What abhors you?
xerlome
"...I came to be abhorred by it", meaning (in common usage) that he
came to abhor it. The meaning was clear, but the usage seemed odd to
me, archaic at least, so i wondered whether it is found in modern
English.
The usage is not documented in the usual modern dictionaries, but is
in Webster's Third New International, "to fill with horror or
disgust", marked obsolete, with a quote from Job (Bible), '"mine own
clothes shall abhor me". It is even marked obsolete in Webster's
International of 1890, with a quote from Shakespeare, "It doth abhor
me now I speak the word".
Google shows only 17 results for "it abhorred me", some Bible quotes
(most a single quote from Zechariah), most others related to religion.
At least one employs the common usage in a piece of fiction: "The
phone said straight to my face that it abhorred me".
Pretty scant, even for an old usage. Interesting, though, that a
professor so naturally used it in speech today. I like it!
ER Lyon
mm
wrote:
>This morning on Weekend Edition Sunday, i heard an interviewee say,
>"...I came to be abhorred by it",
I'm only abhorred by my girl-friend's parents.
>meaning (in common usage) that he
Are you sure it is common usage? By Weekend Edition Sunday, do you
mean an NPR show?
>came to abhor it. The meaning was clear, but the usage seemed odd to
>me, archaic at least, so i wondered whether it is found in modern
>English.
>
>The usage is not documented in the usual modern dictionaries, but is
>in Webster's Third New International, "to fill with horror or
>disgust", marked obsolete, with a quote from Job (Bible), '"mine own
>clothes shall abhor me". It is even marked obsolete in Webster's
>International of 1890, with a quote from Shakespeare, "It doth abhor
>me now I speak the word".
>
>Google shows only 17 results for "it abhorred me", some Bible quotes
>(most a single quote from Zechariah), most others related to religion.
>At least one employs the common usage in a piece of fiction: "The
Why do you keep calling it common? Do you mean frequent, low-class,
universal, what? Only 17 hits (of one version of it) doesn't seem
frequent to me.
>phone said straight to my face that it abhorred me".
>
>Pretty scant, even for an old usage. Interesting, though, that a
>professor so naturally used it in speech today. I like it!
No, no. It likes you.
>
>ER Lyon
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
xerlome
> xerlome wrote:
> >This morning on Weekend Edition Sunday, i heard an interviewee say,
> >"...I came to be abhorred by it", meaning (in common usage) that he
> >came to abhor it.
> Are you sure it is common usage?
The "common usage" of <abhor> that describes his meaning is what
follows (...that he came to abhor it).
> By Weekend Edition Sunday, do you mean an NPR show?
Yes. Google it. You can listen to the interview on yesterday's
program, the segment about Hawaii, second interviewee. (The printed
story doesn't include the interview.)
> >At least one employs the common usage in a piece of fiction: "The
> Why do you keep calling it common? Do you mean frequent, low-class,
> universal, what?
No, no. The common usage of the word <abhor> is in the quote:
> >phone said straight to my face that it abhorred me".
The phone abhorred the speaker in this fictional quote, or so he
felt...
> Only 17 hits (of one version of it) doesn't seem frequent to me.
That's what i said:
> >Pretty scant, even for an old usage. Interesting, though, that a
> >professor so naturally used it in speech today. I like it!
> No, no. It likes you.
Cool ! Who knows, maybe a hundred years from now that formation will
be standard (if it comes to like people and doesn't abhor them).
ER Lyon
PS: Are you a native speaker? Either way, i would advise most anyone
that when a written piece (such as this post) doesn't seem to make
sense, it can be helpful to reread it with attention to the general
drift of the remarks, then to look for the writer's meaning with that
context in mind. Often the lightbulb will snap right on, making
detailed explanations unnecessary.
mm
wrote:
>mm wrote:
>
>> xerlome wrote:
>> >This morning on Weekend Edition Sunday, i heard an interviewee say,
>> >"...I came to be abhorred by it", meaning (in common usage) that he
>> >came to abhor it.
>
>> Are you sure it is common usage? �
>
>The "common usage" of <abhor> that describes his meaning is what
>follows (...that he came to abhor it).
What makes that usage "common". What meaning of common are you using?
Is "common usage" an idiom, a term of art with a special meaning? If
so, what is the meaning?
>> By Weekend Edition Sunday, do you mean an NPR show?
>
>Yes. Google it. You can listen to the interview on yesterday's
>program, the segment about Hawaii, second interviewee. (The printed
>story doesn't include the interview.)
Thanks.
>> >At least one employs the common usage in a piece of fiction: "The
>
>> Why do you keep calling it common? � �Do you mean frequent, low-class,
>> universal, what? �
>
>No, no. The common usage of the word <abhor> is in the quote:
>
>> >phone said straight to my face that it abhorred me".
The usage of the word is in the quote but I'm asking, what makes it
common, or in what way is it common. ?? Do you mean frequent,
low-class, wide-spread, shared, what?
What meaning of common are you using? Especially since we agree it is
rare, how can it be common?
>
>The phone abhorred the speaker in this fictional quote, or so he
>felt...
>
>> Only 17 hits (of one version of it) doesn't seem frequent to me.
>
>That's what i said:
>
>> >Pretty scant, even for an old usage. �Interesting, though, that a
>> >professor so naturally used it in speech today. �I like it!
>
>> No, no. �It likes you.
>
>Cool ! Who knows, maybe a hundred years from now that formation will
>be standard (if it comes to like people and doesn't abhor them).
>
>ER Lyon
>
>PS: Are you a native speaker?
Yes, as my sig shows.
> Either way, i would advise most anyone
>that when a written piece (such as this post) doesn't seem to make
>sense, it can be helpful to reread it with attention to the general
>drift of the remarks, then to look for the writer's meaning with that
>context in mind. Often the lightbulb will snap right on, making
>detailed explanations unnecessary.
Well, it didn't, so can you please give a detailed explanation?
xerlome
> xerlome wrote:
> >mm wrote:
> >> xerlome wrote:
> >> >This morning on Weekend Edition Sunday, i heard an interviewee say,
> >> >"...I came to be abhorred by it", meaning (in common usage) that he
> >> >came to abhor it.
> >> Are you sure it is common usage?
> >The "common usage" of <abhor> that describes his meaning is what
> >follows (...that he came to abhor it).
> What makes that usage "common". What meaning of common are you using?
> Is "common usage" an idiom, a term of art with a special meaning? If
> so, what is the meaning?
Gosh, i thought i had simply posted an item of topical interest: An
educated and articulate professor had used the word <abhor> in a way
rarely heard today and little documented save in the Bible and
Shakespeare. He expressed it with no apparent self-consciousness and
his meaning was immediately clear. Well, at least *i* found it
interesting and it didn't abhor me.
If you, mm, only wish to cut to the chase and read my answer to your
latest questions above and below, then by all means do skip along,
because i'm liable to run on a bit - i can feel it coming...
Honestly, i hardly expected a response at all, although (knowing these
usage groups) i imagined that were anyone to respond it would be to
admonish me that the use of <abhor> i had heard is clearly incorrect
and must be stomped out here and now lest i or some impressionable
reader should form a notion to use it. Had such a message been
posted, i likely would have said somerhing like, "to each our own...",
and called it good, as i have at present no passion to invest my time
advocating the revival of this particular old-fashioned usage which
may live or lie by its value or lack thereof to those who may be
exposed to it. Besides, i've been there/done that in these
discussions (with regard to the underlying priciple that we each own
our language and may use it freely as suits our purpose) and left the
scene some years ago, returning now momentarily only to share an
unusual (albeit arguably minor) English usage event i had witnessed on
a public medium.
I intended my message to be simple, concise, understandable, worth a
moment to read, and here today/gone tomorrow but for the archives...
So a request for clarification was a bit of a surprise to me. Not a
problem, i don't mind at all. It was easy enough to clarify the
little ambiguities. Or so i thought.
Imagine my surprise when three days later i find myself writing a
"detailed explanation" of what seems to have proven a highly confusing
message. I must have gone wrong somewhere, and i will do my best to
correct that.
mm wrote:
> can you please give a detailed explanation?
Yes, and i promise i will return to your questions. But rather than
further complicate this conversation with an extended mix of new
remarks and edited copy, i think returning to my original post may be
helpful, with reference to your questions along the way. For clarity,
quotes from my post will be within < > , and your remarks and
questions will be indicated by the usual > at the beginning of the
line. (I will also use < > around certain words, phrases, or
sentences under discussion, when they seems to offer visual clarity.
I took this practice from the esteemed Mr. Wise and hope not to
deviate in their use in any way which confuses anyone.)
I began:
< This morning on Weekend Edition Sunday, i heard an interviewee say,
"...I came to be abhorred by it", meaning (in common usage) that he
came to abhor it. >
Okay, let's take this a step at a time. The interview was on a
segment called "Hawaii Is Diverse, But Far From A Racial Paradise".
Leanne Hanson interviewed two professors. Her second interviewee is
the one i quoted, a professor of philosophy from Illinois named
Kenneth Conklin who has retired to Hawaii. He spoke in opposition to
the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Here is a fuller excerpt from his
remarks containing the usage in question:
"Well, at first I was inclined, uh, to go along with the sovereignty
activists, and as I began studying Hawaiian history, I gradually
discovered that there is no historical or legal or moral basis, uh,
for supporting race-based political sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians,
and so then I began getting concerned about it, and so I slowly began
stepping out into public, and the more I came to understand it, the
more I came to be abhorred by it."
The fuller context above may help clarify the matter for you, as
without it you may have wondered what "it" (which he had become
abhorred by) may have been. What if it had been a monkey, assuming
that you refer to monkeys as <its> ? Then the monkey would have been
actually doing the abhorring and we wouldn't have an uncommon usage at
all !
Ah ! I think i see where the problem may have occurred:
< "...I came to be abhorred by it", meaning (in common usage) that he
came to abhor it. >
You asked:
> What makes that usage "common".
You may have thought <common usage> was referring to Mr. Conklin's
remark, "...I came to be abhorred by it". In other words, you may
have felt that i meant:
"In its common usage, the remark <I came to be abhorred by it> means
the same as (if you will allow the rephrasing) <(I) came to abhor
it>."
What i actually meant was:
"The remark <I came to be abhorred by it> means the same as the more
common usage <I came to abhor it>."
You asked:
> What meaning of common are you using?
Without referring to a dictionary, my intended meaning for the word
<common> in my original post is something like <usual, ordinary>. By
the term <common usage>, i meant, <the usual, ordinary usage> (of the
word <abhor>) found prevalently in modern English. Although i felt my
remark was clear in context, i recognize now that i could have been
more articulate to avoid any possible confusion. In fact, i might
well have specified that i was referring to modern English.
> Is "common usage" an idiom, a term of art with a special meaning?
> If so, what is the meaning?
No, none of those apply. Again, i had unthinkingly assumed that the
meaning was apparent in context.
Moving on: Another problem may have been that i was asking you (the
reader) to trust my interpretation of the interviewee's intended
meaning of his remark (as i transcribed it into commonly used modern
English) without offering you (the reader) the complete context of his
remark. Had you trusted me, suspended disbelief for the moment, you
would have taken my simple statement at face value and accepted my
judgment that the interviewee's phrase <be abhorred by> was
fundamentally equivalent in meaning to the commonly found <(I) came to
abhor it.>
This (i must have presumed) and the contextual clues in my subsequent
remarks would clearly indicate that i did indeed find the
interviewee's usage *un*common, and my intended meaning for the word
<common> (again, presumably) would have been apparent to you (the
reader).
Thus, my original post continues:
< The meaning was clear, but the usage seemed odd to me, archaic at
least, so i wondered whether it is found in modern
English. >
I found, as the next part of my original post reveals, that not only
was it rarely found in *modern* English, but is only scantly
documented in *older* English:
< The usage is not documented in the usual modern dictionaries, but is
in Webster's Third New International, "to fill with horror or
disgust", marked obsolete, with a quote from Job (Bible), '"mine own
clothes shall abhor me". It is even marked obsolete in Webster's
International of 1890, with a quote from Shakespeare, "It doth abhor
me now I speak the word".>
We might reasonably infer from this that some modern speakers who use
<abhor> as above may have assimilated the old usage from such
sources. I go on to say:
< Google shows only 17 results for "it abhorred me", some Bible quotes
(most a single quote from Zechariah), most others related to religion.
>
This offers further contextual evidence that i found the usage to be
quite uncommon. Considering that you felt i had so grossly
contradicted myself, i should be honored that you even bothered to
respond to my post at all ! Could it be that other readers were less
forgiving ?
I continued:
< At least one employs the common usage in a piece of fiction: "The
phone said straight to my face that it abhorred me". >
You asked:
> The usage of the word is in the quote but I'm asking, what makes it
> common, or in what way is it common. ?? Do you mean frequent,
> low-class, wide-spread, shared, what?
Well, admittedly an *uncommon* application of "common usage"...
> What meaning of common are you using? Especially since we agree it is
> rare, how can it be common?
Yes, we *do* agree, don't we? And (hopefully) we're past this
misunderstanding.
Again, i am guilty of unthinkingly assuming (on the basis of the fact
that the phone *said* it abhorred the speaker) that you (the reader)
would realize that the above citation employs the *commonly* heard
usage and not the rare older one. Naturally, this would be confusing
because it makes no logical sense that the phone itself would say
anything ! I was therefore remiss in not offering a fuller extract
(from Chapter III of Office Story: A Portrait of the Insect as Savior
in the Hyper Media Deluge, by Charles Riley):
"... I don't believe it is right to use a phone for a personal
relationship. I don't think one can actually use a phone in any case
It uses us. What do you mean I am abusing the phone? The phone said
straight to my face that it abhorred me, and it would keep me from
true connection with people, so I would feel frustrated without
knowing why. It even laughed deprecatingly. ..."
So, now we understand that the speaker is either crazy or imaginative,
so we can accept this usage of <abhorred> to be what many people call
<standard>. In my original post, the contextual clue was that the
quote is from a work of fiction. Yet, i do recognize now that i did
not offer enough clarifying information for *all* readers to make that
assessment.
To conclude my original post:
< Pretty scant, even for an old usage. Interesting, though, that a
professor so naturally used it in speech today. I like it! >
Yes, i rather do like it. It is expressive. Had it sounded awkward
or seemed to muddle his meaning, i would have been surprised that NPR
let it slide. But it sounded fine.
I might add, though, that the two synonymous formations, <I abhor it>
and <It abhors me>, are not (as *i* experience them) exactly
equivalent. In <I abhor it>, the speaker takes responsibility for
doing the abhorring. In <It abhors me>, the speaker's feelings are
cast as the *effect* of whatever <it> is. It is a subtle difference,
but does seem to me to affect the sense of the meaning. For that
reason alone, the rare usage is not utterly dispensable.
While i'm about it, here is another modern citation of the *rare*
usage. I had to dig for this one:
"In July I sought a vasectomy... Again, at the last minute, your mum
talked me out of it with an impassioned appeal about the other
children she wanted. It abhorred me. More fucking children? Jesus. I
can tell you who I’m not having sex with again. But I still cancelled
the vasectomy."
- from <http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:20qDuiu-
Z4AJ:www.tumblr.com/tagged/Peeing+%22It+abhorred+me.+More+fucking
+children%3F+Jesus%22&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1>
Incidentally, i listed to post my original message to both
alt.english.usage and alt usage.english (as i had always thought of
the two as pieces of the same group), but by the time i actually
clicked to send it, my session had expired due to the time it took me
(while writing) to collect Google information and such which i wanted
to include. I had forgotten (if i ever knew) that the newsgroups
field reverts to default when the session expires; so as a result,
when i retried, my message made it only to alt.english.usage, which
was my "home" group, so to speak, when i used to post to these groups
a few years ago. Well, never mind ... had it appeared to both groups,
an advocate for alt.usage.english may have told me that "crossposting
is bad", or that "alt.english.usage should die" (ho-hum). Still, i was
disapointed, as i know alt.english.usage is the more populous group
and it would have been gratifying to have reached a larger audience
with my fabulous usage news item.
It does occur to me that more than one reader may have responded had i
succeeded in posting to alt.usage.english. I am now curious to know
whether my original message seems confusing to others. I need to know
just how careful i must be when writing to a group of people who study
English usage.
Finally, to mm:
In my previous reply, i asked:
> > Are you a native speaker?
You replied:
> Yes, as my sig shows.
I do apologize. Truth is, i didn't pay attention to your sig, an
oversight on my part. When i saw your message i immediately clicked
to reply and (being short of time) quickly deleted all copy i felt
unnecessary to my reply, which in this case automatically included
your sig. If i noticed what it said, it had slipped my mind by the
time i got to the question.
If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.
ER Lyon
Mike Lyle
[...delicious put-down...]
>
> [...] (being short of time) [...]
Heh!
>
> If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.
>
How could he resist?
--
Mike.
mm
wrote:
>To the <alt.english.usage> thread named "What abhors you?", mm wrote:
>
>> xerlome wrote:
>> >mm wrote:
>
>> >> xerlome wrote:
>> >> >This morning on Weekend Edition Sunday, i heard an interviewee say,
>> >> >"...I came to be abhorred by it", meaning (in common usage) that he
>> >> >came to abhor it.
>
>> >> Are you sure it is common usage?
My questions were short and to the point, but I don't have time to see
you've answered them yet. Your answer is too long and looks
worthless, so I only read a couple lines.
"Common usage" is not an idiom. I think you misused the word common
and can't admit it, even to yourself.
So you reacted by being a jerk.
--
Bohgosity BumaskiL
She won't go near the thing, especially when it's on.
James Hogg
> My vacuum. I learned that from my cat.
> She won't go near the thing, especially when it's on.
Our cat is the same. He displays a truly Aristotelian horror vacui.
--
James
Peter Moylan
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
mm
wrote:
>James Hogg wrote:
>> Bohgosity BumaskiL wrote:
>>> My vacuum. I learned that from my cat.
>>> She won't go near the thing, especially when it's on.
>>
>> Our cat is the same. He displays a truly Aristotelian horror vacui.
>>
>All of nature abhors a vacuum.
ROTFL
My girlfriend has 2 of them. I guess she's not natural.
Well, I sort of knew that.
xerlome
> [...delicious put-down...]
Oh, i hope he doesn't take it that way !
But thank you for the, uh, compliment (?)
ER Lyon
xerlome
>> >mm wrote:
>> >> xerlome wrote:
>> >> >This morning on Weekend Edition Sunday, i heard an interviewee say,
>> >> >"...I came to be abhorred by it", meaning (in common usage) that he
>> >> >came to abhor it.
>> >> Are you sure it is common usage?
[snip detailed explanation]
I acknowledge that the wording of my initial sentence (copied above)
left potential for ambiguity of interpretation.
On Nov 19, 6:29 pm, mm wrote:
> My questions were short and to the point, but I don't have time to
> see you've answered them yet. Your answer is too long and looks
> worthless, so I only read a couple lines.
You don't like to waste time, do you ? I don't blame you, honestly.
I did get a bit carried away.
You needn't read my detailed explanation. I won't leave you
confused. Here are some definitions of <common>, from respected
dictionaries, which describe my meaning:
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, 11th Edition:
common: 3 a : occurring or appearing frequently b : of the best
known or most frequently seen kind
American Heritage, Fourth Edition:
common 2. Widespread; prevalent. 3. a. Occurring frequently or
habitually; usual b. Most widely known; ordinary
> "Common usage" is not an idiom. I think you misused the word
> common and can't admit it, even to yourself.
I'll allow you to decide that for yourself without further
interference, as you wish.
> So you reacted by being a jerk.
This may be no more understandable to you than my original post,
but:
Simply, your responses provided me inspiration for a little writing
exercise.
It's (sort of) like the ABC-TV show Boston Legal, in which the story
and characters were primarily farcical, but the issues and arguments
in the court cases were usually quite relevant, with a message or
point to be taken.
One hopes we can discern such elements in each other's writing, but we
don't know each other and clearly neither of us researched the other's
history in these discussion groups. I've learned not to take what is
said here personally (however it may be intended). I hope you can do
the same.
Can anyone tell me why this program underlines the word <other's> in
the above paragraph as i type ?
ER Lyon
Mudge
> Can anyone tell me why this program underlines the word <other's> in
> the above paragraph as i type ?
Your spill chuckler thinks you have made an error - like most things
Microsoft, it was wrongish !
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in Calgary)
Fix the biosphere - eliminate people
xerlome
> On 2009-11-20 14:43:14 -0700, xerlome said:
>
> > Can anyone tell me why this program underlines the word <other's> in
> > the above paragraph as i type ?
>
> Your spill chuckler thinks you have made an error - like most things
> Microsoft, it was wrongish !
The program is this Google Groups mailer. And i use Firefox (if
that's even relevant). Does Windows control online mailer programs ?
ER Lyon
Jerry Friedman
I use Firefox and Google Groups, and I believe Firefox's spearchucker
is what does the underlining as I type.
--
Jerry Friedman
Odysseus
James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
It must be in their nature.
We have a built-in vacuum system at home, whose motor is practically
inaudible upstairs, but even so the hose & wand are extremely abhorrent
to both of the resident cats.
--
Odysseus
Nick
He couldn't. He didn't bother to read it first, mind you.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu