Is "trepidatious" a word?
walrus
"trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
Sebastian Hew
> I have just been informed that there is no such word as
> "trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
'Trepidation' is certainly a word, but the OED does not list
'trepidatious'.
Sebastian.
John O'Flaherty
>I have just been informed that there is no such word as
>"trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
I've heard it. I don't know where. It seems a proper extension of
'trepidation'. But if you want to use something unusual, just use
'trepid', which does appear in dictionaries.
--
john
jan_...@hotmail.com
>I have just been informed that there is no such word as
>"trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
The closest my Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged comes to it is
"trepidation".
But it is curious that you feel that trepidatious is not a word, since
I not only see it written on the page, but understand what it means.
If this does not define a word, what does?
Lewis Carroll frequently invented charming words whose meanings were
only vaguely understood if at all. But I think that they were words.
Jan Sand
Howard G Walker
Jerry Friedman
> I have just been informed that there is no such word as
> "trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
Google finds ten hits, most of which are references to a Monty Python
routine including a Mrs. Trepidatious. One is from underground-ish
journalism and uses it to mean "frightening", which I find odd.
Actually, one of the others may mean the same thing. One from an _X
Files_ fanfic at
<http://tabulaxrasa.tripod.com/Trepidatious>, says, oddly enough,
"She was afraid to go into work today. No, not afraid, she thought.
Trepidatious. God, she must be tired. That's not even a word."
I find it hard to say something isn't a word if it's recognizable and
has been used, but I consider "trepidatious" so rare and unnecessary
as not to be worth using. It also apparently has the problem (as
"fearful" does) of ambiguity between "scary" and "scared".
--
Jerry Friedman
Alan O'Brien
"John O'Flaherty" <wewelc...@blackhole.net> wrote in message
news:r08iluoslc36ufkno...@4ax.com...
As in "Because you are trepid I will spew you out."
Alan
--
"Having a crashed Harrier Jump Jet in your garage doesn't make you Orson
Welles any more than you would want to have a cackledooper without a
predipitous, or, likewise, a caloodian without a pre-pregoratory
predention."
- Spiro Agnew
mb
> "trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
If you make it, it will be.
Richard R. Hershberger
> "trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
Having you been reading Vocabula Review? The editor makes much the
same claim.
"Trepidatious" is a fairly new word. The earliest examples I have
found are from the 1970's. It seems to be too new to have yet made
its way into standard dictionaries, but I expect that future editions
will include it.
The word is an obvious derivation from "trepidation". My take on this
is that those who claim that it isn't a word either mistakenly equate
a word's existance with its being in the dictionary, don't understand
English morphology, or are looking for something to complain about.
Robert Lieblich
Vorpally said, sir.
I've heard "trepidatious." I've seen it in print. It shows up on
Google (1310 listings, plus another 222 for "trepidacious"). The
anecdotal evidence of postings to this thread suggest that people
know what it means and what its derivation is.
There was a thread on this same topic on AUE in June 2000. Same
general results.
The dictionary is not the final arbiter of wordness. Usage is. The
dictionaries record usage and therefore inevitably run late in
recognizing a new word when it arrives. I predict that we will soon
see "trepidatious" in the dictionaries. AFAIC, it's a word.
--
Bob Lieblich
Sans trepidation
Padraig Breathnach
>I have just been informed that there is no such word as
>"trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
jerry_f...@yahoo.com (Jerry Friedman) wrote:
>Google finds ten hits ...
Howard G Walker <Walker...@att.net> wrote:
>A Google search turns up 1250 URLs that include "trepidatious."
>
I googled, and got "about 941".
For what it's worth, I can date a use of the word to about 1960, and I
have used it several times in written material (including published
material) without anybody questioning it. But, then, maybe nobody
reads what I write.
PB
Skitt
> walrus wrote:
>
>> I have just been informed that there is no such word as
>> "trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
>
>
>> Google finds ten hits ...
>
>
>> A Google search turns up 1250 URLs that include "trepidatious."
>
> I googled, and got "about 941".
>
> For what it's worth, I can date a use of the word to about 1960, and I
> have used it several times in written material (including published
> material) without anybody questioning it. But, then, maybe nobody
> reads what I write.
I Googled and found 1310.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Sebastian Hew
> I've heard "trepidatious." I've seen it in print. It shows up on
> Google (1310 listings, plus another 222 for "trepidacious"). The
> anecdotal evidence of postings to this thread suggest that people
> know what it means and what its derivation is.
>
> There was a thread on this same topic on AUE in June 2000. Same
> general results.
>
> The dictionary is not the final arbiter of wordness. Usage is. The
> dictionaries record usage and therefore inevitably run late in
> recognizing a new word when it arrives. I predict that we will soon
> see "trepidatious" in the dictionaries. AFAIC, it's a word.
You only present half the facts. Compared to about 131,000 Google hits
for 'trepidation', 1000 for 'trepidatious' is insignificant and must be
regarded as an abberation. There are over a million hits for 'millenium'
and 637,000 for 'seperate', but this doesn't make them correct. IMHO,
the WWW is one of the worst resources for such exercises philology. Any
Tom, Dick and Harry can put up a web page, and the ephemeral nature of
web pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for errors.
Sebastian.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> > I've heard "trepidatious." I've seen it in print. It shows up on
> > Google (1310 listings, plus another 222 for "trepidacious"). The
> > anecdotal evidence of postings to this thread suggest that people
> > know what it means and what its derivation is.
> >
> > There was a thread on this same topic on AUE in June 2000. Same
> > general results.
> >
> > The dictionary is not the final arbiter of wordness. Usage is. The
> > dictionaries record usage and therefore inevitably run late in
> > recognizing a new word when it arrives. I predict that we will soon
> > see "trepidatious" in the dictionaries. AFAIC, it's a word.
>
> You only present half the facts. Compared to about 131,000 Google hits
> for 'trepidation', 1000 for 'trepidatious' is insignificant and must be
> regarded as an abberation.
Please forgive me, but there's a point to be made. Google count --
"abberation": 6,810; "aberration": 191,000. Oh, and "abberration":
466. But "trepidatious" doesn't show up where "trepidations" is
meant. People don't slip and spell it with a "u" where an "n" is
meant.
> There are over a million hits for 'millenium'
> and 637,000 for 'seperate', but this doesn't make them correct. IMHO,
> the WWW is one of the worst resources for such exercises philology. Any
> Tom, Dick and Harry can put up a web page, and the ephemeral nature of
> web pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for errors.
I don't buy it. My point is that "trepidatious" is not a
misspelling, it's an adjective coined from an existing noun. Google
will give you 1.75 million hits for "alot". Whether "alot" is --
this week -- a misspelling or a variant, it's heading for the
dictionary, there to rub elbows with "cannot" and "altogether," and
probably "alright," which seems to be standard already in much of
the UK. "Errors" can become usage.
But it is not my intent to defend errors, however you define
"error." My point, to repeat, is that "trepidatious" is not an
error. It is a fairly recent coinage, still infrequently used in
educated speech and writing. But it seems to fill a need, and I'd
wager the lexicographers are on the verge of including it. The
Google count simply establishes that it is in use. Not so heavy
use, you say? Let's compare the 1310 Google hits with the 1230 for
"propositus," which you will find in M-W and AHD, among other
dictionaries. "Rare" is not the same as "nonexistent."
If you're looking for usages, and if dictionaries haven't caught up,
your best source of available data may well be the Web, but you have
to do more than just count noses. I made the point in my prior
posting that I'd seen and heard the word in the wild, not just
turned it up on Google. It's not an error but regular in form,
derived in standard fashion from an indisputably standard English
word.
Okay, there you have my evidence and the argument I base on it. You
and I disagree. Fair enough. You have every right to be wrong.
--
Bob Lieblich
As do I
Raymond S. Wise
"Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d59a35b$0$31147$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
The original poster said "I have just been informed that there is no such
word as 'trepidatious.' Can anyone verify?" In order for us to answer the
question with any confidence, we must know what, to the poster, would
constitute a word, and what, to the poster, would constitute verification
that "trepidatious" was a word as he or she defines it.
According to *my* definition of "word," that "trepidatious" qualifies as a
word is trivially true. This would be of no help to the original poster,
however, if he or she held a significantly different definition of "word"
than I do.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>> walrus wrote:
>>
>>> I have just been informed that there is no such word as
>>> "trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
>>
>> (Jerry Friedman) wrote:
>>
>>> Google finds ten hits ...
>>
>> Howard G Walker wrote:
>>
>>> A Google search turns up 1250 URLs that include "trepidatious."
>>
>> I googled, and got "about 941".
>>
>> For what it's worth, I can date a use of the word to about 1960, and I
>> have used it several times in written material (including published
>> material) without anybody questioning it. But, then, maybe nobody
>> reads what I write.
>
>I Googled and found 1310.
I went back, and found that I had set Google to return only pages
updated in the past year. I removed the restriction and got 1310.
I also googled usenet, and got 940. I skimmed through the first 40,
and in most cases it was used as I would expect it to be.
PB
jan_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>"Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I Googled and found 1310.
>
>I went back, and found that I had set Google to return only pages
>updated in the past year. I removed the restriction and got 1310.
>
>I also googled usenet, and got 940. I skimmed through the first 40,
>and in most cases it was used as I would expect it to be.
>
>PB
On the same querilous basis, is "google" an accepted verb? It does not
appear in my dictionary but I understand what it means.
Jan Sand
Mark Wallace
There are 18,500 hits for the exact phrase "aliens on Earth".
Might as well stop watching the skies, then.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Evan Kirshenbaum
It is of so recent coinage that I would be surprised to see it in a
printed dictionary. It is so widely used these days that I would be
surprised to not see it in dictionaries in the future, unless it turns
out to be short-lived. If I were a lexicographer, I'd probably add it
in a few years if people were still using it.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
|modern English without inadvertently
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
(650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett
jan_...@hotmail.com
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>> On the same querilous basis, is "google" an accepted verb? It does not
>> appear in my dictionary but I understand what it means.
>
>It is of so recent coinage that I would be surprised to see it in a
>printed dictionary. It is so widely used these days that I would be
>surprised to not see it in dictionaries in the future, unless it turns
>out to be short-lived. If I were a lexicographer, I'd probably add it
>in a few years if people were still using it.
>
Which demonstrates the point that the dictionary as a source of
authority must be viewed in the light that it is merely a compilation
of the consensus of usage and, under that viewpoint, usage must come
first before it is confirmed by dictionaries.
Jan Sand
Raymond S. Wise
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:eld2ui...@hpl.hp.com...
> jan_...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:31:40 GMT, Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>I Googled and found 1310.
> > >
> > >I went back, and found that I had set Google to return only pages
> > >updated in the past year. I removed the restriction and got 1310.
> > >
> > >I also googled usenet, and got 940. I skimmed through the first 40,
> > >and in most cases it was used as I would expect it to be.
> > >
> > >PB
> >
> > On the same querilous basis, is "google" an accepted verb? It does not
> > appear in my dictionary but I understand what it means.
>
> It is of so recent coinage that I would be surprised to see it in a
> printed dictionary. It is so widely used these days that I would be
> surprised to not see it in dictionaries in the future, unless it turns
> out to be short-lived. If I were a lexicographer, I'd probably add it
> in a few years if people were still using it.
>
It seems to me that there is now the possibility of dictionary-makers having
a word in their online edition (perhaps marked with some special symbol)
which never makes it to their paper edition because by the time the paper
edition is printed the word has fallen out of use.
Martin Ambuhl
>
> I have just been informed that there is no such word as
> "trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
Why should it not be a word? There is a regular and productive rule for
such a formation from "trepidation," which is certainly a word. But so
are "fearful," "agitated,", "alarmed," and "anxious."
Mark Wallace
It's nice to see that no-one's approaching the idea of adding new
words to the dictionary trepidatiously.
R H Draney
news:ajdasu$1aqv8c$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de:
> It's nice to see that no-one's approaching the idea of adding new
> words to the dictionary trepidatiously.
Right...if you *are* approaching an idea like that, it's best to add
the words boldly....r
Barbara
[...]
> Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
> HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
> 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is
> Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
> |modern English without inadvertently
> kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
> (650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett
>
> http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Re: the Pratchett quote -- can you direct me to a list, Evan? The words I've
been using have become tedious.
Thanks.
Babz
Bored and Ennuied
Evan Kirshenbaum
You should probably ask Rey. In such cases I typically turn to
Freyer's _Mrs Grundy: Studies in English Prudery_, but I can't seem to
find my copy. Looking at the web I find
http://www.sex-lexis.com/SYNONYMS/FEMALE-GEN.htm
which lists 1,379 of them, from "ABC" to "zouzoune". Unfortunately,
unlike Freyer, they don't give dates, so I can't vouch for which were
Elizabethan. Their list:
ABC, Abraham's bosom, ace, ace of spades, affair, agility,
agreeable ruts of life, all pink on the inside, alley, alpha and
omega, altar of love, altar of hymen, altar of pleasure, another
thing, Anthony Blunt, Antipodes, aperture of bliss, Apostle's
grove, apparatus, apparatus urogenitalis, arsenal, artichoke,
article, aunt Annie, aunt Maria, aunt Mary, axe wound, baby chute,
baby-factory, baby in the boat, bacon bomb doors, bacon hole,
bacon rind, bacon sandwich, bacon strips, badger, bag of tricks,
bald man in a boat, banger hanger, bank, barge, basket, basket of
goodies, bath of birth, bats wings, bawdy cleft, bayonet wound,
baz, bazaar, bazoo, bean, bear trapper's hat, beard, beard flit,
bearded, bearded clam, bearded lady, bearded leisure center,
bearded oyster, bearded taco, bearskin, beauty spot, Beave, The,
beaver, beaver tail, beaver trap, bee-hive, beefbox, beef
curtains, beef jibber, beetlebonnet, belle chose, belly bristles,
belly entrance, belly thicket, belly-whiskers, below the navel,
berk, Berkeley Hunt, Berkshire Hunt, bermuda triangle, best in
Christendom, best part, best-worst part, between the legs, big V,
bilabial trump card, Birchington Hunt, bird's nest, bit, bit of
fish, bit oflesh, bit of jam, bit of pork, bite, biter, bits,
black ace, black badger, black bess, black box, black cat with its
throat cut, black hole, black jock, black joke, black meat, black
mouth, black ring, blackness, blart, bliff, blind alley, blind
entrance, blind eye, blit, blivvet, blood flaps, bloomer puddin,
Bluebeard's closet, blurt, blurtbeard, boat, bob and hit, boody,
bookbinder's wife, booty, bore, Boris, Botany Bay, bottom, bottom
in front, bottomless pit, bovine drapes, bower of bliss, box, box
unseen, box with teeth, boy in the boat, boyhole, brakes,
brat-getting place, bread, breadwinner, break like a shotgun,
breakfast of champion, briar patch, Brillo pad, broom, brown
madam, brush, bucket, Buckinger's boot, bud, budget, bugger grips,
bull ring, bull's eye, bum bacon, bunghole, bun, bunny, Burlington
Hunt, burning shame, bush, bush pie, bushel-cunted, bushy, Bushy
Park, butcher's shop, butchers window, butter boat, butter box,
butterflies, butterfly, button, button groove, button hole,
buttonhole, C, C-food, cabbage, cabbage field, cabbage garden,
cabbage patch, cachanca, cake, Cambridge punt, can, canyon, Cape
of Good Hope, Cape Horn, carnal parts, carnal trap, carpet,
Carvel's ring, case, cat, cat flaps, cat with its throat cut,
cat's head cut open, catmeat, catskin, catsmeat, catty-cat,
cauliflower, cave, cave of harmony, cavern, cellar, cellarage,
center of attraction, center of bliss, center of desire, center of
joy, center of the senses, center spot, central cut, central
furrow, central office, centric part, centrique part, cerassie,
chambre of Venus, Charlie, Charlie Hunt, chasma, chat, cheesecake,
cheese factory, cherry pit, cherry pudding, chimney, chink, choca,
chocha, chocho gordo, chooch, chopped liver, chow box, chuff,
chuff box, chuftie, chum, churn, churner, circle, circulus
vitiosus, civet, cladge, claff, clam, claptrap, cleft, cleft
underside, Clint Toris, clit, clitty, clodge, cloth, cloven inlet,
cloven spot, clover field, cloven stamp of female distinction,
clown's hat, clowt, coal scuttle, chochito, cock alley,
cock-chafer, cock hall, cock-holder, cock hotel, Cock Inn, Cock
Lane, cock loft, cockchafer, cockles, cockpit, cockshire,
cockwash, cockyolly bird, cod cove, coffee grinder, coffee house,
coffee shop, coin-slot, columns of Venus, commodity, concern,
conchita, conny, constable, contrapunctum, controlling part,
conundrum, cony, cooch, cookie, cookies, coot, cooter, cooz,
corner, cornucopia, cotton, cotton and wool, country, County Down,
coupler, covered way, coynte, coyote, crack, crack of heaven,
cracking, cradle, cranny, cream-catcher, cream jug, crease,
crevice, crinkum crankum, crooney, crotch, crown and feathers,
crown of sense, crumpet, cuckoo's nest, cunker, cunnicle,
cunnikin, cunning, cunnus, cunny, cunny-skin, cunny-warren, C**T,
cunt, cunt carpet, cunt curtain, cunt down, cunt hair, cunt lips,
cuntikin, cuntkin, cunt pie, cuntlet, cuntocks, Cupid's alley,
Cupid's arbour, Cupid's arms, Cupid's cave, Cupid's cloister,
Cupid's corner, Cupid's cupboard, Cupid's furrow, Cupid's hotel,
Cupid's ring, curlies, curls, curly hairs, curtain drop, curtains,
cush, cushion, custom-house goods, cut, cut and come again, cut
up, cuzzie, c-word, cylinder, Cyprian arbour, Cyprian cave,
Cyprian strait, daisy, damp, the, dangly bits, dark, dark hole,
dark paradise, dead end street, dearest bodily part, Deep, The,
delicate glutton, delta, devilish thing, dew-flaps, dickey dido,
dickweed, diddly pout, dike, Dilberry brush, dimple, dingleberry,
dirty hole, ditch, divine scar, divine monosyllable, dog's mouth,
doodle-case, doodle sack, door bell, dormouse, doos, dot, double
doors, double suckers, doughnut, down, down below, down there,
downy bit, downy cave, Downshire, drain, dumb glutton, dumb
oracle, dumb squint, ear-between-the-legs, Elysian Fields, empty
tunnel, end of the sentimental journey, engine, entoma, envy-city,
essentials, etcetera, Eve's custom-house, evening socket,
everlasting wound, expressive button, eye that weeps most when
best pleased, factotum, fadge, fancy bit, fanny, fanny hair,
fascinating furpiece, fat rabbit, female cock, female coital
apparatus, female gewgaw, female genital appeaser, female genital
inlet, female genital mouth, female genital passage, female
genital receptacle, female genital slit, female goodies, female
hiatus, female interlabial oven, female lipped underbelly, female
lower mouth, female netherland, female organ of generation, female
organ of reproduction, female organs of generation, female organs
of reproduction, female perineal cul-de-sac, female phallus,
female pudendal canal, female pudendal chamber, female pudendal
funnel, female pudendal gimcrack, female pudendal hawsehole,
female pudendal inlet, female pudendal slit, female pudendalia,
female pudendum, female sex, female sexual organon, female slit,
female underbelly, female vulvar apparatus, female's lower kisser,
fern, fiddle, fie-for-shame, fig, figa, fillet o' fish, finger
pie, fireplace, fires of hell, fish, fish-box, fish city, fish
lips, fish mitten, fish pond, flabby lips, flange, flaps, flat
cock, flat tail, fleece, flesh beer towels, flesh wallet, fleshy
excrescence, fleshy part, flounder, flower, flower of chivalry,
fluff, fly-cage, fly-catcher, fly-trap, fool trap, forecastle,
forest, forest bush, fork, fornicator, fornicators hall, Fort
Bushy, fount of femininity, fresh axe wound in a bears back,
frizzle, front attic, front bottom, front bum, front door, front
door mat, front doors, front entrance, front garden, front parlor,
front passage, front porch, front room, front window, fruitex
vulvaria, fruitful vine, fuck flaps, fuck fur, fuck hatch,
fuck-hole, fud, fumbler's hall, funk hole, funniment, funny bit,
fun-zone, fur, fur below, fur burger, fur chalice, furrow, furry
bush, furry hoop, furry letterbox, furry mongoose, furry mound,
furze, furze-bush, futz, fuzz, fuzzburger, fuzzies, fuzzy-bunny,
fuzzy cup, fuzzy-muzzy, G, gammon, gammon flaps, gammon goalposts,
gap, gape over the garter, gaper, garage, garden, garden gates,
garden hedge, garden of Eden, garden of love, garden of pleasure,
gash, gasp and grunt, gate of horn, gate of life, gee, generating
place, generative organ, genital chamber, genital hiatus, genital
organs, genital slit, genital smile, genitalia, genitals, gentle
trap, gentlemans delight, gentlemans garden, gentlemans pleasure
garden, geography, gib tenuck, gig, giggy, gimcrack, ginch,
glamity, glory hole, glue pot, gnat meat, goal keeper, goat
milker, goatee, gold mine, golden doughnut, golden gate, golden
mound, good parts, gooseberry bush, gorilla burger, Grand Canyon,
grasp and grunt, grass, gravy-giver, gravy-maker, grease box,
Great Divide, greedy pussy-lips, green grove, green meadow, grin,
gristle-gripper, groin, grotto, Grove of Eglantine, growl, growl
and grunt, growler, grumble, grumble and grunt, gusset, gully,
gully hole, gut entrance, gutter, gym, gymnasium, ha'penny,
haddock pastie, hair burger, hair court, hair pie, hairy axe
wound, hairy cup, hairy donut, hairy escutcheon, hairy lasso,
hairy magnet, hairy oracle, hairy pie, hairy ring, Hairyfordshire,
hairy Mary, hairy pie, hairy pipi, hairy ring, hairy wheel, hairy
whizzer, halfpenny, hanging bacon, hanging basket, Hans Carvel's
ring, happy hunting grounds, happy valley, harbour of hope, hat,
hatch, hatchi, heaven, heaven's porthole, hee, hefty clefty, hell,
hey-nonny-no, hidden treasure, hirsute oyster, ho cake, hog-eye,
hole, hole of content, hole-of-holes, hole to hide it in, Holiday
Inn, holy-of-holies, Holloway, home, home sweet home, hone, honey
pie, honey pot, hoop, horse collar, hortus, hot box, hot spot,
house under the hill, husband's supper, hypogastrian cranny,
hymeneal waterfall, ingle nook, inland passage, inner lips, inner
sanctum, inner self, interlabial hiatus, interlabial sanctum,
interlabial sanctum muliebre, interlabial slit, intimate bits,
intimate parts, Irish fortune, Irish pasture, it, itchy places,
ivory gate, Jack and Dandy, Jack and Danny, Jack-N-Dandy, Jack
Straws castle, Jacob's ladder, jam, jam donut, jam pot, Janey,
jaxy, jazz, Jeanette Talia, jelly bag, jellybox, jelly cave,
jellyroll, Jenny Tull, Jerusalem artichoke, jewel case, jewelry,
jimcrack, jing-jang, Joe Hunt, jointess, joxy, joy box, joy
buzzer, joy-furrow, joy hole, joy trail, juicy sewer, junioress,
justum, kennel, kettle, keyhole, kitchen, kitten's ear, kitty,
kitty-cat, kitty kat, knick-knack, knish, kut, la belle chose,
labs, ladder, ladies' treasure, lady flower, Lady Jane, lady star,
lady's low toupee, ladys welcome mat, lamp of love, lapland, lawn,
leading article, leather, Leather Lane, leg beard, life's dainty,
Lili, ling, lipped pudendal entree, lipped underside, lips, little
boy in the boat, little bud, little kitten, little man in the,
little man in the female navicula, little Mary, little monkey,
little ploughman, little shame tongue, little sister, living
fountain, lobster pot, lock, lock-of-locks, lodge, loins, long
eye, Lord knows what, Lord knows where, lotus, love box, love bud,
love button, love canal, love chamber, love cleft, love flesh,
love glove, love grotto, love lane, love muscle, love nest, love
organ, love sheath, love's harbour, love's paradise, loves
pavillion, lovely flower, lover's lane, low countries, lower
cynosure, lower lips, lower mouth, lower wig, lowlands, lucky bag,
lunch box, Madge, magnet, main avenue, male catcher, mamas box,
man catcher, man-eater, man-entrapment, man-hole, man in the, man
trap, mangle, manometer, map of Tasmania, map of Tazzy, mapatasi,
marble arch, mark of the beast, masterpiece, mat, maw, meat, meat
tarp, melting pot, merkin, mespot, middle cut, middle eye, middle
kingdom, midlands, milk can, milk jug, milk pan, milker, milking
pail, mill, milt-market, milt-shop, mine of pleasure, minge, Miss
Laycock, mole-catcher, Molly's hole, money, money box, moneymaker,
money-pot, monkey, monosyllable, Mons Meg, moot, mortar, moss,
moss rose, mossy bank, mossy cell, mossy doughnut, mossy face,
mossy mound, mot, mot-carpet, mother of all saints, mother of all
souls, mother of masons, mother of Saint Patrick, Mount Joy, Mount
Pleasant, mouses hole, mouse trap, mouser, mouth of nature, mouth
thankless, mouth that cannot bite, mouth that says no word about
it, mouth that says no words, moving parts, mowed lawn,
much-traveled highway, mud flaps, muff, muff pie, muffet, muffin,
muliebra, muliebral fascinallia, muliebral sex organ,
must-I-holler, mustard and cress, mustard pot, mute mouth, mutton,
mystic grotto, naf, naggy, name-it-not, nameless, nappy dugout,
nasty, natural parts, natural places, naturals, nature's veil,
naughty, naughty bits, nautch, naval base, naviculans,
necessaries, needle-book, needle case, nest in the bush, nether
end, nether eye, nether eyebrow, nether lashes, nether whiskers,
nether lips, nether mouth, nether parts, nether regions,
netherland sanctum, Netherlands, never out, the, niche, nick,
nick-nack, nick in the notch, night depository, nock, nonesuch,
nonny-no, nonny-nonny, nonsuch, nooker, nooky, noose, notch,
nothing, novelty, nub, nubbin, Number Nip, nursery, O, oat bin,
old Frizzle, old hat, old thing, one that bites, open C, open
charms, open well, open wound, opening, oracle, Orchard of the
Hesperides, organ, organ grinder, organ of reproduction, organs of
generation, orgasm chasm, outer lips, oven, ox drapes, oyster,
oyster-catcher, P-maker, package, padlock, palace gates, palace of
pleasure, pan, pancake, panty pudding, papaya, parlor, parlor
room, parlour, parsley bed, parsley patch, parts below, parts of
generation, parts of shame, passion flaps, passion hole, passion
pit, patch, peach-fish, peculiar river, pee-hole, pee-pee hole,
peeping sentinel, pencil-sharpener, penis equivalent, penis
femineus, penis femininis, penis muliebris, perineal genital
mouth, periwinkle, phallic haven, pie, pillcock hill, pillicock
hill, pilose adit, pink, pink bits, pink eye, pink flaps, Pink
Palace in the Black Forest, pink surprise, pink velvet sausage
wallet, pintle-case, pipe, pipkin, piss flaps, piss slit, pisser,
pit, pit hole, pit mouth, pit of darkness, pitcher, placket,
placket-box, playing field, playpen, plaything, pleasurable
underside, pleasure boat, pleasure garden, pleasure ground,
pleasure place, plush, pocketbook, poe, poke-hole, pole hole, pole
vault, polly-nussy, pond, poon, poontang, poontenanny, poor man's
blessing, pooz, poozie, poozle, portal of love, portal of Venus,
portals of sex, pouch, pouter, power U, praline, pranny, prat,
prawn of pleasure, premises, pretty-pretty, prick-holder,
prick-purse, prick-scourer, prick-skinner, prickholder, prides,
prime cut, private parts, private passages, private property,
privates, privities, privy chose, privy hole, privy members, privy
parts, promised land, pubes, pubickers, pudendal inlet, pudendal
sanctum, pudendal smile, pudendum, pudendum muliebre, puff, puka,
pulpit, pum-pum, pump, punani, punce, punni, punse, purse, puss,
pussy, pussy beard, pussy cover, pussy hair, pussycat, quaint,
quarry, queen of holes, queynte, quid, quiff, quim, quim bush,
quim-whiskers, quim wig, quiver, rabbit's pie, rag box, rails,
rasp, rat hole, rattlesnake canyon, receiving chamber, receiving
set, receptive pudendum, red ace, red lane, red snapper,
reproductive organs, rest and be thankful, rhubard, road, road to
heaven, road to paradise, road to a christening, rob the ruffian,
rocket socket, rose, rosebud, rosebush, rotten crotch,
rough-and-ready, rough-and-tumble, rough-o, rubyfruit, rubyfruit
jungle, rude bits, rude parts, rug, saddle, Saint's delight, salt
basin, salt cellar, satin doll, sanctum, sardine can, satchel,
scallops, scat, scratch, scum-twat, scut, scuttle, second hole
from the back of the neck, secret parts, secret works, secrets,
see you next Tuesday, seed plot, seminary, sensible part,
sensitive spot, serpent socket, sex organon, sex skin, sexual
organon, sexual slit, shake bag, shame tongue, sharp and blunt,
she-thing, sheer hell, shmoya, Shooter's Hill, short and curlies,
short hairs, shot-locker, shrubbery, silent beard, silent mouth,
sink of solitude, Sir Anthony Blunt, skin chimney, skincoat,
skins, slash, sleeve, slice of life, slime-hole, slippery slued,
slit, slit bit, slithery, slitted underbelly, sloppy bot, slot,
sluice, sluice box, smell-hole, smelly pussy, smoo, snackbar,
snake pit, snapper, snapping pussy, snapping turtle, snatch,
snatch-blatch, snatch box, snatch patch, snatch thatch, snippet,
snutchie, soft furry mound of love, south pole, southern
hemisphere, spadger, spare tongue, sperm-canal, sperm-sucker,
spice of life, split, split apricot, split beaver, split kipper,
split-tail, sporran, sportsmans gap, sportsmans hole, spot,
spread, spunk-pot, squeeky, squelchy monkey, squirrel, stadge,
staff-breaker, standing room for one, stank, star over the garter,
the, steel woolies, stench trench, stink, stinkhole, stink-pit,
stink pot, stink well, stoat, strawberry patch, streamstown,
stubble, suck-and-swallow, sugar basin, sugar bowl, sugar bush,
sugared diamond, sunny south, sweet potato, sweet-scented hole,
taco, tail, tail box, tail feathers, tail for the cock, tail hole,
tail gap, tail gate, tail pipe, tail stew, target, tastebud,
teazie, tee-tee, temple of low men, Temple of Virginity, tender
box, tender button, tender trap, tenuc, that there, that thing,
thatch, thatch hatch, thatched house, thicket, thing, thingamy,
thingstable, thingumabob, third base, tickle-Thomas, tickleables,
tickler, till, tinderbox, tid-bits, tirly-whirly, tit-bit,
tit-mouse, tivvy, tivy, todger toaster, toolbox, tool chest,
toolshed, toupee, toot toot, toothless mouth, tootsie-wootsie,
touch-hole, touch hole, toupee, towdie, toy shop, tram lines,
trap, treasure, treasure box, treasury, trench, triangle of love,
trigger, trim, trinket, trout, tube, tufted honor, tufted
treasure, tuna, tuna fish, tuna town, tunnel, tunnel of love,
turnpike, turf, turtle, tush, tuzzy-muzzy, twachel, twam, twammy,
twat, twat fuzz, twat hair, twat mat, twat rug, twatchel, twelge,
twidget, twim, twin, twitchet, twixt wind and water, two-leaved
book, twot, undeniable, undercarriage, undercut, undergrowth,
underparts, undertaker, underworld, unmentionables, upper
holloway, upright grin, upright wink, usher of the hall, vacuum,
vadge, vag, vagina dentata, vaginal rim, vaginal hair, valley,
valley of love, valve, VD depository, vacuum, velcro love
triangle, velcro strips, velcro triangle, velvet, velvet glove,
velvet love-canal, velvet tunnel, venerable monosyllable, vent,
Venus flytrap, Venus mound, Venus' cell, Venus' glove, Venus
highway, Venus' honeypot, Venus' mark, Venus' secret cell,
vertical axe wound with sideburns, vertical bacon baguette,
vertical bacon sandwich, vertical smile, vicious circle, vige,
virgin treasure, Virginia Vagina, vitals, vulvar interlabial slit,
vulvette, wame, wanton ace, ware, rest and be thankful, wares,
warm fuzzy, warm place, warmest place, waste pipe, water box,
water engine, water worker, water works, waterworks, way-in,
wayside fountain, wet-mop, wet-on, whatchamacallit, whatsis,
whatsit, whatsus, whatzis, wheel, whelk, where the monkey sleeps,
where uncle's doodle goes, whidgey, whim, whim-wham, whisker
biscuit, whisker pot, whisper pot, whole, whole voyage, wicket,
wide-on, wig, wings of the vulva, winker, woman's commodity,
woman`s privates, woman's privities, wonderland, woo-woo, wool,
woolies, wools, workshop, world's smallest hotel, wound, wrinkle,
X, Y, yard measure, yawn, yeast bag, yeast-mill, yellow road,
YMCA, yoni, you-know-what, you-know-where, yum-yum, yum-yum cake,
zatch, zebra fanny, zither, zosh, zouzoune
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way?
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be
| a hero, you've got to do
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in
(650)857-7572 | a while.
Padraig Breathnach
>... The words I've
>been using have become tedious.
>
I bite my tongue.
PB
Mark Wallace
ITYM "atrepidatiously".
--
Begin PCP Signature...
ecallaW kraM
...End PCP Signature
_____________________________________________
What does a slightly insane Englishman think of the Dutch?
To find out, visit the Dutch & Such website:
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/dutch/dutch-index.htm
_____________________________________________
Jerry Friedman
> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> > walrus wrote:
> >
> >> I have just been informed that there is no such word as
> >> "trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
> >
> > (Jerry Friedman) wrote:
> >
> >> Google finds ten hits ...
> >
> > Howard G Walker wrote:
> >
> >> A Google search turns up 1250 URLs that include "trepidatious."
> >
> > I googled, and got "about 941".
> >
> > For what it's worth, I can date a use of the word to about 1960, and I
> > have used it several times in written material (including published
> > material) without anybody questioning it. But, then, maybe nobody
> > reads what I write.
>
> I Googled and found 1310.
Something went wrong with my Google yesterday. As my students say,
"Sounds like operator error." Now I'm getting 1,240 or 1,310.
"Trepid", by the way, gets about 3,120, but many of them look like...
is .ee Estonia? MWCD10 doesn't have "trepidatious", but it does have
"trepid", first used in 1650.
--
Jerry Friedman
Barbara
> "Barbara" <ba...@worldpath.net> writes:
>
> > "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
> > news:eld2ui...@hpl.hp.com...
> >
> >
> > [...]
> > > Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
> > > HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
> > > 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is
> > > Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
> > > |modern English without inadvertently
> > > kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
> > > (650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett
> > >
> > > http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
> >
> > Re: the Pratchett quote -- can you direct me to a list, Evan? The
> > words I've been using have become tedious.
>
> You should probably ask Rey. In such cases I typically turn to
> Freyer's _Mrs Grundy: Studies in English Prudery_, but I can't seem to
> find my copy. Looking at the web I find
>
> http://www.sex-lexis.com/SYNONYMS/FEMALE-GEN.htm
>
Thank you Evan. What can I say? My cup runneth over!
Babz
She'll never be bored again!
Had to use this google thing... your reply didn't show up on my server.
Barbara
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:g56llu0u4pqv4gbog...@4ax.com...
I admire your restraint, PB!
"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Unfortunately, I wasn't listening when She told me to mind my words.
Babz
Speechless
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
> > "Barbara" <ba...@worldpath.net> writes:
> > > Re: the Pratchett quote -- can you direct me to a list, Evan? The
> > > words I've been using have become tedious.
> >
> > You should probably ask Rey. In such cases I typically turn to
> > Freyer's _Mrs Grundy: Studies in English Prudery_, but I can't seem to
> > find my copy. Looking at the web I find
> >
> > http://www.sex-lexis.com/SYNONYMS/FEMALE-GEN.htm
> >
> <brief snip>
>
> Thank you Evan. What can I say? My cup runneth over!
Checking the list, I was surprised not to find that one. "Fuzzy cup"
and "hairy cup", but not plain (dare I say "bare"?) "cup".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |First Law of Anthropology:
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | If they're doing something you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | don't understand, it's either an
| isolated lunatic, a religious
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | ritual, or art.
(650)857-7572
Howard Tuckey
"Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d59a35b$0$31147$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I came to learn more of good English usage. I think the previous example is
not. Impressive words. Put together correctly? Apologies if this is not your
first language.
Oy!
Robert Lieblich
"Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> > You only present half the facts. Compared to about 131,000 Google hits
> > for 'trepidation', 1000 for 'trepidatious' is insignificant and must be
> > regarded as an abberation. There are over a million hits for 'millenium'
> > and 637,000 for 'seperate', but this doesn't make them correct. IMHO,
> > the WWW is one of the worst resources for such exercises philology. Any
> > Tom, Dick and Harry can put up a web page, and the ephemeral nature of
> > web pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for errors.
> >
> > Sebastian.
> "and the ephemeral nature of
> web pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for errors."
>
> I came to learn more of good English usage. I think the previous example is
> not. Impressive words. Put together correctly? Apologies if this is not your
> first language.
> Oy!
The ephemeral nature of Usenet postings (though archived, probably
99.99 percent of them are never seen again within a week of posting)
tends to mean that they are not assiduously checked for errors.
Sebastian Hew (with whom I disagree on the subject matter of this
thread, but that's no never-mind) is a literate native speaker of
English whose fingers seem for once to have gotten [Britons, please
note, "gotten"] ahead of his brain. BFD.
On the other hand, you, sir, are unknown to me, and this appears to
be your first posting to either of the English usage newsgroups.
You seem quite pugnacious. I hope you have more to offer than that.
--
Bob Lieblich
Da noive!
Robert Lieblich
snotty criticism (not quoted), by yet another person, of something
originally posted by Sebastian Hew to both groups in response to yet
another posting of mine to both groups. I think Mr. Hew is an AEU
participant, and I think he's entitled to see what's going on ... if
he gives a damn.]
GrapeApe wrote:
[and here's where he quotes my close paraphrase of Sebastian Hew
(vide infra)]
>
> << The ephemeral nature of Usenet postings (though archived, probably
> 99.99 percent of them are never seen again within a week of posting)
> tends to mean that they are not assiduously checked for errors. >><BR><BR>
And then he wrote:
>
> Most usage is not not assiduously checked for 'errors' either, it is merely
> usage as used. That is the point.
What poor Sebastian Hew wrote (that elicited the snotty comment by
the person other than GrapeApe) was: "The ephemeral nature of web
pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for errors"
(cut and pasted from the original posting). I don't take this as
"merely usage as used"? I find the singular verb "tend" untenable
--okay, "wrong" -- this side of nonstandard dialects, and I took it
for an error of typing and proofreading, not grammar or usage. Same
for the omission of "are" after "they" That is my point.
I might add that the person who made the original snotty remark (not
reproduced here), which led me to point out that poor Sebastian Hew
was a literate person who had apparently had an off day at the
proofreading machine, seemed, like GrapeApe, to assume, or at least
to imply, that "nature ... tend" and "they" with no verb were what
Mr. Hew intended. I don't believe that for a minute.
--
Bob Lieblich
Come back, Sebastian, all is forgiven
Howard Tuckey
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D5C3C50...@Verizon.net...
I meant no snottiness atall! I was only surprised to see the error involving
said singular verb, as well as the verb-less 'they' in a venue purported to
be offering correctly-written (and spoken) English.
And as for my bona fides -- credentials did not seem to be in question here.
I thought, at least, that they were less important than proper usage (as the
newsgroup name implies).
At any rate, please accept my apologies for tweaking obviously sensitive
appendages!
I'll try to be less pedantic in the future.
Raymond S. Wise
Lieblich:
> I meant no snottiness atall! I was only surprised to see the error involving
> said singular verb, as well as the verb-less 'they' in a venue purported to
> be offering correctly-written (and spoken) English.
> And as for my bona fides -- credentials did not seem to be in question here.
> I thought, at least, that they were less important than proper usage (as the
> newsgroup name implies).
> At any rate, please accept my apologies for tweaking obviously sensitive
> appendages!
> I'll try to be less pedantic in the future.
English usage is indeed discussed in this newsgroup, but "proper
usage" is of interest only to those who agree with the concept of
"proper usage." You will never see me labeling a given usage "proper"
or "improper." "Standard usage," yes, "nonstandard," yes, "slang,"
yes. As a criticism I might use the terms "awkward," or "verbose," or
"inappropriate register," but I would never use "proper" or
"improper." I might occasionally mention that some other person
considers a given usage "proper" or "improper," but I don't use those
terms myself, nor am I in favor of the concept. The following is from
a fast-access FAQ excerpt from Mark Israel's FAQ for
alt.usage.english:
From
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwelcom.html
[quote]
alt.usage.english is a newsgroup where we discuss the English
language (and also occasionally other languages). We discuss
how particular words, phrases, and syntactic forms are used; how
they originated; and where in the English-speaking world they're
prevalent. (All this is called "description".) We also discuss
how we think they *should* be used ("prescription").
[...]
alt.usage.english is for everyone, *not* only for linguists,
native speakers, or descriptivists.
[end quote]
By the way, I disagree with the above definition of "prescription." I
am in favor of language reform, but I don't for a moment believe that
that is prescription. Most prescriptivists[1] do not act as if they
are advocating reform, they instead believe in the fiction that the
reforms they advocate are already-existing "good English."
As the above FAQ excerpt says, "alt.usage.english is for everyone."
Presumably, just about everyone who reads it is interested in usage,
but only a subset is interested in "proper usage."
Note:
[1] I use the qualifying word "most" here because there are
theoretically prescriptivists who are aware that they are proposing
reforms to the language, and not talking about the English language as
it actually exists. I have not encountered one yet, but I have heard
that they exist, and it is at least a possibility.
Mike Lyle
> > > the WWW is one of the worst resources for such exercises philology. Any
> > > Tom, Dick and Harry can put up a web page, and the ephemeral nature of
> > > web pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for errors.
> > >
> > "and the ephemeral nature of
> > web pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for errors."
> >
> > I came to learn more of good English usage. I think the previous example is
> > not. Impressive words. Put together correctly? Apologies if this is not your
> > first language.
> > Oy!
>
> The ephemeral nature of Usenet postings [..]
> tends to mean that they are not assiduously checked for errors.
[...]
> On the other hand, you, sir, are unknown to me, and this appears to
> be your first posting to either of the English usage newsgroups.
> You seem quite pugnacious. I hope you have more to offer than that.
Amen to that. But the effects of "the ephemeral nature of web pages"
(not Usenet) interest me. Till earlier this year I was Internet Editor
for a newspaper group, and we spent part of every day subbing copy
which had already been subbed and published in print precisely because
I felt that small mistakes which we might tolerate in print became
more glaring when they appeared on a web page. Was I wrong, I wonder?
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> For what it's worth, I can date a use of the word to about 1960, and I
> have used it several times in written material (including published
> material) without anybody questioning it. But, then, maybe nobody
> reads what I write.
>
trepidatious, why not 'contritious', or indeed 'audation'?
I'm proud to be associated with somebody who'll soon be cited in the
OED, even if I do think his word's lousy.
(Does anybody share my feeling that Terry Pratchett is playing a
little private game of trying to get quoted in OED? Terry, if you read
aue, please tell us: we're on your side here.)
Mike.
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:<836jlug8jh7q1o4or...@4ax.com>...
>[...]
>>
>> For what it's worth, I can date a use of the word to about 1960, and I
>> have used it several times in written material (including published
>> material) without anybody questioning it. But, then, maybe nobody
>> reads what I write.
>>
>Well, I certainly read what you write for aue -- avidly.
>
Thank you. That's nice to know.
> But if
>trepidatious, why not 'contritious', or indeed 'audation'?
>
There is less apparent need for them. But "contritious" has some
appeal for me.
>I'm proud to be associated with somebody who'll soon be cited in the
>OED, even if I do think his word's lousy.
>
I don't claim to have coined it, just to having used it.
Confession time: I went back to the 1960 document which I had in mind
(not written by me) and failed to find the word. I withdraw that part
of my contribution to the discussion.
...
PB
Mark Wallace
> "Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3d59a35b$0$31147$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've heard "trepidatious." I've seen it in print. It shows up
>>> on Google (1310 listings, plus another 222 for "trepidacious").
>>> The anecdotal evidence of postings to this thread suggest that
>>> people know what it means and what its derivation is.
>>>
>>> There was a thread on this same topic on AUE in June 2000. Same
>>> general results.
>>>
>>> The dictionary is not the final arbiter of wordness. Usage is.
>>> The dictionaries record usage and therefore inevitably run late
>>> in recognizing a new word when it arrives. I predict that we
>>> will soon see "trepidatious" in the dictionaries. AFAIC, it's
>>> a word.
>>
>> You only present half the facts. Compared to about 131,000
>> Google hits for 'trepidation', 1000 for 'trepidatious' is
>> insignificant and must be regarded as an abberation. There are
>> over a million hits for 'millenium' and 637,000 for 'seperate',
>> but this doesn't make them correct. IMHO, the WWW is one of the
>> worst resources for such exercises philology. Any Tom, Dick and
>> Harry can put up a web page, and the ephemeral nature of web
>> pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for
>> errors.
>>
> web pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for
> errors."
>
> I came to learn more of good English usage. I think the previous
> example is not. Impressive words. Put together correctly?
> Apologies if this is not your first language.
> Oy!
'Tends' rather than 'tend'; the verb 'mean' could do with changing;
and 'so', rather than 'as' -- but I doubt that anyone who read it
misunderstood its meaning. It's good enough.
Mark Wallace
That depends on who reads the books and who visits the web pages.
For a movie book or site, for example, who of its readers/visitors
gives a damn about grammar, so long as there are pretty pictures?
Sebastian Hew
>> Most usage is not not assiduously checked for 'errors' either, it is
>> merely usage as used. That is the point.
>
> What poor Sebastian Hew wrote (that elicited the snotty comment by
> the person other than GrapeApe) was: "The ephemeral nature of web
> pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for errors"
> (cut and pasted from the original posting). I don't take this as
> "merely usage as used"? I find the singular verb "tend" untenable
> --okay, "wrong" -- this side of nonstandard dialects, and I took it
> for an error of typing and proofreading, not grammar or usage. Same
> for the omission of "are" after "they" That is my point.
Thank you for coming so ably to my defence, Robert. I was in something
of a hurry when I posted before, and so far, three errors have been
pointed out. As you rightly say, they are indeed errors, and I make no
excuses to justify them, other than that I was typing rather faster than
I was thinking. Though unintentional, this was perhaps an example of the
ephemeral nature of web posts leading to less careful checking. :-)
> I might add that the person who made the original snotty remark (not
> reproduced here), which led me to point out that poor Sebastian Hew
> was a literate person who had apparently had an off day at the
> proofreading machine, seemed, like GrapeApe, to assume, or at least
> to imply, that "nature ... tend" and "they" with no verb were what
> Mr. Hew intended. I don't believe that for a minute.
Indeed, I had not intended 'nature ... tend' and 'they' without a verb.
I was somewhat taken aback by the flurry of posts that they had
occasioned. Whilst I am firmly of the opinion that one ought to strive
for the highest ideal in English grammar, I am not so arrogant as to
think that I never make a mistake.
At any rate, thanks again for taking up my case in my absence.
Sebastian.
Howard Tuckey
Hello Sebastian!
Now that you're here in person I can apologise likewise. Truly I meant no
snottiness, nor did I intend to come across as pugnacious. And I am sorry if
I have offended.
Apparently I have mistaken the intent of this forum, and have got(ten) off
on the wrong foot.
Please accept my sincere apology.
howard
>
Peter Duncanson
When I, a Briton, was being taught English in England (early
1950s) the word "gotten" was not in the teacher's vocabulary of
acceptable words - an abominable Americanism.
The word "got" itself was deprecated and tended to attract
excessive quantities of red ink and vocal outpourings:
"By more specific. Write exactly what you mean boy! When you say
that 'he got a bicycle' what do you mean? How did he acquire it?
Did he buy it, borrow it, steal it, receive it as a gift, or did
it drop like manna from heaven?"
--
Peter D.
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
Howard Tuckey
"Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote in message
news:ajipgc$1bmgcs$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> "it's good enough" <
is good enough.
I'm not picking on the error itself, but the idea that there is an arbitrary
"good enough" standard apart from the common (and very real) rules of
writing/speaking/communicating is in itself scary.
In today's hair-trigger world can we really afford to take a chance on "good
enough" when it comes to saying/meaning what we mean/say?
If this is not the venue for such radical thinking please say so and I'll go
away, hoping that my doctor doesn't write something that's "good enough" to
him, but that my pharmacist totally misinterprets, resulting in hair growing
where no hair has gone before.
howard
Raymond S. Wise
>
> >
> > At the risk of further alienation I am a bit troubled by the idea that
> > "it's good enough" <
> is good enough.
> > I'm not picking on the error itself, but the idea that there is an arbitrary
> "good enough" standard apart from the common (and very real) rules of
> writing/speaking/communicating is in itself scary.
>
> In today's hair-trigger world can we really afford to take a chance on "good
> enough" when it comes to saying/meaning what we mean/say?
>
> If this is not the venue for such radical thinking please say so and I'll go
> away, hoping that my doctor doesn't write something that's "good enough" to
> him, but that my pharmacist totally misinterprets, resulting in hair growing
> where no hair has gone before.
> howard
>
The purpose of language is to accomplish something. If your doctor
writes a prescription, and the pharmacist fills it with a medicine
which was not what was intended, someone is at error and the purpose
for which the prescription was written has been defeated. If the fault
lies with what your doctor wrote or the manner in which he wrote it,
then he did *not* fulfill his duty "good enough." On the other hand,
if your doctor were to print a roman "a" in one spot and an italic "a"
in another, then he has indeed done "good enough," since the
pharmacist would have no trouble filling the prescription. In such a
case we should recognize that the doctor at least had the good
judgment to print the prescription instead of writing it out in
cursive.
What is "good enough" differs from one situation to another. A
misspelling which would be of little concern if seen on an Army base
bulletin board in a "to sale" notice would be one thing. A misspelling
on a boulder in an inscription intended to salute fallen comrades
would be quite another. (I have, in fact, seen such a misspelling on a
monument on an army base.)
One thing which is annoying about disputes concerning language usage
is that sometimes an argument is put forth that is utterly pointless.
Those who argue that it is useful to have a distinction between "12
items of less" and "12 items or fewer" are arguing nonsense: As I have
pointed out before, French gets by with one word ("moins") which can
translate both the word "less" and the word "fewer." The argument that
the distinction is traditional is one which is at least worthy of
consideration, but the argument that the distinction is *useful* is
just silly. Whether "12 items of less" is accepted as standard or not,
it is "good enough" as far as conveying the meaning intended.
(By the way, your subject line may have been "good enough" to get your
intended meaning across, but mine is more in keeping with Usenet
conventions.)
Raymond S. Wise
> What is "good enough" differs from one situation to another. A
> misspelling which would be of little concern if seen on an Army base
> bulletin board in a "to sale" notice would be one thing. A misspelling
> on a boulder in an inscription intended to salute fallen comrades
> would be quite another. (I have, in fact, seen such a misspelling on a
> monument on an army base.)
No, I did not make the error on purpose. The words "to sale" should
have been "For Sale"--I can also imagine such a note being headed "To
Sell"--but what I wrote was good enough to make my point, wasn't it?
jan_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>mpl...@my-deja.com (Raymond S. Wise) wrote:
>
>> What is "good enough" differs from one situation to another. A
>> misspelling which would be of little concern if seen on an Army base
>> bulletin board in a "to sale" notice would be one thing. A misspelling
>> on a boulder in an inscription intended to salute fallen comrades
>> would be quite another. (I have, in fact, seen such a misspelling on a
>> monument on an army base.)
>
>
>No, I did not make the error on purpose. The words "to sale" should
>have been "For Sale"--I can also imagine such a note being headed "To
>Sell"--but what I wrote was good enough to make my point, wasn't it?
Although I am philosophically in agreement with your point, a good
deal of the posting in this news group would be non-existent if we all
said "What the hell - it's good enough."
Jan Sand
Kurt Kurosawa
"Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:47dd044c.0208...@posting.google.com...
> (I have, in fact, seen such a misspelling on a
> monument on an army base.)
You may be the only one in the NG who has actually seen a monumental
mistake.
Howard Tuckey
"To sale" the same as "For sale?" I dunno -- what if the item was a map?
:-)
James Kilpatrick's 8/18 column (in today's newspaper) is an interesting one,
especially after following this thread.
howard
Mark Wallace
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> news:ajipgc$1bmgcs$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
>> Howard Tuckey wrote:
>>> "Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> "and the ephemeral nature of
>>> web pages tend to mean that they not checked as assiduously for
>>> errors."
>>>
>>> I came to learn more of good English usage. I think the previous
>>> example is not. Impressive words. Put together correctly?
>>> Apologies if this is not your first language.
>>> Oy!
>>
>> 'Tends' rather than 'tend'; the verb 'mean' could do with
>> changing; and 'so', rather than 'as' -- but I doubt that anyone
>> who read it misunderstood its meaning. It's good enough.
>>
>> At the risk of further alienation I am a bit troubled by the
>> idea that "it's good enough" <
> is good enough.
> I'm not picking on the error itself, but the idea that there is
> an arbitrary "good enough" standard apart from the common (and
> very real) rules of writing/speaking/communicating is in itself
> scary.
Is it at all possible to read a meaning into the sentence other than
that which Sebastian intended?
I'd say not.
It may not have been grammatically good enough for publication, but,
even with errors, it is still of a superior quality than that of
most Usenet postings.
> In today's hair-trigger world can we really afford to take a
> chance on "good enough" when it comes to saying/meaning what we
> mean/say?
If what you write says exactly what you mean, and cannot be
misinterpreted, then how can it be other than 'good enough'?
I think it's obvious to all here that the sentence in question only
contains errors because it was written in haste -- and the biggest
error in it is the typographical omission of an 's'.
Big deal.
> If this is not the venue for such radical thinking please say so
> and I'll go away, hoping that my doctor doesn't write something
> that's "good enough" to him, but that my pharmacist totally
> misinterprets, resulting in hair growing where no hair has gone
> before.
I don't recall describing a mistyped prescription from your doctor
as being 'good enough'. I described so a sentence which said
exactly what it meant, and could not easily be misinterpreted.
And yes, this *is* tiresome.
The point of the group is not to haughtily poke fingers at slips in
other posters' postings -- otherwise, I might have been willing to
sneeringly lambaste you for your 'alot'.
Robert Lieblich
Good pun but false premise. I recall a bronze plaque erected at the
synagogue I belonged to when young that contained the following
quotation from Isaish: "Let justice well up like waters, and
righteouness like a mighty stream."
Had to go back and edit in the error, having correctly typed the
actually misspelled word the first time.
--
Bob Lieblich
Perfectly capable of misspelling with no help
Howard Tuckey
error/tupo/slip/brain fart -- whatever you might want to call it. We're
beyond that point.
I was commenting on your (also very plain) "It's good enough," wondering
how we've arrived at that nebulous standard, and how far we are willing to
allow it to float.
And where did you see me write "alot?" That's one of my pet peeves, and I
would be most embarrassed and aggrieved if I had actually written it, even
as a tupographicla error. Perhaps you're referring to my use of "atall,"
which I had thought was an acceptable colloquialism.
But you're right -- this *is* getting tiresome.
Mark Wallace
> error/tupo/slip/brain fart -- whatever you might want to call it.
> We're beyond that point.
> I was commenting on your (also very plain) "It's good enough,"
> wondering how we've arrived at that nebulous standard, and how
> far we are willing to allow it to float.
Are you saying that every word I write constitutes a rule of English
grammar?
I commented on one -- count 'em: *one* -- sentence, which was
perfectly good enough for reasons I've already stated twice, and
will not repeat.
Are you going to carry on in this way, picking up on every word that
anyone writes and trying to criticise it?
Let me know now, so I can killfile you early.
> And where did you see me write "alot?" That's one of my pet
> peeves, and I would be most embarrassed and aggrieved if I had
> actually written it, even as a tupographicla error. Perhaps
> you're referring to my use of "atall," which I had thought was an
> acceptable colloquialism.
So it was. Same thing, though, and just as unacceptable. Try
"a'tall".
Howard Tuckey
sensibilities. I shall desist.
Sebastian Hew
> Hello Sebastian!
> Now that you're here in person I can apologise likewise. Truly I
> meant no snottiness, nor did I intend to come across as pugnacious.
> And I am sorry if I have offended.
> Apparently I have mistaken the intent of this forum, and have
> got(ten) off on the wrong foot.
> Please accept my sincere apology.
> howard
I was perhaps rather more irritated than offended, but, in any case,
think no more of it.
Regards,
Sebastian.
Mason Barge
[snip on topic discussion]
>
>One thing which is annoying about disputes concerning language usage
>is that sometimes an argument is put forth that is utterly pointless.
>Those who argue that it is useful to have a distinction between "12
>items of less" and "12 items or fewer" are arguing nonsense: As I have
>pointed out before, French gets by with one word ("moins") which can
>translate both the word "less" and the word "fewer." The argument that
>the distinction is traditional is one which is at least worthy of
>consideration, but the argument that the distinction is *useful* is
>just silly. Whether "12 items of less" is accepted as standard or not,
>it is "good enough" as far as conveying the meaning intended.
What a naive argument. Why don't the French get rid of "tu" and just use
"vous"? The English get by with one word for "you".
"Fewer" and "less" have distinct meanings. Must we simplify the language
because some people don't want to take the trouble to learn a logical
distinction? Really, I suppose, it is "fewer" that is the oddball.
But it is a precise term and allows for a more precise statement. A choral
director saying he needs "fewer men" or "less men" during a passage might be
saying two completely different things. The presence of "fewer" means he can
say exactly what he means without needing further explanation.
--
Mason Barge
"People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Roberta Davies
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:31:16 GMT, walrus <worl...@world.com> wrote:
>
> >I have just been informed that there is no such word as
> >"trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
>
> I've heard it. I don't know where. It seems a proper extension of
> 'trepidation'. But if you want to use something unusual, just use
> 'trepid', which does appear in dictionaries.
"Trepid" might be in the dictionary, but if I ran across it cold I'd be
stumped. "Trepidatious" causes no such problems.
Robbie
Truly Donovan
>>
>> >I have just been informed that there is no such word as
>> >"trepidatious." Can anyone verify?
David Letterman used it on the Late Show just last week. I'm
sure he didn't make it up.
--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com
*Winslow's Wife* (June 2002)
*Chandler's Daughter* (2000)
jan_...@hotmail.com
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>"By more specific. Write exactly what you mean boy! When you say
>that 'he got a bicycle' what do you mean? How did he acquire it?
>Did he buy it, borrow it, steal it, receive it as a gift, or did
>it drop like manna from heaven?"
Was "He hasn't got a bicycle." acceptable?
Jan Sand
Peter Duncanson
I don't recall that specifically.
However, I suspect that either of the following would have been
acceptable:
"He doesn't have a bicycle" or
"He hasn't a bicycle".
But "He does not possess a bicycle" would probably have been the
winner.
It would depend on the formality of the writing.
"Got" was deprecated in the context of learning to express
ourselves in English.
An analogy from physical education might be a cross country run.
The direct route from start to finish might take only a few
seconds, but that would be to miss the point of the exercise
which would be to run for a substantial distance across various
types of terrain.
Similarly "got" was the easy route.