean _exactly_ the same thing and
>>>that all apparently synonymous pairs have some subtle difference
>>>between them.
>
>>Yes, they are absolute synonyms.
>
>Only if you ignore matters of style and register. Aaron Davies
>grossly overstated the point, but it's certainly true that in some
>contexts one or the other would sound very odd.
>
*meaning*. Other considerations exist but are not relevant to
synonymity.
John Woodgate
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10108...@localhost.localdomain>) about
'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
I used to have that situation with early versions of Acrobat Reader.
White text on a white background!
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
John Woodgate <j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I read in sci.lang.translation that Brian M. Scott
><sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote (in <3b8b9009....@enews.newsguy.com
>>) about 'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 06:35:07 +0100, John Woodgate
>><j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I read in sci.lang.translation that daniel gerard mcgrath
>>><dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote (in <3b8aef96...@news.ggn.net>) about
>>>'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
>>
>>>>Another thing: are "sans" and "without" absolute synonyms? Some
>>>>people say that no two words ever mean _exactly_ the same thing and
>>>>that all apparently synonymous pairs have some subtle difference
>>>>between them.
>>
>>>Yes, they are absolute synonyms.
>>
>>Only if you ignore matters of style and register. Aaron Davies
>>grossly overstated the point, but it's certainly true that in some
>>contexts one or the other would sound very odd.
>>
>The question of whether two words are synonyms refers exclusively to
>*meaning*. Other considerations exist but are not relevant to
>synonymity.
Sez who? Not the OED!
Peter T. Daniels
I think I'd guess that that Anglicism means "He's something of an
idiot."
Maybe hoovie-boy was thinking of Thurston Howell the III's
expostulation, "Ra-ther, Lovie!!"?
And then we recall that, a decade earlier, he had been James Dean's dad
in *Rebel without a Cause* ... just about the only principal member of
that cast to live a normal lifetime.
Brian M. Scott
<j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>The question of whether two words are synonyms refers exclusively to
>*meaning*. Other considerations exist but are not relevant to
>synonymity.
They can be synonyms without even being identical in meaning. The
question, however, was whether <sans> and <without> were 'absolute
synonyms' with no 'subtle difference between them'; the answer is
'no'.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
>[...]
Those are usable, but they feel just a tad weaker than the others.
Brian
Aaron Davies
> I read in sci.lang.translation that Axel Harvey <a...@cam.org> wrote (in
> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10108...@localhost.localdomain>) about
> 'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
> >"Printing should be invisible".
>
> I used to have that situation with early versions of Acrobat Reader.
> White text on a white background!
NS4.x/Unix has the unfortunate habit of, by default, printing webpages
with text in the specfied color but without the specified backgroud
color. This means that on black-and-white printers, |<3\/\/|_ pages with
black backgrounds and green or white text come out white-on-white.
Tony Cooper
Fr. (4 letters)
Can anyone help me out? I just can't figure it out.
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Rex F. May
John Fisher wrote:
>
> So to say "This house is rather big," has a pretentious or
> uppity sound that "This house is somewhat big" does not?
>
> If so, that's really odd to me. 'Rather' to me is a colloquial
> register word (in this sense) which I wouldn't use in formal
> writing. 'Somewhat' on the other hand I'd never use in
> speech.
>
> So how would you say, "He's rather an idiot"? "He's
> somewhat of an idiot?"
In my dialect (Southern Indiana) all of these sound pretentious in
speech, and wd probably come out 'pretty big' and 'pretty much
of an idiot.'
--
Rex F. May
To order my book, click on:
http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm
See my cartoons daily at:
http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp
Hoovph
>John Fisher wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels (gram...@att.net) wrote:
>> > John Fisher wrote:
>> > > Hoovph (hoo...@cs.comremove) wrote:
>>
>> > > > I suppose you feel the same way about "rather"? Or is your pet
>> > > > peeve just with *certain* uppity sounding words?
>> > >
>> > > What is pretentious about 'rather'? What is it the pretentious
>> > > equivalent of?
>> >
>> > Possibly "somewhat," as opposed to "instead"?
>>
>> So to say "This house is rather big," has a pretentious or
>> uppity sound that "This house is somewhat big" does not?
>>
>> If so, that's really odd to me. 'Rather' to me is a colloquial
>> register word (in this sense) which I wouldn't use in formal
>> writing. 'Somewhat' on the other hand I'd never use in
>> speech.
>>
>> So how would you say, "He's rather an idiot"? "He's
>> somewhat of an idiot?"
>
>I think I'd guess that that Anglicism means "He's something of an
>idiot."
>
>Maybe hoovie-boy was thinking of Thurston Howell the III's
>expostulation, "Ra-ther, Lovie!!"?
>
No, Dannie boy, it came from a friend of mine in the late 70's
who, when hearing anyone use that word would repeat it in an
affected way while raising his eyebrows and composing a
haughty look. He finally went-off on a tirade about it being the
most useless word in the English language. I never had any-
thing against it.
By the bye, your "the" is redundant.
Hoovph
Alan Crozier
news:9mh9ia$fr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> 45 across in today's Tribune Media Services crossword is: Without:
> Fr. (4 letters)
>
> Can anyone help me out? I just can't figure it out.
AVEC would fit...
Alan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan Crozier
Skatteberga 1392
247 92 Södra Sandby
Sweden
TO REPLY BY E-MAIL: change Crazier to Crozier
Peter T. Daniels
Since you still haven't identified which of the half-dozen or so uses of
"rather" you're talking about, we can henceforth ignore you as fully
uncooperative.
The "the" was to indicate [+affectation]. A little too close for
comfort?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> 45 across in today's Tribune Media Services crossword is: Without:
> Fr. (4 letters)
>
> Can anyone help me out? I just can't figure it out.
Mistake for "OHNE"
John Woodgate
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote (in <9mh9ia$fr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.n
et>) about 'The English word "sans"', on Tue, 28 Aug 2001:
>45 across in today's Tribune Media Services crossword is: Without:
>Fr. (4 letters)
>
>Can anyone help me out? I just can't figure it out.
Ohne?
Brian M. Scott
<alan.c...@telia.com> wrote:
>"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:9mh9ia$fr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> 45 across in today's Tribune Media Services crossword is: Without:
>> Fr. (4 letters)
>> Can anyone help me out? I just can't figure it out.
>AVEC would fit...
So, appropriately, would CAVE.
Brian
Dylan Sung
Rex F. May wrote in message <3B8C4A6A...@peakpeak.com>...
:
:
:John Fisher wrote:
:
:>
:> So to say "This house is rather big," has a pretentious or
:> uppity sound that "This house is somewhat big" does not?
:>
:> If so, that's really odd to me. 'Rather' to me is a colloquial
:> register word (in this sense) which I wouldn't use in formal
:> writing. 'Somewhat' on the other hand I'd never use in
:> speech.
:>
:> So how would you say, "He's rather an idiot"? "He's
:> somewhat of an idiot?"
:
:In my dialect (Southern Indiana) all of these sound pretentious in
:speech, and wd probably come out 'pretty big' and 'pretty much
:of an idiot.'
The latter seems somewhat contrived, I'd say 'he's pretty much an idiot',
sans 'of' :)
Dyl.
Rex F. May
Dylan Sung wrote:
Both sound natural to me. Of course, in parts of my area, things can be
'behind of' other things.
Mike Wright
>
> Dylan Sung wrote:
>
> > Rex F. May wrote in message <3B8C4A6A...@peakpeak.com>...
> > :
> > :
> > :John Fisher wrote:
> > :
> > :>
> > :> So to say "This house is rather big," has a pretentious or
> > :> uppity sound that "This house is somewhat big" does not?
> > :>
> > :> If so, that's really odd to me. 'Rather' to me is a colloquial
> > :> register word (in this sense) which I wouldn't use in formal
> > :> writing. 'Somewhat' on the other hand I'd never use in
> > :> speech.
> > :>
> > :> So how would you say, "He's rather an idiot"? "He's
> > :> somewhat of an idiot?"
> > :
> > :In my dialect (Southern Indiana) all of these sound pretentious in
> > :speech, and wd probably come out 'pretty big' and 'pretty much
> > :of an idiot.'
> >
> > The latter seems somewhat contrived, I'd say 'he's pretty much an idiot',
> > sans 'of' :)
>
> Both sound natural to me. Of course, in parts of my area, things can be
> 'behind of' other things.
Hmph. An' I alus thunk they talked English in Indiana.
Mike Wright
http://www.CoastalFog.net
_____________________________________________________
"China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese."
-- Charles de Gaulle
Truly Donovan
aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com (Aaron Davies) wrote:
>The difference is that "sans' is used when one wants to
>sound pretentious, and "without" otherwise.
Why are some members of this group so eager to assume
pretentiousness on the part of others based simply on their
use of a word? "Sans" is a part of my idiolect and while I
might choose whom I say it to, it is not for the sake of
pretension that I choose to use it.
--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com
Franke
Truly Donovan wrote:
For once we agree. I remember several years ago
being jeered at by some posters in another group.
The substance of their jeer was that I posted only
to "show off" how large my vocabulary was. I don't
believe that the words I use in Usenet posts are
obscure or difficult to understand, only that these
posters had miniscule vocabularies and felt
threatened.
When I lived in Japan, I used to write letters on
paper and mail them. My return address was
written in Japanese on the envelope. At least
one person I corresponded with thought I
was being pretentious because I used Japanese
instead of roman letters to write my return
address.
Ron Hardin
``In Seattle our young explorer got a job as a reporter on the Times,
the kind of newspaper that did not you allow you to use the verb ``to
mangle.'' Accurately reporting, one day, the anguished cry of
a poor husband who had found the body of his wife in the
municipal morgue, White wrote ``My God, it's her!'' and
when the city editor changed this to ``My God, it is she!'' our
wanderer moveed sadly on to where they had a better understanding
of people and a proper feeling for the finer usages of the English
tongue.''
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Hoovph
writes:
>> >Maybe hoovie-boy was thinking of Thurston Howell the III's
>> >expostulation, "Ra-ther, Lovie!!"?
>> >
>>
>> No, Dannie boy, it came from a friend of mine in the late 70's
>> who, when hearing anyone use that word would repeat it in an
>> affected way while raising his eyebrows and composing a
>> haughty look. He finally went-off on a tirade about it being the
>> most useless word in the English language. I never had any-
>> thing against it.
>>
>> By the bye, your "the" is redundant.
>
>Since you still haven't identified which of the half-dozen or so uses of
>"rather" you're talking about, we can henceforth ignore you as fully
>uncooperative.
What are you talking about? Did you misunderstand something
again? Slow down... count to five: "one-thousand ONE..."
>
>The "the" was to indicate [+affectation]. A little too close for
>comfort?
>
I don't know. With every line you baffle me more.
Hoovph
Axel Harvey
> Truly Donovan wrote:
>
> > Why are some members of this group so eager to assume
> > pretentiousness on the part of others based simply on their
> > use of a word? [ ... ]
>
> For once we agree. I remember several years ago
> being jeered at by some posters in another group.
> The substance of their jeer was that I posted only
> to "show off" how large my vocabulary was. [ ... ]
Absolutely agree with both of you!!!
I was going to add an example or two from my own life but then I
thought, pshaw! why air my adolescent peer group problems?
Axel Harvey
> James Thurber writing on E. B. White -
>
> ``In Seattle our young explorer got a job as a reporter on the Times,
> the kind of newspaper that did not you allow you to use the verb ``to
> mangle.'' Accurately reporting, one day, the anguished cry of a poor
> husband who had found the body of his wife in the municipal morgue,
> White wrote ``My God, it's her!'' and when the city editor changed
> this to ``My God, it is she!'' our wanderer moveed sadly on to where
> they had a better understanding of people and a proper feeling for
> the finer usages of the English tongue.''
The now deservedly defunct Ottawa Journal used to edit want ads: all
second-hand items described as "cheap" were changed to "reasonable".
Rex F. May
Mike Wright wrote:\
>
> Hmph. An' I alus thunk they talked English in Indiana.
Sometimes they purt' near do.
Tony Cooper
> Why are some members of this group so eager to assume
> pretentiousness on the part of others based simply on their
> use of a word? "Sans" is a part of my idiolect and while I
> might choose whom I say it to, it is not for the sake of
> pretension that I choose to use it.
In future, don't let them know you use the word.
Hoovph
writes:
>Mike Wright wrote:\
>
>>
>> Hmph. An' I alus thunk they talked English in Indiana.
>
>Sometimes they purt' near do.
>
Brings back memories of my dad. He said "prit-near", and
hailed from Michigan. I've never heard anyone else use it though.
Hoovph
Mike Wright
I think I've heard "purt near" and "prit near", or something similar
since I was a child, and I've never even been to Yankeeland.
--
Franke
Axel Harvey wrote:
Why not? If the problems are funny or otherwise interesting,
I'm sure there are a few who would enjoy reading about
them.
Franke
Tony Cooper wrote:
> Truly Donovan wrote:
>
> > Why are some members of this group so eager to assume
> > pretentiousness on the part of others based simply on their
> > use of a word? "Sans" is a part of my idiolect and while I
> > might choose whom I say it to, it is not for the sake of
> > pretension that I choose to use it.
>
> In future, don't let them know you use the word.
It's too late now, of course, but then there is the
use of "whom" here. What do you make of this,
Tony?
Mike Lyle
Mike Lyle
Cookbook* (Rightpond Brownies are miniature Girl Scouts) it's by Verily
Anderson. Just thought you'd like to know there's a Latinate version out there.
Mike.
Dylan Sung
Mike Wright wrote in message <3B8DC848...@CoastalFog.net>...
:Hoovph wrote:
:>
:> In article <3B8DA599...@peakpeak.com>, "Rex F. May"
<rm...@peakpeak.com>
:> writes:
:>
:> >Mike Wright wrote:\
:> >
:> >>
:> >> Hmph. An' I alus thunk they talked English in Indiana.
:> >
:> >Sometimes they purt' near do.
:> >
:>
:> Brings back memories of my dad. He said "prit-near", and
:> hailed from Michigan. I've never heard anyone else use it though.
:
:I think I've heard "purt near" and "prit near", or something similar
:since I was a child, and I've never even been to Yankeeland.
I'm reminded of Samuel E. Martin's Essential Japanese (MEJ), which says:
=================================================================
MEJ> 1.5 VOWELS. There is a striking difference between the
MEJ> way a Japanese pronounces his vowels and the way an
MEJ> American pronounces his. Japanese vowels seem to stand
MEJ> still...
=================================================================
It goes on to give a table
=================================================================
MEJ> FRONT CENTRAL BACK
MEJ> HIGH be, bit, bid 'jist', 'pirty'1 woo, put, wood
MEJ> MID set, said cut, mud show, boy2
MEJ> LOW bat, bad father, cot, nod caught, gnawed3, boy2
MEJ> 1. As in 'jist fine' and 'pirty good'. Many American speakers
MEJ> from Southern states use this high central vowel instead of
MEJ> the high back vowel, especially after 'y'.
MEJ> 2. For some speakers, the vowel of 'boy' begins mid, for others
MEJ> low.
MEJ> 3. Some speakers do not distinguish 'caught' from 'cot', gnawed'
MEJ> from 'nod'. For such speakers, this space (low back) may be
MEJ> blank.
=================================================================
It didn't come across as being that helpful for someone in England.
Dyl.
John Woodgate
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10108...@localhost.localdomain>) about
'pretentiousness [was Re: The English word "sans"]', on Thu, 30 Aug
2001:
>The now deservedly defunct Ottawa Journal used to edit want ads: all
>second-hand items described as "cheap" were changed to "reasonable".
'Fierce guard-dog for sale: going reasonable.'(;-)
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Rex F. May" wrote:
> > Both sound natural to me. Of course, in parts of my area, things can be
> > 'behind of' other things.
>
> Hmph. An' I alus thunk they talked English in Indiana.
It's "logical," though, given that normal people say "in front of" and
"ahead of."
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <3B8CE4...@att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net>
> writes:
>
> >> >Maybe hoovie-boy was thinking of Thurston Howell the III's
> >> >expostulation, "Ra-ther, Lovie!!"?
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, Dannie boy, it came from a friend of mine in the late 70's
> >> who, when hearing anyone use that word would repeat it in an
> >> affected way while raising his eyebrows and composing a
> >> haughty look. He finally went-off on a tirade about it being the
> >> most useless word in the English language. I never had any-
> >> thing against it.
> >>
> >> By the bye, your "the" is redundant.
> >
> >Since you still haven't identified which of the half-dozen or so uses of
> >"rather" you're talking about, we can henceforth ignore you as fully
> >uncooperative.
>
> What are you talking about? Did you misunderstand something
> again? Slow down... count to five: "one-thousand ONE..."
You made the claim that "rather" is pretentious. "Rather" has about four
quite different usages, to some of which there is no near equivalent.
Which of the different usages of "rather" is or are pretentious?
> >The "the" was to indicate [+affectation]. A little too close for
> >comfort?
> >
>
> I don't know. With every line you baffle me more.
Aaron Davies
Wouldn't they be miniature Girl *Guides* in Rightpondia?
--
__ __
/ ) / )
/--/ __. __ ______ / / __. , __o _ _
/ (_(_/|_/ (_(_) / <_ /__/_(_/|_\/ <__</_/_)_
Mike Lyle
<1eyxzsq.11cu430150b8trN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com>, Aaron Davies wrote:
>
>Mike Lyle <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>[...](Rightpond Brownies are miniature Girl Scouts) [..]
>
>Wouldn't they be miniature Girl *Guides* in Rightpondia?
>--
Mike.
Aaron Davies
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:46:10 -0400, in
> <1eyxzsq.11cu430150b8trN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com>, Aaron Davies wrote:
> >
> >Mike Lyle <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> >[...](Rightpond Brownies are miniature Girl Scouts) [..]
> >
> >Wouldn't they be miniature Girl *Guides* in Rightpondia?
>
> Yes: I was essaying an in the event unnecessary translation for the natives.
Thanks, but as I pointed out to Fontana yesterday, I think we know all
the basic pondian equivalencies.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Mike Wright wrote:\
>> Hmph. An' I alus thunk they talked English in Indiana.
>Sometimes they purt' near do.
When they're not warshing and wrenching the clothes.
Brian
John Woodgate
central.com> wrote (in <1eyy57b.1ubim8l127vbcwN%aa...@avalon.pascal-
central.com>) about 'pretentiousness (Verily, verily)', on Thu, 30 Aug
2001:
>Thanks, but as I pointed out to Fontana yesterday, I think we know all
>the basic pondian equivalencies.
The expressions Rightpondia and Leftpondia are rare indeed in British
English.
Joe Manfre
> I read in sci.lang.translation that Aaron Davies <aa...@avalon.pascal-
> central.com> wrote (in <1eyy57b.1ubim8l127vbcwN%aa...@avalon.pascal-
> central.com>) about 'pretentiousness (Verily, verily)', on Thu, 30 Aug
> 2001:
>>Thanks, but as I pointed out to Fontana yesterday, I think we know
>>all the basic pondian equivalencies.
>
> The expressions Rightpondia and Leftpondia are rare indeed in
> British English.
Nonsense. The vast majority of the British people I encounter each
day know and use those terms.
JM
--
Joe Manfre, Hyattsville, Maryland.
"An ouect im motion's fibration makes knoetic energy biger."
-- tj Frazir
Skitt
"Franke" <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
news:3B8DDB6C...@seed.net.tw...
Is the use of "whom" pretentious? To me it indicates only that the
person using it is not particularly young and also paid attention in
school.
--
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).
Axel Harvey
> "Franke" <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
> > [ ... ] then there is the
> > use of "whom" here. What do you make of this,
> > Tony?
>
> Is the use of "whom" pretentious? To me it indicates only that the
> person using it is not particularly young and also paid attention in
> school.
It also indicates that the person using it (1) is fond of variety, or
at least of variation, (2) has enough wiring in the speech centres of
his or her brain to realize there is a connection between "hiM" and
"whoM", and/or (3) somehow, somewhere, has heard of Hemingway or Donne.
Franke
Skitt wrote:
> "Franke" <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
> news:3B8DDB6C...@seed.net.tw...
> >
> >
> > Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> > > Truly Donovan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why are some members of this group so eager to assume
> > > > pretentiousness on the part of others based simply on their
> > > > use of a word? "Sans" is a part of my idiolect and while I
> > > > might choose whom I say it to, it is not for the sake of
> > > > pretension that I choose to use it.
> > >
> > > In future, don't let them know you use the word.
> >
> > It's too late now, of course, but then there is the
> > use of "whom" here. What do you make of this,
> > Tony?
>
> Is the use of "whom" pretentious? To me it indicates only that the
> person using it is not particularly young and also paid attention in
> school.
Paid attention to the who/whom distinction but not to the
question of where the object of the preposition belongs.
I would change this "might choose whom I say it to," to
"might choose to whom I say it," or "might choose who I
say it to,".
Skitt
I disagree. The location of the "to" has no effect on the pronoun.