proper adjectives?
josule
nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
character from the Bible, to an adjective. Is it Jobian? Jobean?
Jobish? What are the guidelines for such problems?
Thanks
Josule
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Walkers
josule <jos...@netZero.net> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
> nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
> character from the Bible, to an adjective. Is it Jobian? Jobean?
> Jobish? What are the guidelines for such problems?
Dear Josule:
I don't believe--though others may have superior knowledge--that there
are "rules" as such for what you want done. I suggest "Job-like" as
the most natural adjective; if that doesn't fit the context well, you
will likely just have to use a few words--"reminiscent of Job" or the
like.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Owlcroft House
Alex Chernavsky
>Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for
>turning proper nouns into adjectives? In particular,
>I'm trying to convert Job, the character from the Bible,
>to an adjective. Is it Jobian? Jobean? Jobish? What
>are the guidelines for such problems?
Job-like?
Jobesque?
Which reminds me of another, related question -- what is the rule (if any)
for adding "-esque" to the end of a noun? Why is it "Rubenesque" and not
"RubenSesque"? Is it because the former is easier to pronounce? Does the
trailing "s" always get dropped? If I wanted to coin an adjective
describing a curious mixture of arrogance and ignorance, would it be
"Hinesesque" or "Hinesque"?
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
mike-lyle
>Josule wrote:
>
>.....Is it Jobian? Jobean? Jobish? What
>>are the guidelines for such problems?
>
>Job-like?
>
>Jobesque?
>
Jobsworth?
>Which reminds me of another, related question -- what is the
rule (if any)
>for adding "-esque" to the end of a noun? Why is
it "Rubenesque" and not
>"RubenSesque"?
I thought it _was_ RubenSesque, and that the rule was that you
just put it there without change. Anglo loyalists might say it
was better to stick with Rubens-like, or doesn't that cover the
range? Rubensian sounds ugly.
Hwyl, Mike.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Alex Chernavsky
>I thought it _was_ RubenSesque
Not according to MWCD10:
Main Entry: Ru·ben·esque
Pronunciation: "rü-b&-'nesk
Function: adjective
Date: 1925
: of, relating to, or suggestive of the painter Rubens or his works;
especially : plump or rounded usually in a pleasing or attractive way <a
Rubenesque figure>
There is not entry for "Rubensesque", though "Rubensian" is listed (but not
defined) under the biographical entry for Rubens, Peter Paul 1577-1640.
Google gives 44 hits for "rubensesque", but 2,599 for the non-s form.
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
>nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
>Jobish? What are the guidelines for such problems?
Like most people who have responded, I'm not sure that there are firm
guidelines. A quick web search didn't find any instances of <Jobish>
(though there is an homonymous proper name), but there were quite a few
instances of <Jobian>. I found only a handful each for <Job-esque> and
<Jobesque> (I couldn't find an engine that could distinguish "Job-like"
from "job like", so any useful hits were lost in a sea of false ones.)
<Jobian> isn't in the OED, but it seems a perfect reasonable coinage on
the model of <Jovian>. *<Jobean> looks wrong to me; I only recall seeing
this kind of ending when the word ends in a non-silent <e> (e.g. <Goethe-
an>, <Aphroditean>).
As for <Job-esque>, it suggests to me "in the style of Job" rather than
"having to do with Job". Perhaps that's because of its use in the art
world. To quote the OED:
In Ital. derivatives in -esco are formed ad libitum on names of
artists, and Fr. and Eng. writers on art have imitated this
practice. The words formed with this suffix on Eng. sbs. are
chiefly nonce-words of a jocular character, as cigaresque. Other
formations separately noticed include Audenesque, Bramantesque,
Browningesque, Caravagg(i)esque, Carlylesque, Chaplinesque,
Dantonesque, Dickensesque, Disneyesque, Macaulayesque, Turneresque.
Note that all the other examples are creative types, e.g. writers, film-
makers, etc. I don't think Job fits very comfortably into this class.
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
James Silverton
>
> In article <8jarj4$n5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, josule <jos...@netZero.net> wrote:
> >Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
> >nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
I've gone through several dictionaries and the only method I've come
across is to use the possessive, i.e. Job's. I really doubt that there
are any general rules. There is one word derived from Job, jobation: a
tedious scolding.
Jim
--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland.
Benjamin Krefetz
> Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
> nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
> Jobish? What are the guidelines for such problems?
The Harvard catalog lists the course "Lit. and Arts A-80: The Book of Job and
the Joban Tradition", if that's any help.
Ben
mike-lyle
Brian M. Scott
Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
[...]
>*<Jobean> looks wrong to me; I only recall seeing
>this kind of ending when the word ends in a non-silent <e> (e.g. <Goethe-
>an>, <Aphroditean>).
<Fortean> ~ <Charles Fort>
[...]
Brian M. Scott
The Walkers
"Alex Chernavsky" <al...@astrocyte-design.com> wrote:
[after snips for brevity]
> Jobesque?
>
> Which reminds me of another, related question -- what is the rule (if
> any) for adding "-esque" to the end of a noun? Why is it
> "Rubenesque" and not "RubenSesque"? Is it because the former is
> easier to pronounce? Does the trailing "s" always get dropped? If I
> wanted to coin an adjective describing a curious mixture of arrogance
> and ignorance, would it be "Hinesesque" or "Hinesque"?
Dear Alex:
I cannot comment with authority on a rule, but the adduced examples
suggest that syllable count may enter the reckoning. In the instance
case, that would make "Hinesesque"--but, as has been noted, the
construction is usually applied to denote similarities to the work or
style of a creative artist, so whether or not Mr. Hines qualifies for
such a construction will depend on one's sense of creativity, artistry,
and also irony.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
HMM! Suppose the motivation is to preserve the pronunciation /i@n/? (The
spelling <Fortian> would invite the pronunciation /'fOrS@n/.)
Actually, this could equally well be the reasoning behind <Goethean> and
<Aphroditean> rather than simply a desire to preserve the original spell-
ing. Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
William F. Clevenger
disciplines such as history, theology, sociology, etc. and then pass into
our Lexicon. Some are creative and interesting and some suck like legal
terms, bureaucratic trash, and military terms. One of the changes the
pentagon wanted and got on a paper my colleagues and i wrote on Funeral
Arrangements for Contaminated Civilian Casualties from Army Chemical
Weapons Disasters, was to take out all references to body bag and replace
it with human remains receptacles. As if the title was not enough to
commit suicide over.
josule wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
> nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
> character from the Bible, to an adjective. Is it Jobian? Jobean?
> Jobish? What are the guidelines for such problems?
>
> Thanks
>
> Josule
James Silverton
>
> James Silverton wrote:
> >
> > D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> > >
> > > >Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
> > > >nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
> >
> > across is to use the possessive, i.e. Job's. I really doubt that there
> > are any general rules. There is one word derived from Job, jobation: a
> > tedious scolding.
>
That's more or less what the dictionary said.
Jim.
F.-J. Harbecke
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3959261a...@nntp.stratos.net...
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:53:54 GMT, de...@midway.uchicago.edu (D. Edward
> Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >*<Jobean> looks wrong to me; I only recall seeing
> >this kind of ending when the word ends in a non-silent <e> (e.g. <Goethe-
> >an>, <Aphroditean>).
>
> <Fortean> ~ <Charles Fort>
Franz-Josef
--
\\//_ Live long and prosper!
Martin Ambuhl
josule wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
> nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
> character from the Bible, to an adjective. Is it Jobian? Jobean?
> Jobish? What are the guidelines for such problems?
"Job-like" should work.
Since the attribute associate with "a Job" is great patience, "patient" and
similar words might do.
Note that the English word "job" has already a claim to "jobbish" with two
very different meanings, neither of which has anything to do with the Biblical
Job. Also note that words that look like they could derive from "jobe",
itself a derivative of the Bib. Job, will have a different meaning from that
you intend.
--
Martin Ambuhl mam...@earthlink.net
What one knows is, in youth, of little moment; they know enough who
know how to learn. - Henry Adams
A thick skin is a gift from God. - Konrad Adenauer
Martin Ambuhl
James Silverton wrote:
>
> D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> >
> > In article <8jarj4$n5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, josule <jos...@netZero.net> wrote:
> > >Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
> > >nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
>
> I've gone through several dictionaries and the only method I've come
> across is to use the possessive, i.e. Job's. I really doubt that there
> are any general rules. There is one word derived from Job, jobation: a
> tedious scolding.
Job -> jobe -> jobation
Martin Ambuhl
James Silverton wrote:
>
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >
> > James Silverton wrote:
> > >
> > > D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <8jarj4$n5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, josule <jos...@netZero.net> wrote:
> > > > >Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
> > > > >nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
> > >
> > > I've gone through several dictionaries and the only method I've come
> > > across is to use the possessive, i.e. Job's. I really doubt that there
> > > are any general rules. There is one word derived from Job, jobation: a
> > > tedious scolding.
> >
> > Job -> jobe -> jobation
>
> That's more or less what the dictionary said.
That's (at least) two words derived from Job, not one.
Clau
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> a écrit dans le message : >
> >*<Jobean> looks wrong to me; I only recall seeing
> >this kind of ending when the word ends in a non-silent <e> (e.g. <Goethe-
> >an>, <Aphroditean>).
>
> <Fortean> ~ <Charles Fort>
What about <Jacobean>?
CLAU
a1a5...@sprint.ca
Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
> Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
>--
> Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
> (de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
> /____\ gegen die Kunst!
Well, there's always Quixote, which may be Quixotic,
Quixotesque or Quicksottish -- as you may remember.
James Silverton
OK, let's start another thread! How do you pronounce quixotic; the
historical as it is written or the often current attempt at Spanish:
"kihotic"?
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:25:42 GMT, de...@midway.uchicago.edu (D. Edward
>Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>
>> Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
>>--
>> Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
>> (de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
>> /____\ gegen die Kunst!
>
> Well, there's always Quixote, which may be Quixotic,
>Quixotesque or Quicksottish -- as you may remember.
"Quixotic" has become lexicalised and lost much of its original associ-
ation will El Manchego (as the common pronunciation reveals--but who wants
to revisit that windmill?) Another bout of Google searches [*] reveals:
Quijotian 171
Quixotian 18
Quixote-esque 12
Quixotesque 9
Quixotean 5
Quijotesque 2
Quijote-esque 1
Quijotean 0
This only confuses me more as to the determining factors for <ian> vs.
<ean>. I suppose it's too much to hope for a learned monograph on the
subject?
[*] Don't worry, I'm well aware of the limitations of web searches as a
lexical tool. However, there are few quicker ways of getting an informal
snapshot of current usage.
Colin Fine
mike-lyle <mike_lyle_...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:04d4f276...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com...> >.....Is it Jobian? Jobean? Jobish? What
> >>are the guidelines for such problems?
There are no strong guidelines. As others have pointed out, -esque suggests
an artistic style, but the rest seems to be a free-for-all. I would go for
Jobean myself, but I can't say why.
Note the distinction between Jacob'ean (pertaining to James I) and Ja'cobian
(pertaining to a mathematician named Jacobi).
> >Which reminds me of another, related question -- what is the
> rule (if any)
> >for adding "-esque" to the end of a noun? Why is
> it "Rubenesque" and not
> >"RubenSesque"?
> I thought it _was_ RubenSesque, and that the rule was that you
> just put it there without change. Anglo loyalists might say it
> was better to stick with Rubens-like, or doesn't that cover the
> range? Rubensian sounds ugly.
> Hwyl, Mike.
>
Again, I don't think there is a definite answer. The preference for
Rubenesque, however, I think I can account for: derivative affixes (such
as -esque and -ian) come before grammatical inflections (such as plural -s).
This doesn't prevent derivative affixes following a non-plural -s (as in
Dickensian); but if there is any sense that the name ending in -s might
actually be plural, this will tend to block adding the ending after it.
Peter Moylan
>HMM! Suppose the motivation is to preserve the pronunciation /i@n/? (The
>spelling <Fortian> would invite the pronunciation /'fOrS@n/.)
>
>Actually, this could equally well be the reasoning behind <Goethean> and
><Aphroditean> rather than simply a desire to preserve the original spell-
>ing. Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
Titian?
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Peter Moylan <pe...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>
>>HMM! Suppose the motivation is to preserve the pronunciation /i@n/? (The
>>spelling <Fortian> would invite the pronunciation /'fOrS@n/.)
>>
>>Actually, this could equally well be the reasoning behind <Goethean> and
>><Aphroditean> rather than simply a desire to preserve the original spell-
>>ing. Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
>
>Titian?
Which <Tit> did you have in mind?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <8jepmk$4od$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>,
> Peter Moylan <pe...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> >D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> >
> >>HMM! Suppose the motivation is to preserve the pronunciation /i@n/? (The
> >>spelling <Fortian> would invite the pronunciation /'fOrS@n/.)
> >>
> >>Actually, this could equally well be the reasoning behind <Goethean> and
> >><Aphroditean> rather than simply a desire to preserve the original spell-
> >>ing. Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
> >
> >Titian?
>
> Which <Tit> did you have in mind?
They don't occur in the singular, remember.
(That from a bizarre thread that a.u.e. were spared, I'm pretty sure.)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>>
>> In article <8jepmk$4od$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>,
>> Peter Moylan <pe...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>> >D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>> >
>> >>HMM! Suppose the motivation is to preserve the pronunciation /i@n/? (The
>> >>spelling <Fortian> would invite the pronunciation /'fOrS@n/.)
>> >>
>> >>Actually, this could equally well be the reasoning behind <Goethean> and
>> >><Aphroditean> rather than simply a desire to preserve the original spell-
>> >>ing. Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
>> >
>> >Titian?
>>
>> Which <Tit> did you have in mind?
>
>They don't occur in the singular, remember.
Speak for your own!
>(That from a bizarre thread that a.u.e. were spared, I'm pretty sure.)
Shame, really; would've been a better discussion than the ungodly cross-
posted flame-fest going on now.
Benjamin Krefetz
> D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>>
>> In article <8jepmk$4od$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>,
>> Peter Moylan <pe...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>> >D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>> >
>> >>HMM! Suppose the motivation is to preserve the pronunciation /i@n/? (The
>> >>spelling <Fortian> would invite the pronunciation /'fOrS@n/.)
>> >>
>> >>Actually, this could equally well be the reasoning behind <Goethean> and
>> >><Aphroditean> rather than simply a desire to preserve the original spell-
>> >>ing. Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
>> >
>> >Titian?
>>
>> Which <Tit> did you have in mind?
> They don't occur in the singular, remember.
Except on Amazons.
Ben
Mike Page
Moylan) wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>
>>HMM! Suppose the motivation is to preserve the pronunciation /i@n/? (The
>>spelling <Fortian> would invite the pronunciation /'fOrS@n/.)
>>
>>Actually, this could equally well be the reasoning behind <Goethean> and
>><Aphroditean> rather than simply a desire to preserve the original spell-
>>ing. Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
>
>Titian?
Why is the adjective from 'Foucault' 'Foucauldian'?
Mike Page
'We share half our genes with the banana' Robert May, UK Chief Scientist
Let the ape escape for e-mail
Arne Dehli Halvorsen
Mike Page <mi...@pagehq.orang.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:395c5ef5....@news.freeserve.net...
(snip)>
> Why is the adjective from 'Foucault' 'Foucauldian'?
And from 'Shaw' 'Shavian', and 'Barrow' 'Barrovian', similar for Morrow,
Harrow, Barlow...
Makes me wonder about that fellow Pavlow...
Arne
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In alt.usage.english Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter Moylan <pe...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> >> >D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>HMM! Suppose the motivation is to preserve the pronunciation /i@n/? (The
> >> >>spelling <Fortian> would invite the pronunciation /'fOrS@n/.)
> >> >>
> >> >>Actually, this could equally well be the reasoning behind <Goethean> and
> >> >><Aphroditean> rather than simply a desire to preserve the original spell-
> >> >>ing. Any other adjectives derived from proper names ending in <t(e)>?
> >> >
> >> >Titian?
> >>
>
> > They don't occur in the singular, remember.
>
> Except on Amazons.
Somehow the claimant stopped making the claim when I suggested his
speakers wouldn't be able to talk about the Amazons.
Aaron J Dinkin
> Mike Page <mi...@pagehq.orang.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:395c5ef5....@news.freeserve.net...
>
>> Why is the adjective from 'Foucault' 'Foucauldian'?
>
> And from 'Shaw' 'Shavian', and 'Barrow' 'Barrovian', similar for Morrow,
> Harrow, Barlow...
Say, how do people pronounce "Shavian"? AHD says /'Sevi@n/, but I wonder
how many might prefer to say "Shaw-vian" (with whatever vowel they use in
"Shaw".
> Makes me wonder about that fellow Pavlow...
That name rings a bell.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Egbert Lenderink
>
> D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> >
> > In article <8jepmk$4od$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>,
> > Peter Moylan <pe...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> > >Titian?
> >
> > Which <Tit> did you have in mind?
>
> They don't occur in the singular, remember.
>
Yes they do. Many times I saw only one single tit on the string of
peanuts hanging in my backyard.
Egbert.
--
This message reflects my personal opinions only, not necessarily those
of the company I work for.
Skitt
Aaron J Dinkin <din...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:8ji840$a97$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
Yeah, makes me think of that other fellow with the dogs.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
Dr Robin Bignall
>
>Aaron J Dinkin <din...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
>news:8ji840$a97$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
>> In alt.usage.english Arne Dehli Halvorsen <a...@computas.no> wrote:
>>
>> > Mike Page <mi...@pagehq.orang.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:395c5ef5....@news.freeserve.net...
>> >
>> >> Why is the adjective from 'Foucault' 'Foucauldian'?
>> >
>> > And from 'Shaw' 'Shavian', and 'Barrow' 'Barrovian', similar for Morrow,
>> > Harrow, Barlow...
>>
>> Say, how do people pronounce "Shavian"? AHD says /'Sevi@n/, but I wonder
>> how many might prefer to say "Shaw-vian" (with whatever vowel they use in
>> "Shaw".
>>
>> > Makes me wonder about that fellow Pavlow...
>>
>> That name rings a bell.
>
>Yeah, makes me think of that other fellow with the dogs.
Lyndon Johnson? :-)
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Jeff Farrow
Nowadays, either Jobian or Jobean are acceptable. Jobian would refer to day
to day mundane affairs of Job. Jobean would refer to more idealistic or
perhaps less tangible things.
Key: - as a general rule, "ian" refers to temporal matters and "ean" refers
to more timeless or qualitative matters. In using the virtually defunct
subjunctive mood, I wood necessarily employ "ean".
Jeff Farrow
Los Angeles
josule <jos...@netZero.net> wrote in message
news:8jarj4$n5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Can anyone tell me what the rule is (or rules are) for turning proper
> nouns into adjectives? In particular, I'm trying to convert Job, the
> character from the Bible, to an adjective. Is it Jobian? Jobean?
> Jobish? What are the guidelines for such problems?
>
Gloriana
(i.e. 'Job's tears'), or construct a hyphenated compound, as in
the example of Browning (i.e. 'Job-like'):
--------------
1. Name of an ancient patriarch, whose story forms a book of the
Old Testament; used in proverbial phrases as a type (a) of
destitution, (b) of patience.
1553 T. Wilson Rhet. (1580) 210 Tushe, thou art as poore as
Iob. 1749 Fielding Tom Jones x. viii, You would provoke the
patience of Job. 1822 Bryon Werner i. i. 401 He's poor as Job,
and not so patient. 1884 W. E. Norris Thirlby Hall vi, My uncle
bore it with the patience of Job.
Comb. 1878 Browning La Saisiaz 355 Job-like couched on dung
and crazed with blains. 1891 Critic (U.S.) 5 Sept. 114/2 There
is no sound of lamentation or Job-cry in it.
2. Phrases with Job's. Job's cat, turkey U.S. joc., used as
types of poverty; Job's comforter, one who, like Job's friends,
under the guise of administering comfort, aggravates distress
(cf. Job xvi. 2); Job's news, news of disaster; so Job's post, a
messenger who brings such news: see Job i. 13–19; Job's tears
(also †Job's drops), name for a species of grass (Coix Lacryma),
having round shining grains resembling tears, and used as beads.
1854 S. Smith Way down East 184, I should rather be as poor
as *Job's cat all the days of my life.
1738 Swift Pol. Conversat. iii, Lady Sm. I think your Ladyship
looks thinner than when I saw you last. Miss+Your Ladyship is
one of *Job's comforters. 1882 B. M. Croker Proper Pride III.
i. 22 You are a Job's comforter with a vengeance.
1831 Carlyle Sart. Res. iii. v, This, we think, is but *Job's
news to the human reader.
1837 I Fr. Rev. III. iii. iv, It was Friday+when this *Job's-
post from Dumouriez, thickly preceded and escorted by so many
other Job's-posts, reached the National Convention.
1597 Gerarde Herbal i. lix. §4. 82 In English it is called
*Iobs Teares or Iobs Drops, for that euery graine resembleth the
Drop or Teare that falleth from the eie. 1772–84 Cook Voy.
(1790) IV. 1291 Job's tears, mosses, and several kinds of fern.
1857 Henfrey Elem. Bot. 426 Coix Lacryma, the hard grains of
which are known by the name of ‘Job's-tears’.
1824 The Microscope 22 May 42/2 We have seen fit to say ‘the
patience of *Job's turkey’, instead of the common phrase, ‘as
patient as Job’. 1871 E. Eggleston Hoosier Schoolmaster (1872)
iv. 22 But laws! don't I remember when he was poorer nor Job's
turkey! 1951 Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. xv. 58 Poor as Job's turkey.
---------
Also 'Jobism' is defined as a lamentation 'like that of Job'.
Regards,
Gloriana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zippo5X
>I'm trying to convert Job, the
>character from the Bible, to an adjective. Is it Jobian?
Jobean?
>Jobish? What are the guidelines for such problems?
>
>Thanks
>
>Josule
Try "patient."
Z5x
sandcat
"Zippo5X" <zenlawye...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:29ac4f3e...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
> josule <jos...@netZero.net> wrote:
> >I'm trying to convert Job, the
> >character from the Bible, to an adjective. Is it Jobian?
> Jobean?
> >Jobish?
"Job-like" seems best to me.
Mark Wallace
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
sandcat wrote:
>I'm trying to convert Job, the
>character from the Bible, to an adjective. Is it Jobian?
>Jobish?
Can't decipher exactly what you want. Post the passage where you want to
use the clause.
--
Mark Wallace
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm