Word Word

43 views
Skip to first unread message

Raymond S. Wise

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 2:59:43 AM6/4/02
to
While researching xrefer.com for the term "English English" I came across
the following, from *The Oxford Companion to the English Language,* by Tom
McArthur, (C) 1992:

http://www.xrefer.com/entry/444485


[quote]

Word Word

[1982: coined by the US writer Paul Dickson]. A non-technical,
tongue-in-cheek term for a word repeated in contrastive statements and
questions: 'Are you talking about an American Indian or an _Indian Indian_?'
'It happens in Irish English as well as _English English._' [Word]. T.McA.

[end quote]


--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Mark Wallace

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 4:35:24 AM6/4/02
to
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> While researching xrefer.com for the term "English English" I
> came across the following, from *The Oxford Companion to the
> English Language,* by Tom McArthur, (C) 1992:
>
> http://www.xrefer.com/entry/444485
>
>
> [quote]
>
> Word Word
>
> [1982: coined by the US writer Paul Dickson]. A non-technical,
> tongue-in-cheek term for a word repeated in contrastive
> statements and questions: 'Are you talking about an American
> Indian or an _Indian Indian_?' 'It happens in Irish English as
> well as _English English._' [Word]. T.McA.
>
> [end quote]

If we were discussing postings to the newsgroup, I suppose we would
be posting posting postings.

--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

jan_...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 4:44:34 AM6/4/02
to
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 01:59:43 -0500, "Raymond S. Wise"
<illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:


>
>Word Word
>
>[1982: coined by the US writer Paul Dickson]. A non-technical,
>tongue-in-cheek term for a word repeated in contrastive statements and
>questions: 'Are you talking about an American Indian or an _Indian Indian_?'
>'It happens in Irish English as well as _English English._' [Word]. T.McA.

It depends upon what is is.

Jan Sand

R H Draney

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 9:56:15 AM6/4/02
to
jan_...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:3cfc7dbf....@east.usenetserver.com:

Thanks...now I know what to call it when I take apart my watch to see
how the works works....r

B Briggs

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 10:21:45 AM6/4/02
to

"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
news:ufop96c...@corp.supernews.com...

> While researching xrefer.com for the term "English English" I came across
> the following, from *The Oxford Companion to the English Language,* by Tom
> McArthur, (C) 1992:
>
> http://www.xrefer.com/entry/444485
>
>
> [quote]
>
> Word Word
>
> [1982: coined by the US writer Paul Dickson]. A non-technical,
> tongue-in-cheek term for a word repeated in contrastive statements and
> questions: 'Are you talking about an American Indian or an _Indian
Indian_?'
> 'It happens in Irish English as well as _English English._' [Word]. T.McA.
>

final final. Meaning this really is the final drink I am ordering from the
bar, as apposed to the final drink I ordered last time.

Barbara


psi

unread,
Jun 5, 2002, 6:35:30 AM6/5/02
to

"R H Draney" <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns922346937...@207.217.77.23...
<snip>

> > It depends upon what is is.
>
> Thanks...now I know what to call it when I take apart my watch to see
> how the works works....r


Aren't these missing the point? I understood the original post meant that a
word word was a contrast - e.g. English English as against other varieties
of the language - rather than just the repetition of a word.

Maybe I misunderstood.

psi


Harvey V

unread,
Jun 5, 2002, 6:47:34 AM6/5/02
to

><snip>

I don't think you did. The original posted definition of "word word"
seemed to me to imply that it was differentiating between the
contrastive structure and simple repetition.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

R H Draney

unread,
Jun 5, 2002, 9:48:39 AM6/5/02
to
Harvey V <harve...@REMOVETHISntlworld.com> wrote in
news:Xns922477F4...@194.168.4.92:

I can't find it now (Google groups is being less than helpful this
morning), but I seem to recall one of the threads going on when I
first came to aue concerned the phrase "coffee coffee" that had
appeared in a subtitled film...*that* would be more to the original
point....

Anybody better at working the advanced search parameters that can turn
up the thread?...r

Ben Zimmer

unread,
Jun 5, 2002, 12:04:01 PM6/5/02
to

It was actually over in alt.folklore.urban:

----------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39EE78FE.5D09FF50%40addr.com
From: Tony Sweeney (swe...@addr.com)
Subject: Re: Many German words not real
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Date: 2000-10-18 21:30:04 PST

Charles Wm. Dimmick wrote:
>
>
> Reminds me of a movie I saw once supposedly set in
> World War II Italy. The dialogue was in German, but
> with English subtitles. My favorite line was when one
> person was offered coffee. He said "Kaffee Kaffee?",
> which the _unnecessary_ subtitle rendered as
> "real coffee?".

This isn't as silly as it sounds, Charles. The distinction is between
real and ersatz coffee. Ersatz (i.e. "replacement") coffee was
ubiquitous in wartime Germany, being offered the real thing would have
been quite a treat.
----------------

We might think of this phenomenon in terms of what linguists call
"markedness". Terms like "English" or "coffee" can have an "unmarked"
sense (all varieties of English, all varieties of coffee), or a more
restricted, "marked" sense (English as spoken in England, real as
opposed to ersatz coffee). Thus in the doubled form, the first word
"marks" or restricts the sense of the unmarked second word.

--Ben

R H Draney

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 1:22:58 AM6/6/02
to
Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in
news:3CFE3671...@midway.uchicago.edu:

> We might think of this phenomenon in terms of what linguists call
> "markedness". Terms like "English" or "coffee" can have an
> "unmarked" sense (all varieties of English, all varieties of
> coffee), or a more restricted, "marked" sense (English as spoken
> in England, real as opposed to ersatz coffee). Thus in the
> doubled form, the first word "marks" or restricts the sense of the
> unmarked second word.

That was the post...does the concept of "markedness" also apply to the
situation where the same word is used to mean both a whole thing and
some important part of that thing?...examples:

"day" - means both "a 24-hour period" and "the daylight part of a 24-
hour period"...if someone at work says "this program will require most
of a day to write", my first assumption is that it will take nearly
eight hours...if he says instead "this program will run for most of a
day", I read that as "nearly twenty-four hours"....

"classical" - this comes up a lot when we're listening to long-hair
music...someone will say "Ives (or Chopin, or Vivaldi) is my favorite
classical composer" and someone else will object that the composer
named belongs to some other era...but there's no unambiguous term for
the Beethoven-centered period that also excludes Bach and
Tchaikovsky....

I'm not asking for a solution here, but it'd be nice to have a name
for the phenomenon....r

psi

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 4:17:25 AM6/6/02
to
"R H Draney" <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9224E3AEA...@207.217.77.24...
<snip>

> "classical" - this comes up a lot when we're listening to long-hair
> music...someone will say "Ives (or Chopin, or Vivaldi) is my favorite
> classical composer" and someone else will object that the composer
> named belongs to some other era...but there's no unambiguous term for
> the Beethoven-centered period that also excludes Bach and
> Tchaikovsky....
<etc>

I'm being a bit picky here, but the Classical period was not
Beethoven-centred. Beethoven certainly began composing in the classical
period, but it was he who led the way into the Romantics. It was Haydn and
Mozart who should be regarded as the centre of Classicism.

psi


Donna Richoux

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 5:48:22 AM6/6/02
to

Funny you should mention it, I've been keeping notes that problem for
five years, since I began to see it as the root of many circular
arguments in Usenet. I myself call it the "Subset/Whole" problem, or the
"Subset/Class" problem, because it occurs when the same word is used to
represent the whole class as well as a subset of that class.

Examples where the term is used for a part of the group as well as the
whole group:

man (males vs. people)
America (USA vs. New World)
dishes (bowls vs. all crockery)
Europe (mainland vs. mainland+UK; also now EU vs entire)
cat (domestic vs. cat family)
English (of England proper or of all speakers)
Dutch (of Netherlands or Dutch+Flemish)
PC (as in personal computer -- IBM-compatible of all of size)
dog (males vs. all, cf. bitch)
Chinese (Mandarin vs. all main languages of China)
day (daylight hours vs. 24 hours)
Christian (fundamentalist Protestants only vs. all)
apes (hairy apes vs all primates)
concentration camp (death camps vs all relocation camps)
musician (players of instruments vs musical people)
actor (male actors vs all actors)
sausage (certain kinds vs. all kinds)
water (liquid vs. all states)
cake (layer cake vs. many cakelike things)

(Caution: this is *not* an invitation to reopen discussion on any
individual topic listed above. Don't make me regret this.)

This is similar to, but different than, the overlapping terminology that
turns up with "turtle, tortoise" and "fruit, vegetable." It also differs
from the robin/robin sort of confusion (English vs. American robin).

No, I've never heard anyone else name this or discuss this. I'd be
delighted to learn it was a category in Greek rhetoric or something.

As to whether it relates to "markedness" -- do people say, "I mean a
*cat* cat" when they mean to say "I mean a housecat, not the tigers and
things?" I'm not so sure that they do. But they might.

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

rzed

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 6:01:48 AM6/6/02
to

"psi" <p...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:adn5ql$47l$1...@helle.btinternet.com...


I believe RH's point was that there is no overarching term for music of a
type that might be performed by a symphony orchestra, for instance, but that
people often call it "classical" as though that were such a term. They may
be referring to symphonic or orchestral music, but those terms would leave
out much of Bach and Chopin. There's not a good term that covers Cole
Porter, Hank Williams, The Sex Pistols, and Wu-Tang Clan either, for that
matter. At one time the term "longhair music" could be applied to the
Bach/Ives type, but then the Beatles had to wreck that....

--
rzed
USAGE ends with AGE


Jerry Friedman

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 10:54:44 AM6/6/02
to
"B Briggs" <theb...@citlink.net> wrote in message news:<ufpj2ph...@corp.supernews.com>...

I like it, but it's not quite apposite, as the original post is
talking about the opposite: contrastive repetition, not repetition
repetition.

By the way, repetition repetition ("first first" for "very first",
"too too much" for "really too much") is common here in northern New
Mexico. Cf. Mexican Spanish "luego" (then) and "luego luego" (right
then, right away).

--
Jerry Friedman

R H Draney

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 11:01:18 AM6/6/02
to
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in
news:1fdcqwd.36ktvu1kw5ls0N%tr...@euronet.nl:

> Examples where the term is used for a part of the group as well as
> the whole group:
>
> man (males vs. people)
> America (USA vs. New World)
> dishes (bowls vs. all crockery)
> Europe (mainland vs. mainland+UK; also now EU vs entire)
> cat (domestic vs. cat family)
> English (of England proper or of all speakers)
> Dutch (of Netherlands or Dutch+Flemish)
> PC (as in personal computer -- IBM-compatible of all of size)
> dog (males vs. all, cf. bitch)
> Chinese (Mandarin vs. all main languages of China)
> day (daylight hours vs. 24 hours)
> Christian (fundamentalist Protestants only vs. all)
> apes (hairy apes vs all primates)
> concentration camp (death camps vs all relocation camps)
> musician (players of instruments vs musical people)
> actor (male actors vs all actors)
> sausage (certain kinds vs. all kinds)
> water (liquid vs. all states)
> cake (layer cake vs. many cakelike things)
>

> As to whether it relates to "markedness" -- do people say, "I mean
> a *cat* cat" when they mean to say "I mean a housecat, not the
> tigers and things?" I'm not so sure that they do. But they might.

It works with some of the items on your list (now augmented, I hope,
by "classical")...I've heard "English English" and "dishes dishes",
and can easily imagine "sausage sausage" and "classical classical"....

"Day day" for the period from sunup to sundown doesn't seem to
work, though....r

Ben Zimmer

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 12:18:10 PM6/6/02
to

Many of Donna's examples (e.g., man, dog, actor) are used when linguists
talk about markedness. Here's a useful text I found online (notes for a
class on lexical semantics):

-------------------
amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/LexSemantik1.pdf

An expression A is a HYPONYM (i.e. an "undername") of an expression B
iff everything that falls under B also falls under A. In this case, B is
called a HYPERONYM (i.e. an "overname"). Examples are 'dog' and
'mammal', 'apple' and 'fruit', 'refrigerator' and 'appliance', 'king'
and 'monarch', 'scarlet' and 'red', 'walk' and 'go'. [...]

It is a frequent situation that one expression can serve as its own
hyponym (so-called AUTOHYPONYMS). We often find this with names of
biological kinds, when gender is a factor. For example, 'dog' is a term
for dogs in general, but can also be used for male dogs and is then
contrasted with 'bitch'. The noun 'cow' is used for female cattle, but
also for cattle in general, whereas 'bull' is used for male cattle only.

In structuralist terms, 'dog' and 'cow' are UNMARKED, and 'bitch' and
'bull' are MARKED. The marked or unmarked status sometimes is reflected
in morphological complexity; cf. 'lion' as the unmarked expression and
'lioness' as the marked expression.

The autohyponym is often the expression that denotes the thing or
concept that is considered more typical or more frequent.
-------------------

'Day', on the other hand, is a different case, since we're not dealing
with "hyponymy" but rather what linguists call "meronymy" or "partonymy"
(a part-whole relation between two terms). A "meronym" is a word that
names a part of another word-- so on the analogy of "autohyponym" we
could call 'day' an "automeronym".

--Ben

Gary Williams

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 12:30:23 PM6/6/02
to
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in message news:<1fdcqwd.36ktvu1kw5ls0N%tr...@euronet.nl>...

> As to whether it relates to "markedness" -- do people say, "I mean a
> *cat* cat" when they mean to say "I mean a housecat, not the tigers and
> things?" I'm not so sure that they do. But they might.

Or to personalize this: yeah, I _might_, but thinking about it has
contaminated the results. I can picture saying "cow cow" to
differentiate a mature female of the species from cattle generally. I
think I can picture saying "classical classical" to distinguish music
of the Haydn-Mozart period from other serious concert works. But I
can't picture "actor actor"; there "male actor" works better for me.
On the other hand, I can't think of any way other than "English
English" to describe in two words the English language as spoken in
England. I'd probably say "liquid water", but I can imagine, if
presented with an ice cube upon asking for water, saying "No, I meant
water water." Especially if I were a child.

I haven't been able to detect the pattern in this, unless it's that
whether there is a single-word adjective that will define the subset
adequately is part of it.

Gary Williams

Aaron Davies

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 6:16:29 PM6/6/02
to
rzed <rza...@ntelos.net> wrote:

I remember a children's book on the history of music that divided music
into "popular" and "art" music (and folk, I suppose, but that's not
under consideration here). Art music is basically the
Beethoven/Bach/Chopin type stuff that orchestras play, and popular music
is anything aimed at the general public, from Stephen Foster (generally
regarded as the founder of the genre) to Eminem.

A quick rule of thumb: if you're supposed to put on a tux to hear it
performed, it's art music.
--
Aaron Davies
Save a cow, eat a vegan.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51494,00.html>

Donna Richoux

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 6:47:30 PM6/6/02
to
Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

Be careful what you wish for, R H, or Ben will find it for you. Should
we really start calling these hyponyms, hyperonyms, autohyponyms,
meronyms, and automeronyms?

I am glad to know that at least one person has sorted and labeled these,
though. "Autohyponym," "self-under-name", is the one that interests me
most. Maybe I can remember that. Autohyponym.

Mason Barge

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 7:17:17 PM6/6/02
to
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 00:47:30 +0200, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrote:

I thought that was when you called your Jaguar a "Jag".

--
Mason Barge

"People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like."
-- Abraham Lincoln

Mason Barge

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 7:26:02 PM6/6/02
to

I have heard people call 18th century music "music of the classical
period". The term "classical music", meaning orchestral music and its
kin, is simply too well-established to stomach a pompous purist
saying, "Well, you know, it is not really classical".

Barbara

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 7:29:03 PM6/6/02
to

"Ben Zimmer" <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:3CFF8B42...@midway.uchicago.edu...

Now wouldn't Venn Diagrams come in handy here?

Babz
going around in circles

R H Draney

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 11:14:24 PM6/6/02
to
aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com (Aaron Davies) wrote in
news:1fddb9t.6a34tf15nndqlN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com:

> I remember a children's book on the history of music that divided
> music into "popular" and "art" music (and folk, I suppose, but
> that's not under consideration here). Art music is basically the
> Beethoven/Bach/Chopin type stuff that orchestras play, and popular
> music is anything aimed at the general public, from Stephen Foster
> (generally regarded as the founder of the genre) to Eminem.
>
> A quick rule of thumb: if you're supposed to put on a tux to hear
> it performed, it's art music.

That would include KC and the Sunshine Band...all the guys wore tuxes
at my senior prom back in '75....r

Raymond S. Wise

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 3:18:39 AM6/7/02
to
> > >
> > > > Examples where the term is used for a part of the group as well as
> > > > the whole group:
> > > >
> > > > man (males vs. people)
> > > > America (USA vs. New World)
> > > > dishes (bowls vs. all crockery)


"Bowls" here struck me as odd. For "bowls" here I would have
substituted "dishes," meaning "flat, circular crockery."


> > > > Europe (mainland vs. mainland+UK; also now EU vs entire)
> > > > cat (domestic vs. cat family)

[...]

> > > > apes (hairy apes vs all primates)


This I don't get. "All primates" is a category which includes animals
which I have never heard called "apes," such as lemurs.


How about:

monkeys (monkeys vs. monkeys plus apes). Yes, I don't care for it, and
even Merriam-Webster Collegiate doesn't recognize it, but people do
use the words this way. (Example, "Monkey Planet," the first title
given to the English translation of the French book "La Plančte des
Singes." And don't forget David Letterman's delight at the video of
what he calls "a monkey washing a cat," which is actually a video of a
chimpanzee washing a cat.)

And from fiction:

the great apes (mangani vs. the biological category "the great apes").
Edgar Rice Burroughs in the Tarzan novels confusingly referred to--and
had Tarzan on occasion refer to--the apes which raised Tarzan as the
"great apes." He made it clear that they were "great apes" in the
wider sense by saying that they were related to the gorilla, but more
intelligent. The apes' name for themselves was "mangani." The mangani
considered humans to be a variation on themselves, naming black people
"gomangani" and white people "tarmangani," where "go" and "tar" meant
"black" and "white," respectively. (Baboons were "tongani" and
gorillas were "bolgani.)

Donna Richoux

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 4:53:24 AM6/7/02
to
Barbara <ba...@worldpath.net> wrote:

> "Ben Zimmer" <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message

[snip]

> >
> > 'Day', on the other hand, is a different case, since we're not dealing
> > with "hyponymy" but rather what linguists call "meronymy" or "partonymy"
> > (a part-whole relation between two terms). A "meronym" is a word that
> > names a part of another word-- so on the analogy of "autohyponym" we
> > could call 'day' an "automeronym".
> >
> > --Ben
>
> Now wouldn't Venn Diagrams come in handy here?

My thought, too. You can make 'em with ASCII art, if you have the
patience. Space-space-space-space-space-space-space-line...

meirman

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 12:23:06 AM6/10/02
to
In alt.english.usage on 7 Jun 2002 00:18:39 -0700 mpl...@my-deja.com
(Raymond S. Wise) posted:

>And don't forget David Letterman's delight at the video of
>what he calls "a monkey washing a cat," which is actually a video of a
>chimpanzee washing a cat.)

Monkey is a lot funnier than chimpanzee. David Letterman knows this.
And that's why so few chimpanzees make it as stand-up comics.

Compare with monkey business and monkey shines.

s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.

Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years

meirman

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 12:25:15 AM6/10/02
to
In alt.english.usage on Tue, 4 Jun 2002 01:59:43 -0500 "Raymond S.
Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> posted:

>While researching xrefer.com for the term "English English" I came across
>the following, from *The Oxford Companion to the English Language,* by Tom
>McArthur, (C) 1992:
>
>http://www.xrefer.com/entry/444485
>
>
>[quote]
>
>Word Word
>
>[1982: coined by the US writer Paul Dickson]. A non-technical,
>tongue-in-cheek term for a word repeated in contrastive statements and
>questions: 'Are you talking about an American Indian or an _Indian Indian_?'
>'It happens in Irish English as well as _English English._' [Word]. T.McA.
>

>[end quote]

Cute. I wonder if "like him like him" would count. I see that in tv
shows about teenage girls.

meirman

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 12:25:22 AM6/10/02
to
In alt.english.usage on Thu, 6 Jun 2002 06:01:48 -0400 "rzed"
<rza...@ntelos.net> posted:

>
>"psi" <p...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
>news:adn5ql$47l$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>> "R H Draney" <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9224E3AEA...@207.217.77.24...
>> <snip>
>> > "classical" - this comes up a lot when we're listening to long-hair
>> > music...someone will say "Ives (or Chopin, or Vivaldi) is my favorite
>> > classical composer" and someone else will object that the composer
>> > named belongs to some other era...but there's no unambiguous term for
>> > the Beethoven-centered period that also excludes Bach and
>> > Tchaikovsky....
>> <etc>
>>
>> I'm being a bit picky here, but the Classical period was not
>> Beethoven-centred. Beethoven certainly began composing in the classical
>> period, but it was he who led the way into the Romantics. It was Haydn and
>> Mozart who should be regarded as the centre of Classicism.
>>
>
>
>I believe RH's point was that there is no overarching term for music of a
>type that might be performed by a symphony orchestra, for instance, but that
>people often call it "classical" as though that were such a term. They may
>be referring to symphonic or orchestral music, but those terms would leave
>out much of Bach and Chopin. There's not a good term that covers Cole
>Porter, Hank Williams, The Sex Pistols, and Wu-Tang Clan either, for that

Oh that's all right.

>matter. At one time the term "longhair music" could be applied to the
>Bach/Ives type, but then the Beatles had to wreck that....

I thought long hair referred to those who listen rather than those who
perform.

How about serious music, high-brow music ( ;) )

Aaron Davies

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 2:07:16 AM6/10/02
to
meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote:

> In alt.english.usage on Tue, 4 Jun 2002 01:59:43 -0500 "Raymond S.
> Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> posted:
>
> >While researching xrefer.com for the term "English English" I came across
> >the following, from *The Oxford Companion to the English Language,* by Tom
> >McArthur, (C) 1992:
> >
> >http://www.xrefer.com/entry/444485
> >
> >
> >[quote]
> >
> >Word Word
> >
> >[1982: coined by the US writer Paul Dickson]. A non-technical,
> >tongue-in-cheek term for a word repeated in contrastive statements and
> >questions: 'Are you talking about an American Indian or an _Indian Indian_?'
> >'It happens in Irish English as well as _English English._' [Word]. T.McA.
> >
> >[end quote]
>
> Cute. I wonder if "like him like him" would count. I see that in tv
> shows about teenage girls.

Often abreviated to "like, or like-like?" Of course, in valley-girl,
that would be "like, like, or like, like-like?" BTW, I think I would
tend to hyphenate these word-words if I were transcribing them.

Dr Robin Bignall

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 8:07:51 AM6/10/02
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 00:23:06 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>In alt.english.usage on 7 Jun 2002 00:18:39 -0700 mpl...@my-deja.com
>(Raymond S. Wise) posted:
>
>>And don't forget David Letterman's delight at the video of
>>what he calls "a monkey washing a cat," which is actually a video of a
>>chimpanzee washing a cat.)
>
>Monkey is a lot funnier than chimpanzee. David Letterman knows this.
>And that's why so few chimpanzees make it as stand-up comics.
>
>Compare with monkey business and monkey shines.
>

Chimps have 98.5% of their genes in common with humans.
I just read that a new study shows that mice have 1% less -- 97.5% --
of their genes in common with us.
Next time a person of the female gender asks me if I'm a man or a
mouse, I'll just point to the 2.5% that's different.

--

wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 8:24:57 PM6/10/02
to
Dr Robin Bignall wrote:

I think you should keep it covered up. Mind you, 2.5% - that's a big one!

--
Rob Bannister

Richard Maurer

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 4:00:39 AM6/11/02
to
<< [Tom McArthur, via Raymond S. Wise]

Word Word

[1982: coined by the US writer Paul Dickson]. A non-technical,
tongue-in-cheek term for a word repeated in contrastive statements and
questions: 'Are you talking about an American Indian or an _Indian Indian_?'
'It happens in Irish English as well as _English English._' [Word]. T.McA.

[end quote] >>

<< ["meirman"]


Cute. I wonder if "like him like him" would count. I see that in tv
shows about teenage girls. >>


<< [Aaron Davies]


Often abreviated to "like, or like-like?" Of course, in valley-girl,
that would be "like, like, or like, like-like?" >>

And that valley-girl grew up to become an accountant
who took her client out for a tennis match. At the start of the match
she announced the score "love-love", then after the match they
discussed "win-win" situations and the "net-net".
Does she count count?


-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Riggs

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 8:39:22 AM6/11/02
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:07:51 +0100, Dr Robin Bignall
<docr...@red.sylvania> wrote:


>Chimps have 98.5% of their genes in common with humans.
>I just read that a new study shows that mice have 1% less -- 97.5% --
>of their genes in common with us.

Same old, same old -- it means as little now as when we learned this a
dozen years ago. A book by Daniele Steele uses 100 percent of the
letters used in a play by William Shakespeare. A painting by a two-
year-old may well contain the exact same colours Monet used. A house
in the slums of Watts has 99% of the features of my house on Clew Bay.
All the notes Handel used in the Messiah are contained in a CD by the
Pogues.

Und so weider.

>Next time a person of the female gender asks me if I'm a man or a
>mouse, I'll just point to the 2.5% that's different.

That 2.5% might make her very happy, if gainfully employed.
--

Charles Riggs

Dr Robin Bignall

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 10:41:28 AM6/11/02
to

It was a guesstimate.

--

wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)

Dr Robin Bignall

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 10:41:29 AM6/11/02
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:00:39 GMT, "Richard Maurer"
<rcpb1_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

><< [Tom McArthur, via Raymond S. Wise]
>
>Word Word
>
>[1982: coined by the US writer Paul Dickson]. A non-technical,
>tongue-in-cheek term for a word repeated in contrastive statements and
>questions: 'Are you talking about an American Indian or an _Indian Indian_?'
>'It happens in Irish English as well as _English English._' [Word]. T.McA.
>
>[end quote] >>
>
>
>
><< ["meirman"]
>Cute. I wonder if "like him like him" would count. I see that in tv
>shows about teenage girls. >>
>
>
><< [Aaron Davies]
>Often abreviated to "like, or like-like?" Of course, in valley-girl,
>that would be "like, like, or like, like-like?" >>
>
>
>
>And that valley-girl grew up to become an accountant
>who took her client out for a tennis match. At the start of the match
>she announced the score "love-love", then after the match they
>discussed "win-win" situations and the "net-net".
>Does she count count?
>

One that I've heard in Britain, from children, when told that a pet is
dead, is "Yes, but is it really dead dead?"

--

wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 1:58:25 PM6/11/02
to
Charles Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> writes:

> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:07:51 +0100, Dr Robin Bignall
> <docr...@red.sylvania> wrote:
>
>
> >Chimps have 98.5% of their genes in common with humans. I just
> >read that a new study shows that mice have 1% less -- 97.5% -- of
> >their genes in common with us.
>
> Same old, same old -- it means as little now as when we learned this
> a dozen years ago. A book by Daniele Steele uses 100 percent of the
> letters used in a play by William Shakespeare. A painting by a two-
> year-old may well contain the exact same colours Monet used. A house
> in the slums of Watts has 99% of the features of my house on Clew
> Bay. All the notes Handel used in the Messiah are contained in a CD
> by the Pogues.

Wrong level of abstraction. It's not letters, but sentences, or
probably better, paragraphs. It's like a copy of _Hamlet_, identical
to the original, except that in an early scene we find out that it was
really Hamlet who killed his father and has repressed the memory,
blaming his uncle and imagining the ghost of his father to corroborate
his confabulation. All the rest is precisely the same, but it becomes
a very different play.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty.
| Peter Moylan
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


Aaron Davies

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 2:07:43 PM6/11/02
to
Raymond S. Wise <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:

> While researching xrefer.com for the term "English English" I came across
> the following, from *The Oxford Companion to the English Language,* by Tom
> McArthur, (C) 1992:
>
> http://www.xrefer.com/entry/444485
>
>
> [quote]
>

> Word Word
>
> [1982: coined by the US writer Paul Dickson]. A non-technical,
> tongue-in-cheek term for a word repeated in contrastive statements and
> questions: 'Are you talking about an American Indian or an _Indian Indian_?'
> 'It happens in Irish English as well as _English English._' [Word]. T.McA.
>
> [end quote]

I just remembered another one I used once. I was talking to a friend
about a movie that was about to come out, and I said it had
premiered(sp?) last Friday. My friend said he didn't think it came out
until next Friday, and I said "no, the premiere-premiere", meaning the
Hollywood one with the red carpet and so on. He knew exactly what I
meant.

meirman

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 5:50:08 PM6/11/02
to
In alt.english.usage on Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:41:29 +0100 Dr Robin
Bignall <docr...@red.sylvania> posted:

>>
>>And that valley-girl grew up to become an accountant
>>who took her client out for a tennis match. At the start of the match
>>she announced the score "love-love", then after the match they
>>discussed "win-win" situations and the "net-net".
>>Does she count count?
>>
>One that I've heard in Britain, from children, when told that a pet is
>dead, is "Yes, but is it really dead dead?"

What is the alternative wrt pets?


This came up with regard to car batteries on the chysler group. It
shouldn't have, but one guy insisted that a dead battery was one that
could never be recharged again. Everyone else said it just meant
fully discharged. I ended up using dead dead to refer to what the
other guy meant, solely for clarity. (even though he was wrong and
stubborn. :) ).

Dr Robin Bignall

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 7:26:31 PM6/11/02
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:50:08 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>In alt.english.usage on Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:41:29 +0100 Dr Robin
>Bignall <docr...@red.sylvania> posted:
>
>>>
>>>And that valley-girl grew up to become an accountant
>>>who took her client out for a tennis match. At the start of the match
>>>she announced the score "love-love", then after the match they
>>>discussed "win-win" situations and the "net-net".
>>>Does she count count?
>>>
>>One that I've heard in Britain, from children, when told that a pet is
>>dead, is "Yes, but is it really dead dead?"
>
>What is the alternative wrt pets?
>

When my first son was very young we had a tortoise that hibernated the
first winter we had it in a box in the garage. We tried to explain,
but he couldn't understand and thought it was dead when he wasn't
allowed to look at it. It survived that winter but didn't make it
through the second winter. I've read similar stories about very young
children who have their first brush with the finality of death. We
talk about pets being 'put to sleep' by the veterinarian, and maybe
that gives them a false impression.

--

wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 7:58:37 PM6/11/02
to
Charles Riggs wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:07:51 +0100, Dr Robin Bignall
> <docr...@red.sylvania> wrote:
>
> >Chimps have 98.5% of their genes in common with humans.
> >I just read that a new study shows that mice have 1% less -- 97.5% --
> >of their genes in common with us.
>
> Same old, same old -- it means as little now as when we learned this a
> dozen years ago. A book by Daniele Steele uses 100 percent of the
> letters used in a play by William Shakespeare. A painting by a two-
> year-old may well contain the exact same colours Monet used. A house
> in the slums of Watts has 99% of the features of my house on Clew Bay.
> All the notes Handel used in the Messiah are contained in a CD by the
> Pogues.
>
> Und so weider.

Please - if you must use German, spell it correctly, or use English:
wieder = again; weiter = further. 'And so on' is 'und so weiter'.

--
Rob Bannister

Mark Wallace

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 1:05:54 AM6/12/02
to
Robert Bannister wrote:

> Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> Und so weider.
>
> Please - if you must use German, spell it correctly, or use
> English: wieder = again; weiter = further. 'And so on' is 'und so
> weiter'.

<Michael Bentine potty>
Ja-WHOL, mein kommandant!
</Michael Bentine potty>

Hey, we can't even get English right, around here. Don't expect too
many miracles.

--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________

Ever been stuck on a word, or a point of grammar?
You need to visit the APIHNA World Dictionary
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/apihna-0.htm
____________________________________________

psi

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 7:32:12 AM6/12/02
to
"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:vtrcgu4ch52f60u57...@4ax.com...

> In alt.english.usage on Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:41:29 +0100 Dr Robin
> Bignall <docr...@red.sylvania> posted:
>
> >One that I've heard in Britain, from children, when told that a pet is
> >dead, is "Yes, but is it really dead dead?"
>
> What is the alternative wrt pets?


It means it's not worth hooking the hamster up to the battery charger.

psi


Charles Riggs

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 9:14:18 AM6/12/02
to

Danka shurn, but what have the Germans done for me lately that I
should be so finicky about the spelling of their words? Who shook your
tree, anyway? I hope I never misspel an English word or you may come
down on me like a ton of bricks. Smart ass.

Charles Riggs

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 7:03:55 PM6/12/02
to
Charles Riggs wrote:

Not at all. English misspellings, in this ng at least, are quite acceptable
unless the result produces an ambiguity that can produce (a) puns (b)
comments on food or sheep or (c) discussions of whether the cot or caught
vowel is used. There is absolutely no need for any English speaker to use
expressions in a foreign language (unless, like "e.g.", they are part of
English anyway).

Therefore, if you or I or anyone wishes to use a foreign expression, it is
preferable to get it right. After all, using foreign expressions in the
first place is more a sign of smart-assery than commenting on their
correctness.


--
Rob Bannister

Ann

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 7:10:50 PM6/12/02
to
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:03:55 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:

Except of course that they should have said 'smart arse' and not
'smart ass'. Apart from that it's fine ;-)

Ann

Padraig Breathnach

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 7:11:56 PM6/12/02
to
Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:

>Not at all. English misspellings, in this ng at least, are quite acceptable
>unless the result produces an ambiguity that can produce (a) puns (b)
>comments on food or sheep or (c) discussions of whether the cot or caught
>vowel is used. There is absolutely no need for any English speaker to use
>expressions in a foreign language (unless, like "e.g.", they are part of
>English anyway).
>
>Therefore, if you or I or anyone wishes to use a foreign expression, it is
>preferable to get it right. After all, using foreign expressions in the
>first place is more a sign of smart-assery than commenting on their
>correctness.

Just bear in mind, Robert, that for many in this group English is a
foreign language. Subject to that caveat, je suis d'accord avec toi.

le mór-mheas,

PB

meirman

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 8:09:06 PM6/12/02
to
In alt.english.usage on Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:32:12 +0000 (UTC) "psi"
<p...@btconnect.com> posted:

CLEAR!!

>psi

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 8:47:31 PM6/12/02
to
Padraig Breathnach wrote:

Touché - I am touched.


--
Rob Bannister

Aaron Davies

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 11:45:04 PM6/12/02
to
Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:

> le mór-mheas

?

Tony Cooper

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 1:19:52 AM6/13/02
to
"Aaron Davies" <aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com> wrote in message
news:1fdov69.xjazupkf9kjrN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com...

> Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> > le mór-mheas

He was showing Charles the use of a fada.


--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles


Neville X. Elliven

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 2:32:32 AM6/13/02
to
Robert Bannister wrote:

> There is absolutely no need for any English speaker to use
> expressions in a foreign language

That reminds me of a list called "rules for writing",
in which I saw the following:

* Foreign words and phrases, in lieu of English, are not apropos.

Mark Wallace

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 4:50:22 AM6/13/02
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
> Charles Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:58:37 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>>> Charles Riggs wrote:

>>>> Und so weider.
>>>
>>> Please - if you must use German, spell it correctly, or use
>>> English: wieder = again; weiter = further. 'And so on' is 'und
>>> so weiter'.
>>
>> Danka shurn, but what have the Germans done for me lately that I
>> should be so finicky about the spelling of their words? Who
>> shook your tree, anyway? I hope I never misspel an English word
>> or you may come down on me like a ton of bricks. Smart ass.
>
> Not at all. English misspellings, in this ng at least, are quite
> acceptable unless the result produces an ambiguity that can
> produce (a) puns (b) comments on food or sheep or (c) discussions
> of whether the cot or caught vowel is used. There is absolutely
> no need for any English speaker to use expressions in a foreign
> language (unless, like "e.g.", they are part of English anyway).

Quite right too!
Bluddy forringers, coming to our green and pleasant language and
adding things that will be useful to us!
It shouldn't be allowed!


> Therefore, if you or I or anyone wishes to use a foreign
> expression, it is preferable to get it right. After all, using
> foreign expressions in the first place is more a sign of smart-
> assery than commenting on their correctness.

Fair enough, but I reserve the right to misspell, misuse, or
mis-anything-else any words, phrases, or clauses in French.

--
Mark Wallace
____________________________

Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________

Donna Richoux

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 6:08:17 AM6/13/02
to
Neville X. Elliven <moC.m...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>
> That reminds me of a list called "rules for writing",
> in which I saw the following:
>
> * Foreign words and phrases, in lieu of English, are not apropos.

I've seen those lists -- "About those sentence fragments." Actually the
ones I turned up on this search today did not include your line. I'm
sure people keep inventing more examples. [*See comment at end.]

The AUE FAQ calls these "Fumblerules":

Fumblerules ("Don't use no double negatives", etc.)
---------------------------------------------------

_Fumblerules_ was the title of a 1990 book by William Safire
containing such rules, but it seems these rules should actually be
credited to George L. Trigg. For the rules and their provenance,
see <http://www.amherst.edu/~writing/tips.html>.

This kind of humor gets passed around and reprinted so wildly, I wonder
whether George L. Trigg is any more the actual originator than anyone
else... Searching on his name shows that he is the editor of such
publications as _The Encyclopedia of Applied Physics_. Ah, here is a
page that quotes his article about the writing rules:

http://www.neystadt.org/moshkow/win/ANEKDOTY/orfograf.txt

[Snip general remarks about the importance of good writing]

One fairly effective way is to provide examples of what not to
do; it is particularly helpful if the examples are humorous. We
have recently seen several lists of grammatical examples of this
type. A few weeks ago we found taped to a colleague's office door
the most complete one we have seen. (He tells us it was passed
out in a class of Darthmouth - not in English - at the time a term
paper was assigned). We reproduce it here in the hope that it will
have some effect.

1.Make sure each pronoun agrees with their antecedent.
2.Just between you and I, the case of pronoun is important.
3.Watch out for irregular verbs which have crope into English.
4.Verbs has to agree in number with their subjects.
5.Don't use no double negatives.
6.Being bad grammar, a writer should not use dangling modifiers.
7.Join clauses good like a conjunction should.
8.A writer must be not shift your point of view.
9.About sentence fragments.
10.Don't use run-on sentences you got to punctuate them.
11.In letters essays and reports use commas to separate items
in series.
12.Don't use commas, which are not necessary.
13.Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
14.Its important to use apostrophes right in everybodys writing.
15.Don't abbrev.
16.Check to see if you any words out.
17.In the case of a report, check to see that jargonwise, it's
A-OK.
18.As far as incomplete constructions, they are wrong.
19.About repetition, the repetition of a word might be real
effective repetition - take, for instance the repetition of Abraham
Lincoln.
20.In my opinion, I think that an author when he is writing
should definitely not get into the habit of making use of too
many unnecessary words that he does not really need in order to
put his message across.
21.Use parallel construction not only to be concise but also
clarify.
22.It behooves us all to avoid archaic expressions.
23.Mixed metaphors are a pain in the neck and ought to be weeded
out.
24.Consult the dictionery to avoid mispelings.
25.To ignorantly split an infinitive is a practice to
religiously avoid.
26.Last but not least, lay off cliches.

---------------------------------------------------------------
George L. Trigg
Phys.Rev.Lett., 42, 12, 748 (1979).

Another site, <http://www.tcd.ie/Student/Publications/guide/sub.html>,
spells that out as:

reprinted from Physical Review Letters Vol. 42, No.
12, March 1979, p748, George L. Trigg

So that pushes the list back to being reprinted in a scientific journal
in 1979, by an editor who states clearly that he found the list
somewhere else. Can anyone else push it back farther?

I wonder if "Physical Review Letters" is really the name of a
publication; perhaps it was the "Letters" section of something called
"Physical Review"?... No, it really was an separate publication,
according to the American Physical Society, spun off from "Physical
Review" in 1957.

(For those who are too young to remember the days before computers:
there was something the a.f.u group cals "xeroxlore," humorous and
inspirational pieces that office workers photocopied and mailed to each
other. Just like e-mail does now, but a little more laborious. What
happened before photocopy machines? That was really the dark ages.)

[*] It occurred to me search for Neville's example. Actually what I
searched on was <"don't use no double" lieu> in hopes of turning up a
combined list. What I found was a completely separate, but parallel,
list. For example:

http://www.ncte.org/lists/ncte-talk/dec99/msg01029.html

The Rules Of Writing

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
[remainder snipped]

So multiple versions are circulating, who knows for how many years.
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux

Padraig Breathnach

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 6:43:46 AM6/13/02
to
aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com (Aaron Davies) wrote:

>Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> le mór-mheas
>
>?

with great esteem

PB

Charles Riggs

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 7:22:21 AM6/13/02
to
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:03:55 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:


>Not at all. English misspellings, in this ng at least, are quite acceptable
>unless the result produces an ambiguity that can produce (a) puns (b)
>comments on food or sheep or (c) discussions of whether the cot or caught
>vowel is used. There is absolutely no need for any English speaker to use
>expressions in a foreign language (unless, like "e.g.", they are part of
>English anyway).

You'd have gotten along well with President Eisenhower.

>Therefore, if you or I or anyone wishes to use a foreign expression, it is
>preferable to get it right. After all, using foreign expressions in the
>first place is more a sign of smart-assery than commenting on their
>correctness.

Okay, we're both smart asses. I can accept that.

Charles Riggs

John Dawkins

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 12:06:20 PM6/13/02
to
In article <1fdprzb.i8rlfb17q2zymN%tr...@euronet.nl>,
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------
> George L. Trigg
> Phys.Rev.Lett., 42, 12, 748 (1979).
>
> Another site, <http://www.tcd.ie/Student/Publications/guide/sub.html>,
> spells that out as:
>
> reprinted from Physical Review Letters Vol. 42, No.
> 12, March 1979, p748, George L. Trigg
>
> So that pushes the list back to being reprinted in a scientific journal
> in 1979, by an editor who states clearly that he found the list
> somewhere else. Can anyone else push it back farther?
>
> I wonder if "Physical Review Letters" is really the name of a
> publication; perhaps it was the "Letters" section of something called
> "Physical Review"?... No, it really was an separate publication,
> according to the American Physical Society, spun off from "Physical
> Review" in 1957.

It has its own website; here's the URL for the number containing the
article you cite:

<http://prola.aps.org/toc/PRL/v42/i12>

It is likely that your provider needs to subscribe for you to download
the pdf of the article.

--
J.

Aaron Davies

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 6:52:27 PM6/13/02
to
Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Aaron Davies" <aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com> wrote in message
> news:1fdov69.xjazupkf9kjrN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com...
> > Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >
> > > le mór-mheas
>
> He was showing Charles the use of a fada.

^^^^
?

Explaining one incomprensible expression with another is not
particularly helpful. The only fada I know is da Godfada.

Padraig Breathnach

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 7:31:50 PM6/13/02
to
aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com (Aaron Davies) wrote:

>Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Aaron Davies" <aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com> wrote in message
>> news:1fdov69.xjazupkf9kjrN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com...
>> > Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> >
>> > > le mór-mheas
>>
>> He was showing Charles the use of a fada.
> ^^^^
>?
>
>Explaining one incomprensible expression with another is not
>particularly helpful. The only fada I know is da Godfada.

Neither expression is incomprehensible (or even incomprensible).
Perhaps uncomprehended.

Literally, "fada" means "long" in Gaelic. When a vowel has a long
sound, as in "mór" above, an accent character is used to indicate
that; the accent is also known as a "fada".

PB

Tony Cooper

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 8:23:07 PM6/13/02
to
"Aaron Davies" <aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com> wrote in message
news:1fdqch1.9tqfj317hszqzN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com...

> Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Aaron Davies" <aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com> wrote in message
> > news:1fdov69.xjazupkf9kjrN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com...
> > > Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
> > >
> > > > le mór-mheas
> >
> > He was showing Charles the use of a fada.
> ^^^^
> ?
>
> Explaining one incomprensible expression with another is not
> particularly helpful. The only fada I know is da Godfada.

You must have just popped in, Aaron. Within the last 24 hours or so
there was an explanation of the Gaelic fada - a diacritical mark over a
letter to show the sound of the letter is pronounced long - in an
exchange I had with Charles. The hidden fada is over the "ó" above. If
you are going to just pop in and pop out reading only selected posts you
will just have to expect to be mystified at times.

Speaking of the Godfada, I hear Mayor Bloomberg [1] saying "with the
press looking over your shoulder" and pronouncing it "sholl-da".

[1] In case this, too, is incomprehensible, Bloomberg is Mayor of New
York [1a]

--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles

[1a] Just in case, New York is a city in this context and not a state.

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 8:26:23 PM6/13/02
to
Charles Riggs wrote:

We'd better not submit proof to the aue photo section.


--
Rob Bannister

Aaron Davies

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 10:55:16 PM6/13/02
to
Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sorry, sorry. I don't read every post in here anymore, I'd never have
time to anything else. I get the joke now, thanx.

Donna Richoux

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 6:52:41 PM6/16/02