Conan Doyle --- Compound Surname
D. Spencer Hines
at No. 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh --- about one mile from the
university. He was the second of Charles and Mary Doyle's ten children,
of whom seven survived. From his great-uncle Michael Conan, a
distinguished journalist, Arthur and his elder sister, Annette, received
the compound surname Conan Doyle."
_Teller of Tales: The Life of Arthur Conan Doyle_, Daniel Stashower, New
York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999, ISBN 0-8050-5074-4, pp. 20-21.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Exitus Acta Probat
Fortem Posce Animum
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"London, that great cesspool into which all the loungers of the Empire
are irresistibly drained." Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930],
"A Study In Scarlet" [1887]
tiglath
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:y5r64.372$vt1....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> "Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle was born on May 22, 1859, in a small flat
> at No. 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh --- about one mile from the
> university. He was the second of Charles and Mary Doyle's ten children,
> of whom seven survived. From his great-uncle Michael Conan, a
> distinguished journalist, Arthur and his elder sister, Annette, received
> the compound surname Conan Doyle."
>
> _Teller of Tales: The Life of Arthur Conan Doyle_, Daniel Stashower, New
> York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999, ISBN 0-8050-5074-4, pp. 20-21.
You have not yet answered how does one receive a surname from an uncle. And
how can ten children from the same parents have different surnames. Since
Mr. Stashower doesn't say how explicitly with a handy citation you seem to
be stumped. Can't think for yourself anymore? I suggest you check the home
page of the ACD society, and then carefully, this time, pick your next
fight, because here again, you screwed the pooch Cucaracha.
As we haven't been able to trust you with an idea before, I don't know why
we should keep trying. But in the rare case that someone is following this
other than La Cucaracha, what we have so far is that Arthur Conan Doyle, at
birth, was given the names:
Arthur Ignatius Conan, as forenames, and Doyle as surname.
Later in life he changed it to a more catchy Arthur Conan Doyle, that is
Arthur as first name (dropping Ignatius), and Conan Doyle as a compound
surname. This was his adopted name, not his real one.
For anyone who speaks with propriety, ACD is then either Arthur Ignatius
Conan Doyle (surname = Doyle), or Arthur Conan Doyle (surname = Conan
Doyle), but that cockroach-fed marmot AKA Mr. Hines, likes to mix and match,
and vociferously proclaims that ACD's name is Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle
(surname = Conan Doyle). He leaves in "Ignatius," (which Sir Arthur left
out) to show off, and adds to it the surname of his preference.
--
Ut sementem feceris, ita metes.
tiglath
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:y5r64.372$vt1....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> "Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle was born on May 22, 1859, in a small
flat
> at No. 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh --- about one mile from the
> university. He was the second of Charles and Mary Doyle's ten
children,
> of whom seven survived. From his great-uncle Michael Conan, a
> distinguished journalist, Arthur and his elder sister, Annette,
received
> the compound surname Conan Doyle."
>
> _Teller of Tales: The Life of Arthur Conan Doyle_, Daniel Stashower,
New
> York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999, ISBN 0-8050-5074-4, pp. 20-21.
>
By courtesy of Simon Pugh:
From a biography of Conan Doyle at a _Yale_ site:)
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~yoder/mystery/doyle-bio.html
Arthur Conan Doyle, b. 1859, Edinburgh, Scotland; d. 1930,
Crowborough,
Sussex, England. (Conan was originally his middle name, but in later
years he began using "Conan Doyle" as his surname.) Doyle came from an
aristocratic and intellectual Irish family; he was mainly brought up
in
Jesuit boarding schools, and entered the University of Edinburgh in
1881, receiving a medical degree in 1885. One of his professors, Dr.
Joseph Bell, was to serve as a model for Sherlock Holmes.
By courtesy of Simon Pugh:
1881 census entry for the Doyle family might amuse
so...
Dwelling: 15 Lonsdale Terrace
Census Place: Edinburgh St Cuthberts, Edinburgh, Scotland
Source: FHL Film 0224006 GRO Ref Volume 685-4
EnumDist
89 Page 19
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Mary T. E. DOYLE M 43 F Ireland
Rel: Head
Arthur C. DOYLE U 21 M Edinburgh, Scotland
Rel: Son
Occ: Student Of Medicine
Conshann A. M. DOYLE 13 F Edinburgh, Scotland
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
John F. J. H. DOYLE 8 M Edinburgh, Scotland
Rel: Son
Occ: Scholar
Jane A. R. DOYLE 6 F Edinburgh, Scotland
Rel: Daur
Bryan M. J. T. W. DOYLE 4 F Edinburgh, Scotland
Rel: Daur
Mary KILPATRICK U 17 F Ireland
Rel: Serv
Occ: Domestic Servant
Excerpt of entry in Encarta
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan (1859-1930), British physician, novelist, and
detective-story writer, creator of the character Sherlock Holmes. He
was born in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Excerpt of entry in Britannica
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan
b. May 22, 1859, Edinburgh
d. July 7, 1930, Crowborough, Sussex, Eng.
...
Another major thin ice situation Mr. Hines got himself into. You seem
to spend much of your life lately extricating yourself from poorly
chosen battlegrounds. At your age... tut, tut.
Dick Durbin
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
> "Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle was born on May 22, 1859, in a small flat
> at No. 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh --- about one mile from the
> university. He was the second of Charles and Mary Doyle's ten
children,
> of whom seven survived. From his great-uncle Michael Conan, a
> distinguished journalist, Arthur and his elder sister, Annette,
received
> the compound surname Conan Doyle."
Excuse me, Mr. Hines, we get our surnames from our parents, not our
uncles. The use of "Conan Doyle" as a surname was merely an
affectation.
--
Dick Durbin
Tallahassee, FL
www.tfn.net/~ddurbin
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
D. Spencer Hines
Clay calling himself Muhammad Ali.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"London, that great cesspool into which all the loungers of the Empire
are irresistibly drained." Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930],
"A Study In Scarlet" [1887]
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| "Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle was born on May 22, 1859, in a small flat
| at No. 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh --- about one mile from the
| university. He was the second of Charles and Mary Doyle's ten
children,
| of whom seven survived. From his great-uncle Michael Conan, a
| distinguished journalist, Arthur and his elder sister, Annette,
received
| the compound surname Conan Doyle."
|
| _Teller of Tales: The Life of Arthur Conan Doyle_, Daniel Stashower,
New
| York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999, ISBN 0-8050-5074-4, pp. 20-21.
|
D. Spencer Hines
Mr. Durbin, I'm afraid you misunderstand. I did not write the paragraph
below. The words were written by Daniel Stashower, the most recent
biographer of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Here is the complete citation for his excellent book, which has been the
recipient of glowing reviews. I hope you find it interesting.
_Teller of Tales: The Life of Arthur Conan Doyle_, Daniel Stashower, New
York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999, ISBN 0-8050-5074-4, pp. 20-21.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Exitus Acta Probat.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"London, that great cesspool into which all the loungers of the Empire
are irresistibly drained." Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930],
"A Study In Scarlet" [1887]
"Dick Durbin" <ddu...@tfn.net> wrote in message
news:83e6na$9od$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
| In article <y5r64.372$vt1....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
| "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
| > "Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle was born on May 22, 1859, in a small
| > flat at No. 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh --- about one mile from the
| > university. He was the second of Charles and Mary Doyle's ten
| > children, of whom seven survived. From his great-uncle Michael
| > Conan, a distinguished journalist, Arthur and his elder sister,
| > Annette, received the compound surname Conan Doyle."
|
Larry Preuss
<D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>Hmmmmm, it's quite curious that no one gets excited at all about Cassius
>Clay calling himself Muhammad Ali.
>--
>
>D. Spencer Hines
They surely did at first.
Lp
tiglath
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:FMw64.807$vt1....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Hmmmmm, it's quite curious that no one gets excited at all about
Cassius
> Clay calling himself Muhammad Ali.
The point Cucaracha the The Point. Nudging the argument West still
leaves you cap in hand and tail between legs on the Doyle question.
tiglath
Dick Durbin <ddu...@tfn.net> wrote in message
news:83e6na$9od$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <y5r64.372$vt1....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
> > "Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle was born on May 22, 1859, in a small
flat
> > at No. 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh --- about one mile from the
> > university. He was the second of Charles and Mary Doyle's ten
> children,
> > of whom seven survived. From his great-uncle Michael Conan, a
> > distinguished journalist, Arthur and his elder sister, Annette,
> received
> > the compound surname Conan Doyle."
>
> Excuse me, Mr. Hines, we get our surnames from our parents, not our
> uncles. The use of "Conan Doyle" as a surname was merely an
> affectation.
You are replying to Mr. Affectation. He bloody well knows what you
are saying, but that huge coleopteran up his ass prevents him from
saying you are right. I bet his children's surname is Hines, and his
father's surname is also Hines, but likes to play silly buggers with
reality so that he doesn't have to admit he was WRONG AGAIN.
This is the third pratfall in a few short few weeks. For a
self-proclaimed former intelligence field operative, he does a rather
poor job infiltrating and exfiltrating himself out of the
battlegrounds he chooses. Isn't that so James Bond? or Inspector
Clouseau rather.
Ray Dunn
>
>Hmmmmm, it's quite curious that no one gets excited at all about
>Cassius Clay calling himself Muhammad Ali.
That's because no idiot has yet claimed that his name *wasn't* Cassius
Clay.
Get the picture?
--
Ray Dunn
Montreal
tiglath
> In article <nxx64.902$vt1....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> >
> > Mr. Durbin, I'm afraid you misunderstand. I did not write the
> paragraph
> > below. The words were written by Daniel Stashower, the most recent
> > biographer of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
>
> as an authority of some sort. His authority must fall into considerable
> disrepute if he believes that we receive our surnames from our uncles.
>
> Oh, by the way, it is considered courteous to trim the previous post
> when responding.
Finer points as this are lost on Mr. Hines -- casting pearls to the swine.
--
Admitting an Error clears the Score
And proves you Wiser than before.
Dick Durbin
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
> Vide infra postea.
>
> Mr. Durbin, I'm afraid you misunderstand. I did not write the
paragraph
> below. The words were written by Daniel Stashower, the most recent
> biographer of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
I did not misunderstand, sir. I assumed that you quoted Mr. Stashower
as an authority of some sort. His authority must fall into considerable
disrepute if he believes that we receive our surnames from our uncles.
Oh, by the way, it is considered courteous to trim the previous post
when responding.
--
Dick Durbin
Tallahassee, FL
www.tfn.net/~ddurbin
Paul J. Gans
> D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
> news:y5r64.372$vt1....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>> "Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle was born on May 22, 1859, in a small flat
>> at No. 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh --- about one mile from the
>> university. He was the second of Charles and Mary Doyle's ten children,
>> of whom seven survived. From his great-uncle Michael Conan, a
>> distinguished journalist, Arthur and his elder sister, Annette, received
>> the compound surname Conan Doyle."
>>
>> _Teller of Tales: The Life of Arthur Conan Doyle_, Daniel Stashower, New
>> York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999, ISBN 0-8050-5074-4, pp. 20-21.
> You have not yet answered how does one receive a surname from an uncle. And
> how can ten children from the same parents have different surnames. Since
> Mr. Stashower doesn't say how explicitly with a handy citation you seem to
> be stumped. Can't think for yourself anymore? I suggest you check the home
> page of the ACD society, and then carefully, this time, pick your next
> fight, because here again, you screwed the pooch Cucaracha.
> As we haven't been able to trust you with an idea before, I don't know why
> we should keep trying. But in the rare case that someone is following this
> other than La Cucaracha, what we have so far is that Arthur Conan Doyle, at
> birth, was given the names:
> Arthur Ignatius Conan, as forenames, and Doyle as surname.
> Later in life he changed it to a more catchy Arthur Conan Doyle, that is
> Arthur as first name (dropping Ignatius), and Conan Doyle as a compound
> surname. This was his adopted name, not his real one.
> For anyone who speaks with propriety, ACD is then either Arthur Ignatius
> Conan Doyle (surname = Doyle), or Arthur Conan Doyle (surname = Conan
> Doyle), but that cockroach-fed marmot AKA Mr. Hines, likes to mix and match,
> and vociferously proclaims that ACD's name is Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle
> (surname = Conan Doyle). He leaves in "Ignatius," (which Sir Arthur left
> out) to show off, and adds to it the surname of his preference.
It *is* curious to insist that Doyle's surname is "Conan Doyle"
because that is what Doyle wanted and then to *also* insist
that his full name was "Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle" when
clearly Doyle *did not* want Ignatius used. Strange how
one can have it both ways, isn't it...
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
D. Spencer Hines
supposedly adult and ostensibly at least semi-literate have never passed
Thinking 101.
The Scientific Method in its simplest formulation is _terra incognita_
to their minds and hearts.
When they are trying to determine the truth of some postulated fact,
they run around frantically like rabid marmots gathering secondary,
non-relevant information --- and piling it on top of overripe factoids
they have already proudly taken back to their dens and burrows.
They look at Encarta. They check competing library databases and card
catalogues. They try to gather long lists of dictionary references.
These rabid marmots have no coherent sense at all as to how to prove
something from the ground up, to an iron-clad standard, realising that
may take some time and hard intellectual work.
They have never learned to frame a hypothesis and test it --- much less
test _several_ possibly inter-locking hypotheses. They make a dog's
breakfast of their own unfiltered personal opinions and call it
reasoning, based on evidence. There is much "coulda, mighta, shoulda,
woulda" in their febrile analyses.
Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson and any police force or intelligence
organisation would want no part of them.
Nor can they even begin to think their way through the heuristics
involved in building a decision-making model. So they flail, whine and
kvetch --- all the while piling Ossa on Pelion. But they never seem to
realise that they are often dealing with duplicative sources, perhaps
founded on the same rank misconceptions.
Also, they cannot even intelligently frame the precise questions they
are trying to answer. Watching them flail, bluster and obscenely
posture is an interesting lesson in the enduring ignorance, clueless
woolly-headedness and stubborn pigheadedness of the Human Race.
It's no wonder that the 20th Century has been filled with so many
disasters and wars.
But it is Fun. Yes, it is Fun Indeed to Observe the Clueless At Work
And Play.
Josep Maria is a really prime example of all this ---- more fun to watch
than a barrelful of drunken marmots playing catch me, take me.
Caramba!
Exitus Acta Probat.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth." --- Sherlock Holmes --- Sir Arthur
Ignatius Conan Doyle (1859-1930) --- "The Sign of Four" (1890).
tiglath
> They have never learned to frame a hypothesis and test it --- much less
> test _several_ possibly inter-locking hypotheses. They make a dog's
> breakfast of their own unfiltered personal opinions and call it
> reasoning, based on evidence. There is much "coulda, mighta, shoulda,
> woulda" in their febrile analyses.
>
> Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson and any police force or intelligence
> organisation would want no part of them.
>
> Nor can they even begin to think their way through the heuristics
> involved in building a decision-making model. So they flail, whine and
> kvetch --- all the while piling Ossa on Pelion. But they never seem to
> realise that they are often dealing with duplicative sources, perhaps
> founded on the same rank misconceptions.
>
> Also, they cannot even intelligently frame the precise questions they
> are trying to answer. Watching them flail, bluster and obscenely
> posture is an interesting lesson in the enduring ignorance, clueless
> woolly-headedness and stubborn pigheadedness of the Human Race.
>
> It's no wonder that the 20th Century has been filled with so many
> disasters and wars.
This is called "more dash than cash." It is curious how each time you lash
out at someone, what you say fits you better than anyone else.
Where are your brilliant examples of "interlocking hypotheses," your
"reasoning based on evidence," or your heuristic driven "decision-making
models"? Out with them. Publish or perish. The above are phrases to
dazzle the natives, but you know that to us they are just the rantings of a
rat bastard inebriated with his own verbosity. Let's see, would the
"interlocking hypotheses" include those English gerundives you were looking
for? Would your "reasoning based on evidence" be your impeccable reasoning
about the teletype and the abundant evidence you inundated us with?
More recently, we have your "decision-making model" in your quotations from
a writer who thinks that uncles give surnames to nephews and nieces. Why
would Mr. Hines take Daniel Stashower's word at face value? Hmmmm. As a
persistently unpublished author wannabe, Mr Hines holds successful authors
in the highest regard, since they seem to easily achieve that which he so
much desires but can't get, because he is just not good enough at writing in
his own native language. Not good enough at composition, not good enough
at grammar, not good enough at initiative and creativity. It is no
surprise, after all, what genius can we expect in Mr. Hines? since his
forte and his mission in this world is to go about the newsgroups with a
great big rusty screw ramming it up people's asses.
There is so much less in you than meets the eye.
Einde O'Callaghan
>
> | "Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle was born on May 22, 1859, in a small flat
> | at No. 11 Picardy Place, Edinburgh --- about one mile from the
> | university. He was the second of Charles and Mary Doyle's ten
> children,
> | of whom seven survived. From his great-uncle Michael Conan, a
> | distinguished journalist, Arthur and his elder sister, Annette,
> received
> | the compound surname Conan Doyle."
> |
> | _Teller of Tales: The Life of Arthur Conan Doyle_, Daniel Stashower,
> New
> | York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999, ISBN 0-8050-5074-4, pp. 20-21.
> |
> |
> | Exitus Acta Probat
> |
> | Fortem Posce Animum
> |
> | D. Spencer Hines
> |
> | Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> |
> [1859-1930],
> | "A Study In Scarlet" [1887]
>
> Clay calling himself Muhammad Ali.
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> are irresistibly drained." Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930],
> "A Study In Scarlet" [1887]
>
Talking to yourself, Denzil? Nobody else to talk to? I really do think
you should go and see the nice man in the white coat and ask him for
some of those nice little sweeties. After that you'll feel so much
better.
--
eo'c
D. Spencer Hines
Two Points:
1. It makes no difference to History whether Sir Arthur received the
compound surname _Conan Doyle_ at birth --- as Daniel Stashower, his
quite competent biographer seems to think --- or later in life. Sir
Arthur died in 1930 and his surname is known to History as _Conan
Doyle_. So, I've been correct from the beginning on the Main Point
here. His surname is _Conan Doyle_. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
This is not an issue where "both sides are right."
When Muhammad Ali, the great boxer, passes on --- he will not be known
to History as "Cassius Clay, his former "slave name." The librarians
will not screw the pooch on that one.
2. Only a very poorly educated person who did not pass Thinking 101
would treat a census as Holy Writ and Final Solution, as has Josep
Maria, Stultus Disarmatus. There are all sorts of mistakes in censuses,
as anyone familiar with them will attest. Did Sir Arthur actually have
a sister named Bryan? That question was asked by Frances Kemmish and it
was apparently never answered to the gentle readers by Simon Pugh.
The household had a lodger named Bryan Waller, whose presence helped pay
the bills. Charles Altamont Doyle, the father of the family was
institutionalised at a nursing home, Fordoun House, which specialised in
the treating of alcoholism. This put a strain on the family resources.
The census taker, or Simon Pugh, or someone in between, may have made a
gaffe on this one --- a pratfall.
Yes, I realise the lodger was not 4 years old. This Bryan could be a
son, named after the lodger? Who knows?
Census takers do not have Ph.D.'s in demographics, sociology or computer
science. They are sometimes paid based on how many households they
collect data from, in a given period. The piecework approach.
Speed, "keeping it simple" and "not wasting time" are often important to
them. Who actually provided the data? A younger child who doesn't know
that the two firstborn siblings had the compound surname _Conan Doyle_?
The maid? An older member of the family, visiting, whose memory may be
failing? Who knows?
Scene in Edinburgh in 1881 [A Scenario]:
[Census Taker]:
"Alright, this is 15 Lonsdale Terrace, right --- the Doyle Family?"
[Mary Kilpatrick, the Irish Maid, 17 years old, just arrived from Dublin
eight months before, not wanting to make any waves]:
"Why yes, sir it is that."
[C. T.]
"Well, is the lady of the house in then." [N.B. In his best
male-chauvinist-rude voice]
[Mary]:
"Why, no sir, she's gone a shopping with most of the children to the
shoe store. They keeps outgrowing their shoes."
[C.T.]:
"Yes, yes. I don't have time for chit-chat Miss. So, how many are
there in the Doyle family and what's Mr. Doyle's name?
[Mary]:
"Well he don't live here, sir, he's in Fordoun House."
[C.T.]
"Really? Why?"
[Mary]:
"Well, I don't know much about that sir, he was sick for a long time."
[C.T.]
(Sceptically) "Hmmmmmm, well do the Doyles have a Family Bible I could
look at. I need the full names and ages of the mother and children."
[Mary]:
"Oh, yes sir. It's in the parlour. I'll get it for you."
[Mary returns with Family Bible, listing all births]
"You see, the first two as has a different name, sir. It's like Master
Arthur, the medical student, and his older sister Annette, I thinks her
name is, who's married and don't live here. They's _Conan Doyle_ named
after their great-uncle."
[C.T.]
"What? Don't talk nonsense, girl. I don't have time for all that fancy
folderol. Great-uncles don't name their great-nephews and nieces,
parents do. These are the Doyles, right?" [N.B. (Thinking): "These
Irish Catholics, drunks and always trying to jump up in the world. Too
many of them in Scotland. Giving themselves compound surnames and
taking on airs. What rubbish!" Doyles they are, Doyles they stay!]
[Mary]:
"Why, yes, sir. I was just trying to be helpful, sir."
[C.T.]:
"Yes, well, that will be all. I'll just sit down here at the kitchen
table and copy this out. These five children, all Doyles, live here
with the Mother?"
[Mary]:
"Yes, sir. Well, I'll be tending to my chores over here sir, if you
need anything else."
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
John Flynn
[130+ lines removed - s.h.m. removed]
Dwight... was that an extract from the manuscript of your failed-to-be-
published book? Why did they ever pass it over? It was fantastic!
More -- please! -- but email it personally, so that the less-
appreciative pogues don't get themselves into a state... you know, the
way they do? It's so tedious, isn't it? Yapping at your attempts to
educate us, and all along THEY are the ones that most need that
education. Ungrateful ingrates. Curses to the lot of them! Mr Holmes
would certainly not accept them into his drawing room for a glass of
his finest sherry, would he? Some people just can't be taught, and
they simply don't deserve the labour expended on them.
HOLMES: Elementary, my dear Watson.
WATSON: Um... I don't think you ever said that, did you?
HOLMES: I just have.
WATSON: Oh.
--
johnF
=======================================================================
Are you a victim of Hinesism? Do you wish for a forum to discuss your
worries and fears? Join the DSH email discussion list today! We
understand, we really do. mailto:dsh-su...@listbot.com with a
blank message.
Alex Chernavsky
>From his great-uncle Michael Conan
What's a great-uncle, anyway? There's no such thing as a great-mother or
great-father, so why do people often use the terms great-uncle or great-aunt
when they *really* mean grand-uncle or grand-aunt?
By the way, Hinesy, this question isn't directed at you. I would like an
answer from a non-idiot.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Chernavsky
D. Spencer Hines
Bryan Mary Julia Josephine Doyle, according to Stashower, the Conan
Doyle biographer.
The 1881 Census, as provided to us by Simon Pugh, has:
Bryan M. J. T. W. DOYLE
She was perhaps named after the lodger, Bryan Waller, who later became
the benefactor of the family.
There has been speculation that Bryan Mary may have been Waller's
daughter not Charles Altamont Doyle's, but it doesn't seem to hold much
water. Bryan Waller, a physician and later a country squire, was 15
years younger than Mary Doyle and her feelings for him, while strong,
seem to have been purely maternal.
I have a good friend whose Grandmother, a famous Gibson Girl type of the
turn of the last century --- was a startling beauty. I met her and had
some very interesting conversations with her and I've seen many
photographs, paintings, drawings and even films of her. She was named
(I'll change this a bit) James Katherine _____, by her Father.
So, this naming pattern is not impossible.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Mary Doyle's youngest daughter, born about 1877, was indeed named Bryan.
Which invalidates your primary example for the inaccuracy of the census
recordation.
Ever hear of the golfer Clifford Ann Creed?
CS
D. Spencer Hines
Lonsdale Terrace.
What were the rules and conventions for the 1881 Edinburgh Census?
Should the lodger, Bryan Waller, have appeared in the census report too?
He would not have been in the Family Bible would he? <g>
Alex Chernavsky
>I have a good friend
No comment.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Chernavsky
Simon Pugh
<D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> writes
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
>"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
>improbable, must be the truth." --- Sherlock Holmes --- Sir Arthur
>Ignatius Conan Doyle (1859-1930) --- "The Sign of Four" (1890)
>
>
You are absolutely right of course. The census may not be accurate and
indeed I have found quite a few errors.
People forget, they may lie or conceal and the may not understand. The
census take may be incompetent and the transcriber may need spectacles
(this was from the LDS CDs).
You may even have noticed the weaselish way I did not _actually_ claim
that the family listed was that of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. :o)
--
Simon Pugh
D. Spencer Hines
| You are absolutely right of course. The census may not be accurate and
| indeed I have found quite a few errors.
| People forget, they may lie or conceal and the may not understand. The
| census take may be incompetent and the transcriber may need spectacles
| (this was from the LDS CDs).
| You may even have noticed the weaselish way I did not _actually_ claim
| that the family listed was that of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. :o)
|
| --
| Simon Pugh
Indeed.
Thank you for your candour and your honesty.
Me ke aloha pumehana,
Paul J. Gans
> It's really quite curious, indeed risible, that some folks, who are
> supposedly adult and ostensibly at least semi-literate have never passed
> Thinking 101.
> The Scientific Method in its simplest formulation is _terra incognita_
> to their minds and hearts.
> When they are trying to determine the truth of some postulated fact,
> they run around frantically like rabid marmots gathering secondary,
> non-relevant information --- and piling it on top of overripe factoids
> they have already proudly taken back to their dens and burrows.
> They look at Encarta. They check competing library databases and card
> catalogues. They try to gather long lists of dictionary references.
> These rabid marmots have no coherent sense at all as to how to prove
> something from the ground up, to an iron-clad standard, realising that
> may take some time and hard intellectual work.
> They have never learned to frame a hypothesis and test it --- much less
> test _several_ possibly inter-locking hypotheses. They make a dog's
> breakfast of their own unfiltered personal opinions and call it
> reasoning, based on evidence. There is much "coulda, mighta, shoulda,
> woulda" in their febrile analyses.
> Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson and any police force or intelligence
> organisation would want no part of them.
> Nor can they even begin to think their way through the heuristics
> involved in building a decision-making model. So they flail, whine and
> kvetch --- all the while piling Ossa on Pelion. But they never seem to
> realise that they are often dealing with duplicative sources, perhaps
> founded on the same rank misconceptions.
> Also, they cannot even intelligently frame the precise questions they
> are trying to answer. Watching them flail, bluster and obscenely
> posture is an interesting lesson in the enduring ignorance, clueless
> woolly-headedness and stubborn pigheadedness of the Human Race.
> It's no wonder that the 20th Century has been filled with so many
> disasters and wars.
> But it is Fun. Yes, it is Fun Indeed to Observe the Clueless At Work
> And Play.
> Josep Maria is a really prime example of all this ---- more fun to watch
> than a barrelful of drunken marmots playing catch me, take me.
> Caramba!
> Exitus Acta Probat.
> --
> D. Spencer Hines
Ok, I'll accept this as a concession on the A. Conan Doyle
issue. It is as close as you ever get.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Elron Xemoo
>>When they are trying to determine the truth of some postulated fact, they
run around frantically like rabid marmots gathering secondary, non-relevant
information --- and piling it on top of overripe factoids they have already
proudly taken back to their dens and burrows.
Whereas you have somehow =proved= that teletypes used to print from the
bottom of the page up? I only see that you have claimed that[1], not that
you have proved it.
[1] And that you have been justifiably ridiculed for saying that.
--
Bot-bait: word...@writeme.com Gen...@fifthamendmentpress.com
Elron Xemoo
>>Vide infra postea.
Futuete te ipsum, atque equum in quo arrivisti.
--
Bot-bait: word...@writeme.com Gen...@fifthamendmentpress.com
Mary Fisher
Simon Pugh <Si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vcYG3CAh...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
> In article <ZqN64.2046$_f.5...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, D.
Spencer Hines
> <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> writes
> >Gentle Readers,
Wrong Mary.
But that aside, I'd like to know what all this has to do with
soc. history MEDIEVAL (sic).
Please don't clutter our ng.
The other Mary
Paul J. Gans
Also gives a hint that he had not read the book when he
began extolling its virtues...
Paul J. Gans
> Two Points:
> 1. It makes no difference to History whether Sir Arthur received the
> compound surname _Conan Doyle_ at birth --- as Daniel Stashower, his
> quite competent biographer seems to think --- or later in life. Sir
> Arthur died in 1930 and his surname is known to History as _Conan
> Doyle_. So, I've been correct from the beginning on the Main Point
> here. His surname is _Conan Doyle_. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
But it is not. As many many posters here have shown, EVERY
SINGLE reference book consulted here lists his surname either
as DOYLE or as both DOYLE and CONAN DOYLE. Not one of them
indicates that he is known to history as Conan Doyle.
That's the fact.
By the way, you've misused "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" again.
I have no idea what you *think* it means, but you have
demonstrated nothing. You have *ASSERTED* that Doyle is
known to history as Conan Doyle. Not quite the same
thing.
[rest deleted]
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Einde O'Callaghan
>
Thank you for handing in this piece of unsolicited homework. It makes
up, at least partly, for your failure to produce the set assignment
about the Vulgate and baseball (IIRC). There are, however, a few
stylistic infelicities and logical inconsistencies that I would like to
comment on.
> It's really quite curious, indeed risible, that some folks, who are
> supposedly adult and ostensibly at least semi-literate have never passed
> Thinking 101.
>
Unnecessary repetition of basically the same concept can interrupt the
flow of thought for the reader. Always consider carefully whether less
might not be more when it is a question of comprehensibility for the
reader.
The use of "some folks" is also rather unfortunate since the informal
colloquial stylistic register contrasts incongruously with the rather
formal tone of the rest of the sentence.
You also seem to have some problems with the use of commas. In the above
sentence you have to decide if the relative clause "who...semi-literate"
is an identifying or a non-identifying clause. If you wish to use it as
an identifying clause, which would seem to fit the context best, then it
shouldn't be enclosed in commas. If on the other hand you intend it to
simply convey additional information not essential to the general
meaning of the sentence, it should be enclosed in commas. Your
compromise of putting a comma at the beginning but leaving it out at the
end is, unfortunately, not permissible.
> The Scientific Method in its simplest formulation is _terra incognita_
> to their minds and hearts.
>
The phrase "scientific method" is rarely considered to be a proper noun
(unless, of course, you wish to personify it, but your use of "it" later
in the sentence seems to militate against this interpretation). Since
the scientific method is a question of the use of the intellect your
inclusion of "hearts" here would seem to be inappropriate.
> When they are trying to determine the truth of some postulated fact,
> they run around frantically like rabid marmots gathering secondary,
> non-relevant information --- and piling it on top of overripe factoids
> they have already proudly taken back to their dens and burrows.
The use of "postulated fact" would appear to be an inadvertant oxymoron.
Something does not become a fact until it is proven. A postulate is of
necessity unproven. The usual negation of "relevant" is "irrelevant".
The use of "and burrows" is stylistically questionble since once again
it is unnecessary repetition. I would suggest that you delete either
"dens" or "burrows".
>
> They look at Encarta. They check competing library databases and card
> catalogues. They try to gather long lists of dictionary references.
>
It is not clear that library databases and card catalogues are capable
of competing with one another. I think you need to reformulate this
sentence if you wish to achieve the desired effect.
> These rabid marmots have no coherent sense at all as to how to prove
> something from the ground up, to an iron-clad standard, realising that
> may take some time and hard intellectual work.
>
Do marmots suffer from rabies?
Moving from the sphere of English usage to the field of philosophy of
science, you seem to be under a misapprehension of the way that
scientific research functions.
Very few if any scientists start from scratch. They base themselves on
already accepted theories and hypotheses. They compare their data with
the results expected on the basis of the accepted positions. They see if
their data are within the parameters of the old theory. If they are
outside the parameters they usually discard the data and try again.
Occasionally, a scientist of particular genius will come up with an
alternative hypothesis that incorporates the existing theory but also
explains the seeming exceptions. This is called a paradigm shift. Many
practising scientists resist the paradigm shift, but if it is generally
accepted by the new generation of scientists it is only a matter of time
before the new paradigm becomes dominant.
The process has been described in detail by Thomas Kuhn in his book "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions". I have, of course, left out many
other important aspects of scientificity. I recommend Karl Popper's
books "Conjectures and Refutations" and the "Logic of Scientific
Discovery" and Imre Lakatos's book "Proofs and Refutations". When you
have read these, perhaps you would care to rewrite the above paragraph.
> They have never learned to frame a hypothesis and test it --- much less
> test _several_ possibly inter-locking hypotheses. They make a dog's
> breakfast of their own unfiltered personal opinions and call it
> reasoning, based on evidence. There is much "coulda, mighta, shoulda,
> woulda" in their febrile analyses.
>
There seems to be a contradiction between this paragraph and the
penultimate one. If they gather information from various sources, it can
hardly be called personal opinion. It is also the accepted practice
within linguistic analysis that where written evidence is lacking, e.g.
in determining the Ostrogothic form of a Germanic root or the
Proto-Indo-European form of a word that is common to all IE languages,
conjectures should be proposed and considered by one's peers. Hypotheses
are often posed in terms of "could, might, should, would", since to do
otherwise might lead the unwary to assume that they were dealing with
proven facts.
> Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson and any police force or intelligence
> organisation would want no part of them.
An aside: This reminds me of the definition of an oxymoron: "military
intelligence".
>
> Nor can they even begin to think their way through the heuristics
> involved in building a decision-making model. So they flail, whine and
> kvetch --- all the while piling Ossa on Pelion. But they never seem to
> realise that they are often dealing with duplicative sources, perhaps
> founded on the same rank misconceptions.
Since in aeu and aue we aren't dealing with decision-making but with
matters of English usage heuristics is perhaps the wrong methodology in
the questions under consideration. Perhaps you would be more at home in
alt.usage.business-management.
Your second sentence in this paragraph contains a Yiddishism. It is
advisable to avoid these in academic discourse, particularly if they
haven't been totally absorbed English usage. Also in this particular
case the usage fits uncomfortably with the classical reference that
immediately follows.
Since you don't name the sources that you regard as "duplicative", an
admirable coinage, your statement lacks precision. You also fail the
test of scientificity, to be scientific a statement must be testable and
falsifiable.
It would also be helpful to your gentle readers if you cited these
defective sources. To the best of my knowledge the standard tools used
by members of aue and aeu are the various Oxford and Webster
dictionaries and various guides to grammar and usage such as Quirk and
the various editions of Fowler. If these works are defective, indeed
"duplicative", perhaps it would be a good idea to suggest a few
acceptable alternatives.
>
> Also, they cannot even intelligently frame the precise questions they
> are trying to answer. Watching them flail, bluster and obscenely
> posture is an interesting lesson in the enduring ignorance, clueless
> woolly-headedness and stubborn pigheadedness of the Human Race.
>
At no point during your post so far have you named any individuals or
cited any examples of the cause of your "polemic". You refer constantly
to some anonymous group. This imprecision could be interpreted in two
ways. It may be that you fear that if you are precise other people may
be able to disprove your assertions - I believe this may happen to you
often. Or secondly, you may be suffering from a paranoid persecution
complex. In the latter case medical treatment is advisable.
> It's no wonder that the 20th Century has been filled with so many
> disasters and wars.
This is a classic example of a non sequitur (in case you are unaware of
it, this means a statement that doesn't follow from any of the previous
arguments). I suggest that you visit the course Logic I at your local
technical college or consult the newly published book "Logic for
Dummies", published by the publishers of the very successful series of
computer books "... for Dummies".
>
> But it is Fun. Yes, it is Fun Indeed to Observe the Clueless At Work
> And Play.
There appears to be a recurrence of your previous shift-keyitis. In
English usage it is only customary to capitalise the word "I", the first
letter of a sentence, proper nouns, and adjectives and nouns based on
countries, regions, continents etc. Capitals may also be used in
headlines, though mot quality newspapers avoid this today. Except for
"but" and "yes" this does not appear to apply to any of the capitalised
words in the above sentences.
>
> Josep Maria is a really prime example of all this ---- more fun to watch
> than a barrelful of drunken marmots playing catch me, take me.
>
You finally name an example, but provide no supporting evidence. Your
gentle readers are thus in no position to judge the appropriateness of
your example.
It is also unclear whether the marmots are attempting to to catch and
take you, Dagmar Spencer Hines, or whether the game they are playing is
called "Catch Me, Take Me" (this imperative being considered as a proper
noun).
> Caramba!
>
> Exitus Acta Probat.
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
The use of foreign languages to display learnedness is a bit overdone.
Moderation in all use of literary devices is advisable if you wish to
find a publisher. The language should not be allowed to get in the way
of the message.
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth." --- Sherlock Holmes --- Sir Arthur
> Ignatius Conan Doyle (1859-1930) --- "The Sign of Four" (1890).
I understand that Sir Arthur dropped the Ignatius at about the time he
transformed his single-barrelled surname into a bouble-barrelled one
(without a hyphen). As a writer he was quite entitled to do so. After
all "Arthur Doyle" (even Sir Arthur Doyle) doesn't have the same ring to
it as "Arthur Conan Doyle" (with or without the "Sir").
There is also the possibility that for we latter-day Rightpondians might
too easily confuse him with Arthur Daley, another possessor of an
ancient Gaelic surname.
In general, despite the criticisms, an improvement on earlier pieces.
You should try to write at length more often. A good maxim would be:
Better less, but better.
It might also be advisable to employ a copy-editor to deal with you
copious correspondence.
You should be prepared to cite examples to back up your assertions. Only
thus can you expect to convince your gentle readers ot the justice of
your polemic against all that is wrong with our education system/
society (delete as appropriate). Otherwise some might unkindly suspect
you of "piling Ossa on Pelion" or even being "hoist on your own petard"
(to paraphrase a truly great writer).
Still, all in all, I think we can give you a D- this time.
--
eo'c
Donna Richoux
> Hinesy wrote, in part (quoting Daniel Stashower):
>
> >From his great-uncle Michael Conan
>
> What's a great-uncle, anyway? There's no such thing as a great-mother or
> great-father, so why do people often use the terms great-uncle or great-aunt
> when they *really* mean grand-uncle or grand-aunt?
Thorndike-Barnhart says that grandaunt and granduncle do exist, and mean
the same as great-aunt and great-uncle. Perhaps, like other terms used
primarily within families (Grandma, Nana, Baba, etc). preference can
vary from one extended family to the next.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
D. Spencer Hines
achieves new lows in logic and probity.
> 1. It makes no difference to History whether Sir Arthur received the
> compound surname _Conan Doyle_ at birth --- as Daniel Stashower, his
> quite competent biographer seems to think --- or later in life. Sir
> Arthur died in 1930 and his surname is known to History as _Conan
> Doyle_. So, I've been correct from the beginning on the Main Point
> here. His surname is _Conan Doyle_. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
D. Spencer Hines
-----------------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------
"But it is not. As many many posters here have shown, EVERY
SINGLE reference book consulted here lists his surname either
as DOYLE or as both DOYLE and CONAN DOYLE. Not one of them
indicates that he is known to history as Conan Doyle.
That's the fact."
Chemist
---------------Cordon Sanitaire-----------------------
This is a man, a chemist, who supposedly has learned the Scientific
Method. Yet he equates "many, many posters" to a newsgroup and their
secondary and tertiary references to the professional judgement of Sir
Arthur's most recent biographer, Daniel Stashower _and_ Sir Arthur's
clear preference for _Conan Doyle_. Sir Arthur's children also have the
compound surname _Conan Doyle_.
Perhaps he prefers we just turn the entire controversy over to a "focus
group" for resolution.
His clear pattern of stubborn lunacy on this issue and inability to
remove his feet from the hardening concrete of his own ignorance are
truly impressive. This is not a man who thinks either clearly or
coherently.
His mind has surely slipped its fragile tether to Reality.
He should certainly not be allowed to teach graduate students --- in
either chemistry or sociology. His continued pollution of
undergraduates' minds is more than enough --- shameful though it be.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
Fortem Posce Animum
--
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"Paul J. [He's finally learned to put the period in there. Good lad.]
Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:JSR64.24$hT2....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
<baldersnip>
Bill McCray
<Chern...@aol.com> wrote:
>Hinesy wrote, in part (quoting Daniel Stashower):
>
>>From his great-uncle Michael Conan
>
>What's a great-uncle, anyway? There's no such thing as a great-mother or
>great-father, so why do people often use the terms great-uncle or great-aunt
>when they *really* mean grand-uncle or grand-aunt?
Because that's the correct term. I am nearly 60 years old and the
only term I've ever heard of for the uncle of my parent is "great
uncle". However, I just checked a dictionary, and it gives both
"great uncle" and "granduncle" and says that they are synonyms. I'm
surprised. Where is "granduncle" used?
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
D. Spencer Hines
Frankly, my preference would have been to write Grand-Uncle; but please
remember that I was quoting Mr. Stashower.
I say Great-Uncle when I mean the brother of one of my
Great-Grandparents.
To me, that is clearer.
Others' Mileage May Vary.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1e313kl.1gnqrrt9bt7N%tr...@euronet.nl...
| Alex Chernavsky <Chern...@aol.com> wrote:
|
| > Hinesy wrote, in part (quoting Daniel Stashower):
| >
| > >From his great-uncle Michael Conan
| >
| > What's a great-uncle, anyway? There's no such thing as a
great-mother or
| > great-father, so why do people often use the terms great-uncle or
great-aunt
| > when they *really* mean grand-uncle or grand-aunt?
|
Alex Chernavsky
>His continued pollution of undergraduates'
>minds is more than enough
Speaking of which, Hinesy, what exactly were the circumstances behind your
departure from Hawaii Pacific University? There has been much speculation
about this matter. Perhaps you would like to set the record straight.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Chernavsky
Alex Chernavsky
>I'm surprised. Where is "granduncle" used?
I, for one, use that term exclusively (along with grand-aunt). I realize
that "great-uncle" is the more popular variant, but I never liked the sound
of it.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Chernavsky
Schainbaum, Robert
> Alex Chernavsky <Chern...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Hinesy wrote, in part (quoting Daniel Stashower):
> >
> > >From his great-uncle Michael Conan
> >
> > What's a great-uncle, anyway? There's no such thing as a great-mother or
> > great-father, so why do people often use the terms great-uncle or great-aunt
> > when they *really* mean grand-uncle or grand-aunt?
>
> Thorndike-Barnhart says that grandaunt and granduncle do exist, and mean
> the same as great-aunt and great-uncle. Perhaps, like other terms used
> primarily within families (Grandma, Nana, Baba, etc). preference can
> vary from one extended family to the next.
>
> --
> Best --- Donna Richoux
I take no issue with you. You've stepped aside and made it Thorndike-Barnhart's
issue. Seems to me that resort to reference texts should be resisted unless there
is a question relating to specialist usage. Dictionaries can be particularly
infuriating. No better than the lexicographer. The lexicographer is a frail
mortal with scarcely more knowledge than ourselves.
If T-B failed to have any entry under grandaunt or granduncle, would that make the
meaning less clear? Would you be more certain that this was not correct usage?
/r schainbaum
Elron Xemoo
>>What's a great-uncle, anyway?
It's the brother of a grandparent, just as an uncle is the brother of a
parent. I'm my sister's granddaughters' great-uncle, and they're my
great-nieces, and cute as bugs, too.
--
Bot-bait: word...@writeme.com Gen...@fifthamendmentpress.com
Robert Lieblich
>
> One plausible element in the _Doyle_ and _Conan Doyle_ controversy is
> that Sir Arthur may have been responding to wicked bigotry and prejudice
> against Irish Catholics.
>
> He may have been trying to escape from _Doyle_ to a tonier, supposedly
> more up-scale _Conan Doyle_.
>
> In 1999, it takes a concerted act of Creative Empathy to understand the
> very real prejudices against Irish Catholics quite common in certain
> WASP social circles, 100-120 years before --- both in Great Britain and
> in the United States.
The phrase "concerted act of creative empathy" (just couldn't bring
myself to retain those capitals) strikes me as one of the most muddled
images even in the career of one so muddled as the ex-commander. It
conjures up a bunch of people sitting around performing a collective
state of mind. Not all that clear.
But that foolishness pales in comparison to the suggestion that one can
dilute the Irishness of the surname "Doyle" by prefacing it with
"Conan," which is, if anything, even more Irish, dating back to St.
Conan, a seventh century Irish missionary, later bishop of the Isle of
Man. Unless, as others have observed, one seeks to pass oneself off as
a barbarian, Conan is Irish.
[AUE trimmed to spare the killfiles of many members. It won't do you
any good to put it back, DSH; it's you they've killfiled. Me they read.
Actually, this is a very good idea. If you haven't killed DSH, trim AUE
when you respond. Most of the killfilers don't get AEU.]
Bob Lieblich
Avi Jacobson
shown up on my server yet.
Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:lgR64.20$hT2....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
> In alt.usage.english D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote:
> > It's really quite curious, indeed risible, that some folks, who are
> > supposedly adult and ostensibly at least semi-literate have never passed
> > Thinking 101.
>
> > The Scientific Method in its simplest formulation is _terra incognita_
> > to their minds and hearts.
>
> > When they are trying to determine the truth of some postulated fact,
> > they run around frantically like rabid marmots gathering secondary,
> > non-relevant information --- and piling it on top of overripe factoids
> > they have already proudly taken back to their dens and burrows.
Hines, what in the name of Hell is a "postulated fact"? A postulate is "a
proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a
specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other
propositions". By definition, a postulate cannot be a fact, and a fact
cannot be a postulate. And there is no such thing as "determining the
truth" of a postulate. (Later on in your posting, you speak of "proving"
your so-called "postulated fact"; this, too, is just more nonsense.)
Someone referred to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as "Doyle" and you called him an
idiot for not knowing that Doyle was not Sir Arthur's surname. You did not
say, "let us assume, for a specific purpose"; you pronounced the other man's
assertion wrong (which it was not).
The same is true of your outrageous teletype gaffe: you made the impossible
assertion (which, by the way, you have neither full-heartedly admitted to
nor full-heartedly denied having made) that teletype machines put new
material at the top of the page, on top of older material. What teletype
machines did is a matter of historical fact, easily proven or disproven. It
cannot be a postulate, any more than the assertion that Abraham Lincoln was
the first president of the United States -- or Washington the 16th -- can be
a postulate.
> > They look at Encarta. They check competing library databases and card
> > catalogues. They try to gather long lists of dictionary references.
Yes, what a stupid thing to do. Someone makes a ridiculous assertion
dressed up and presented as fact (not as a postulate), and these fools
actually try to disprove it by seeking an authoritative reference. Why
couldn't they just have adopted the more sensible route -- "D. Spence With
Reality"?
> > These rabid marmots have no coherent sense at all as to how to prove
> > something from the ground up, to an iron-clad standard, realising that
> > may take some time and hard intellectual work.
There is no way to "prove from the ground up" the direction in which
teletypes print, or the side of the road on which one drives in Albania, or
the number of teeth in the mouth of an adult chimpanzee, or the name on D.
Spencer Hines' birth certificate. One seeks an authoritative reference.
> > They have never learned to frame a hypothesis and test it --- much less
> > test _several_ possibly inter-locking hypotheses.
Ever the straw man, aren't you, Hines. You never suggested a hypothesis;
you called someone an idiot for referring to someone else by his correct
surname. What was your "hypothesis"? You started by calling yourself right
and the Doyle-sayers wrong, and somehow evolved into a position wherein you
now speak of the issue as a "controversy".
> > They make a dog's
> > breakfast of their own unfiltered personal opinions and call it
> > reasoning, based on evidence. There is much "coulda, mighta, shoulda,
> > woulda" in their febrile analyses.
I cannot bring myself to believe that even you -- with all you have stooped
to -- are incapable of understanding the basic fact that no typing machine
ever put new material at the top of the page, nor could it. I cannot bring
myself to believe that if someone calls an individual by the surname with
which he was born, there is no justification for deeming him an idiot, and
that the person who so deems him is, in fact, the idiot. No coulda. No
mighta. No shoulda. No woulda. In fact, no analysis, febrile or
otherwise. No theory. No postulate. No hypothesis. Just fact. Teletype
machines typed from the top down (and still do). A man whose surname was
"Doyle" may legitimately be referred to as "Doyle". And no amount of
Latinesque sophistry, poor prose, name-calling, or exposition of personal
information can possibly change that.
> > Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson and any police force or intelligence
> > organisation would want no part of them.
Nor would the tooth fairy. Nor Santa Claus. Does the notion of reality
mean anything to you at all, Hines?
[B.S. (Babble Snipped.)]
> > But it is Fun. Yes, it is Fun Indeed to Observe the Clueless At Work
> > And Play.
Yes, And Fun To Learn The Elementary Rules Of Capitalization, Too.
Here's some reality testing, Hines. Can you produce a single posting in any
of the threads in which you have participated, where someone -- anyone --
defends your position? Can you find a single individual here who says "By
Jove, he's right! People sit, things set. Teletypes type backwards. A man
named Doyle should never be called Doyle, and he who calls him that is an
idiot"?
Pathetic.
--
Avi Jacobson, Manager of Product Language Localization, Gallery Systems
A...@GallerySystems.com - (510) 652 8950, ext. 246
Skitt
> Thorndike-Barnhart says that grandaunt and granduncle do exist, and mean
> the same as great-aunt and great-uncle. Perhaps, like other terms used
> primarily within families (Grandma, Nana, Baba, etc). preference can
> vary from one extended family to the next.
Just to show you how I am, every time I have read "granduncle" in this
thread (I have never seen it enywhere else in my life), I think of
carbuncles. Not a pleasant thought. Stop it!
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://i.am/skitt/
... information is gushing toward your brain like a fire hose aimed
at a teacup. -- Dogbert
D. Spencer Hines
that Sir Arthur may have been responding to wicked bigotry and prejudice
against Irish Catholics.
He may have been trying to escape from _Doyle_ to a tonier, supposedly
more up-scale _Conan Doyle_.
In 1999, it takes a concerted act of Creative Empathy to understand the
very real prejudices against Irish Catholics quite common in certain
WASP social circles, 100-120 years before --- both in Great Britain and
in the United States.
Einde O'Callaghan
>
> Bryan Waller was the lodger in the Doyle home in Edinburgh, at 15
> Lonsdale Terrace.
>
> What were the rules and conventions for the 1881 Edinburgh Census?
>
> Should the lodger, Bryan Waller, have appeared in the census report too?
>
> He would not have been in the Family Bible would he? <g>
What the hell are you talking about, Dilbert? You've turned up in the
middle of a thread, but without any references to other posts. Is this a
variant of your tendency to start a new thread as soon as you've been
whupped? Particularly considering how badly you've been whupped over
this question.
Everybody knows you do it so that you can avoid answering the questions
that have been raised by your blundering about like the proverbial bull,
or perhaps I should use one of your favourite words of the moment,
"flailing".
Let's look at some of the substantive questions. There was no Edinburgh
census in the year 1881. What there was was a Census of the whole United
Kingdom of Great britain and Ireland (I know how you value precision in
these matters). In census reports in the UK all people present in a
particular house or building on a particular night have to be included
in the census returns, not the regular residents if they were absent on
the night in question. so it would depend on whether Mr Waller was
present in the Doyle houshold on the night in question, or was visiting
his mother, or a house of ill-repute (or indeed both of the latter or
neither).
Modern practice is that the form should be filled in by the head of the
household or institution. The census taker's role today is to collect
the forms, to answer any questions about the procedure, to assist those
who are unable to fill in the form themselves and to check that the form
has been filled in properly andf signed by the householder. Whether that
was the case in 1881 is something that will have to be checked in some
history of the census. I'm sure that if you write to HMSO in London (I
believe they are on-line) they may be able to provide you with
something. Failing that you could try the PRO in Edinburgh or in Kew.
I presume that the last comment is meant to be a joke from the little
grin after it. BTW do you have a permit to use smileys and other other
symbols in this newsgroup?
--
eo'c
Opinicus
> [AUE trimmed to spare the killfiles of many members. It won't do you
> any good to put it back, DSH; it's you they've killfiled. Me they read.
True.
> Actually, this is a very good idea. If you haven't killed DSH, trim AUE
> when you respond. Most of the killfilers don't get AEU.]
Bob,
Out of 37 messages that were in AEU when I just downloaded my mail, yours was the ONLY one not xposted to AUE, and thus the only one I read.
--
Bob
Foça, Turkey
---
Kanyak's Doghouse <http://www.geocities.com/kanyak.geo>
D. Spencer Hines
cocker spaniel, is his plodding yet clueless and frolicsome ignorance
combined with an astounding and quite unjustified arrogance. Others
have commented on it as well, I need go no further.
He has supposedly heard of St. Conan [that's his cultural component] and
Conan the Barbarian [that's his entertainment component].
But he has not heard of the four Dukes and/or Counts of Brittany who
were named Conan
Nor has he heard of Conan ap Maredudd of Wales.
So, he commits an egregious pratfall and comes to the conclusion that
Conan was either an Irish name or a fictional barbarian.
I've fired many an incompetent lawyer for a much lesser error of
judgement than that.
The cocker spaniel seems, by his own admission, to be yet another of
those faceless yet incredibly arrogant bureaucrats who suck at the
public teat --- financed by the taxpayers --- in Washington, D.C.
The cocker spaniel apparently did not have either the smarts or the
credentials to get into a really first-class Washington law firm, where
he could make some real money. After reading his work product in this
newsgroup for several weeks now, I'm not surprised in the least at that
outcome.
Continuing with Conan I 'le Tort' duc de Bretagne, who died in 992:
Anyone who is a descendant of William The Conqueror is also a descendant
of Conan I, duc de Bretagne. Conan I, duc de Bretagne is the
Great-Grandfather of William The Conqueror [c.1027-1087]
Mary Doyle, Arthur's Mother, reportedly was a descendant of the Percy
Family, Earls of Northumberland --- at least she allegedly thought she
was. If that were true, Arthur could easily be a descendant of these
Conans, counts and dukes of Brittany. His Mother reportedly pumped him
up with many romantic tales of these noble and chivalrous ancestors.
The cocker spaniel doesn't know any of this --- hence his pratfall ---
thinking that Conan was only Irish or a barbarian fantasy.
---------------Cordon Sanitaire----------------------
"But that foolishness pales in comparison to the suggestion that one can
dilute the Irishness of the surname "Doyle" by prefacing it with
"Conan," which is, if anything, even more Irish, dating back to St.
Conan, a seventh century Irish missionary, later bishop of the Isle of
Man. Unless, as others have observed, one seeks to pass oneself off as
a barbarian, Conan is Irish." [cs]
--------------Cordon Sanitaire-----------------------
Since when is Brittany or Wales too, for that matter, part of Ireland?
Now that is _really vintage ignorance_ --- unsurpassed even in our
Nation's capital, among those hordes of government bureaucrats, sucking
at the public teat.
Combine that ignorance with overweening arrogance and you have a most
volatile mix ---- a formula virtually guaranteed to grease pratfalls,
well into the new millennium.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
That's quite childish and indicates an absence of wit and savoir faire.
Warren Hapke posts faulty Latin, as do others, and think that because I
don't correct them I can't read Latin.
I have bigger fish to fry. But their fantasies are good for their egos.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:HiY64.55$hT2....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Marion Gevers
>But that aside, I'd like to know what all this has to do with
>soc. history MEDIEVAL (sic).
>
>Please don't clutter our ng.
It doesn't have much to do with English usage, either.
We were kind of hoping you'd take him back.
--
Peter Moylan
Einde O'Callaghan
>
> Alex Chernavsky <Chern...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>What's a great-uncle, anyway?
>
> It's the brother of a grandparent, just as an uncle is the brother of a
> parent. I'm my sister's granddaughters' great-uncle, and they're my
> great-nieces, and cute as bugs, too.
In my Irish youth we used "granduncle" and "grandniece" for this
relationship.
--
eo'c
John Nurick
<A...@GallerySystems.com> wrote:
>A man whose surname was
>"Doyle" may legitimately be referred to as "Doyle". And no amount of
>Latinesque sophistry, poor prose, name-calling, or exposition of personal
>information can possibly change that.
I'm coming in late so may be repeating a point already made. This is a
real fuss about nothing, because even if the man's surname *had* been
"Conan Doyle" (or "Conan-Doyle") for generations - which seems was not
the case - it would still be legitimate to refer to him as "Doyle",
just as Teilhard de Chardin may be referred to as "Teilhard".
It would also be legitimate to place him in alphabetical lists as if
the surname were "Doyle".
Does anyone else remember that the Iron Duke's real name was Arthur
Wesley?
--
John
a1a5...@sprint.ca
<j.nu...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Does anyone else remember that the Iron Duke's real name was Arthur
>Wesley?
>
>--
>John
Of course we do: fine Irish stock the Wesleys, planted in alien turf
by the Blessed Brenden, long ago.
Elron Xemoo
>>I say Great-Uncle when I mean the brother of one of my Great-Grandparents.
To the rest of us, that's a great-great-uncle.
What do you say when you mean the brother of a grandparent (a great-uncle to
the rest of us)?
What do you say when you mean the brother of a parent (an uncle to the rest
of us)?
--
Bot-bait: word...@writeme.com Gen...@fifthamendmentpress.com
Edward Swanson
In article <mogp5s0c4gjhgvfj7...@4ax.com>, John Nurick
<j.nu...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:33:29 -0800, "Avi Jacobson"
> <A...@GallerySystems.com> wrote:
>
>>A man whose surname was
>>"Doyle" may legitimately be referred to as "Doyle". And no amount of
>>Latinesque sophistry, poor prose, name-calling, or exposition of personal
>>information can possibly change that.
>
> I'm coming in late so may be repeating a point already made. This is a
> real fuss about nothing, because even if the man's surname *had* been
> "Conan Doyle" (or "Conan-Doyle") for generations - which seems was not
> the case - it would still be legitimate to refer to him as "Doyle",
> just as Teilhard de Chardin may be referred to as "Teilhard".
>
> It would also be legitimate to place him in alphabetical lists as if
> the surname were "Doyle".
>
> Does anyone else remember that the Iron Duke's real name was Arthur
> Wesley?
>
I thought it was Arthur Wellesley.
>
> --
> John
D+ Ash
| Gentle Readers,
[..Introductory disenchanted view of census takers removed..]
| Scene in Edinburgh in 1881 [A Scenario]:
|
| [Census Taker]:
|
| "Alright, this is 15 Lonsdale Terrace, right --- the Doyle
| Family?"
Is this illiterate spelling of "all right" designed to indicate
from the outset that the official was ill-educated? A novel
attempt to combine stage directions and dialogue?
Why is the official so brusque and, by the standards of the time
(and the place), so discourteous? Does he already suspect that his
visit will lead to his competence being questioned throughout the
English-speaking world 118 years later?
| [Mary Kilpatrick, the Irish Maid, 17 years old, just arrived
| from Dublin eight months before, not wanting to make
| any waves]:
|
| "Why yes, sir it is that."
|
| [C. T.]
|
| "Well, is the lady of the house in then." [N.B. In his best
| male-chauvinist-rude voice]
|
| [Mary]:
|
| "Why, no sir, she's gone a shopping with most of the children to
| the shoe store. They keeps outgrowing their shoes."
Small detail ... is this intended to suggest that the Doyles were
eccentric and kept their shoes in storage? I think Mary meant to
say 'shoe-shop'.
| [C.T.]:
|
| "Yes, yes. I don't have time for chit-chat Miss. So, how many
| are there in the Doyle family and what's Mr. Doyle's name?
This lacks all verisimilitude. The census laws were strict. The
information had to be vouched for by a head of household. Here and
in the following exchanges the visitor appears to be a tabloid
journalist posing as an official in order to dig up the salacious
story about Bryan's sex-change.
| [Mary]:
|
| "Well he don't live here, sir, he's in Fordoun House."
|
| [C.T.]
|
| "Really? Why?"
|
| [Mary]:
|
| "Well, I don't know much about that sir, he was sick for a long
| time."
|
| [C.T.]
|
| (Sceptically) "Hmmmmmm, well do the Doyles have a Family
| Bible I could look at. I need the full names and ages of the
| mother and children."
|
| [Mary]:
|
| "Oh, yes sir. It's in the parlour. I'll get it for you."
Chapeau! You didn't send Mary to the 'parlor'.
| [Mary returns with Family Bible, listing all births]
|
| "You see, the first two as has a different name, sir. It's like
| Master Arthur, the medical student, and his older sister
| Annette, I thinks her name is, who's married and don't live
| here. They's _Conan Doyle_ named after their great-uncle."
To my ear, Mary speaks like a Cockney. I don't believe she's from
Dublin. There's more and more here to interest a Sherlock Holmes,
I'd say.
| [C.T.]
|
| "What? Don't talk nonsense, girl. I don't have time for all
| that fancy folderol. Great-uncles don't name their
| great-nephews and nieces, parents do.
The poor girl never suggested that they did. (Nor did biographer
Daniel Stashower, come to that.)
| These are the Doyles, right?" [N.B. (Thinking) "These
| Irish Catholics, drunks and always trying to jump up in the
| world. Too many of them in Scotland. Giving themselves
| compound surnames and taking on airs. What rubbish!"
| Doyles they are, Doyles they stay!]
|
| [Mary]:
|
| "Why, yes, sir. I was just trying to be helpful, sir."
|
| [C.T.]:
|
| "Yes, well, that will be all. I'll just sit down here at the
| kitchen table and copy this out. These five children, all
| Doyles, live here with the Mother?"
The idea that a maidservant would show an official, whether of
national or local government, into the kitchen, betrays a lack of
understanding of how these things were handled in the 19th century.
He clearly is a smooth-talking tabloid journalist who has bribed or
flattered the girl into allowing him to snoop around. Or she is
his accomplice from London. But he's wasting his time because he
won't find out much about Bryan's sex-change in the family bible.
| [Mary]:
|
| "Yes, sir. Well, I'll be tending to my chores over here sir, if
| you need anything else."
Code for 'They're all out, we've just got time for a quick jiggie
with Mr Biggie, home boy'.
--
D+ Ash London England
Mail: d+ {at} dash {dot} greatxscape {dot} net
D. Spencer Hines
Much more coherent over all. Helps to prevent pratfalls when running
genealogical calculations ----- such as the brother of your 23rd
Great-Grandfather = 23rd Great-Uncle.
The brother of a Parent is an Uncle.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
And a tip of the chapeau to Bun.
Happy to have enlightened you.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"Elron Xemoo" <Fil...@MailCity.Com> wrote in message
news:83j1r3$5fi$1...@news.inficad.com...
Matti Lamprhey
news:mogp5s0c4gjhgvfj7...@4ax.com...
>
> Does anyone else remember that the Iron Duke's real name was Arthur
> Wesley?
I don't think you've quite got the measure of the man, John -- you've
curtailed him by 45".
Matti
Paul J. Gans
> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:HiY64.55$hT2....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
> | In alt.usage.english Elron Xemoo <Fil...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> | > D. Spencer Hines wrote in message ...
> |
> | >>>Vide infra postea.
> |
> | > Futuete te ipsum, atque equum in quo arrivisti.
> | > --
> | > Bot-bait: word...@writeme.com Gen...@fifthamendmentpress.com
> |
> | Unfair. He doesn't read Latin.
> |
> | ---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
> False, but I don't go obscene.
> That's quite childish and indicates an absence of wit and savoir faire.
> Warren Hapke posts faulty Latin, as do others, and think that because I
> don't correct them I can't read Latin.
> I have bigger fish to fry. But their fantasies are good for their egos.
> --
Curious, because you *do* reply to attacks when those
are made in English, but you've never responded to the
many that have been made in Latin. After all, Latin
is the touchstone of all knowledge. If one can't
respond to a Latin attack, then one is an uneducated
pogue, or so I've been told.
And for a man who does not go obscene you sure have
a lot of posts containing references to arses, as if
somehow that's more dainty than a good old American ass.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Paul J. Gans
No way. He belongs to the ages... Besides, he
crossposts everything to every newsgroup he's ever
read. Or close to it.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
J. W. Love
>even if the man's surname *had* been
>"Conan Doyle" (or "Conan-Doyle") for generations - which seems was not
>the case - it would still be legitimate to refer to him as "Doyle",
Is it then legitimate to refer to Ralph Vaughan Williams as "Williams"?
Just checking. Jacob.
Non omni tempore sensus adest.
Ray Heindl
<83h7ft$ii0$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
>Just to show you how I am, every time I have read "granduncle" in
>this thread (I have never seen it enywhere else in my life), I think
>of carbuncles. Not a pleasant thought. Stop it!
Given the original subject matter, I presume the carbuncles are blue.
--Ray Heindl
Mary Fisher
Marion Gevers <mar...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
news:83ic76$8ds$3...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> Mary Fisher <Ma...@38smv.freeserve.co.uk> a écrit:
>
> >But that aside, I'd like to know what all this has to do with
> >soc. history MEDIEVAL (sic).
> >
> >Please don't clutter our ng.
>
> It doesn't have much to do with English usage, either.
>
> We were kind of hoping you'd take him back.
He never went away ...
Mary
D. Spencer Hines
Case proven --- in spades
Hapke, Emmanuel and some others post bollixed Latin all the time and
position it as bait for me.
Silly Buggers!
Follett The Pornographer even confessed to doing this quite recently.
The puerile non-reasoning goes that if I don't correct them then I don't
read Latin.
I discussed this matter in private e-mail with a gentle reader here
quite recently. We agreed that the practice was quite transparent and
childish and not worth pursuing.
People also expect me to translate large congealed chunks of Latin for
them. At one point I was getting 10 or 15 of those requests per week.
I made it clear I'm not the duty Latin translator. People get paid to
do that. I have other gainful ways to spend my time. The markets have
been quite active recently --- lots of buying opportunities. All that
takes hard work and fine-grained analysis.
Many here do go obscene --- often quite casually. I see no good reason
to do that. A skillful writer should not have to do that. It lowers
the level of discourse and reveals an empty hand.
An ignorant pogue like the chemist, who has no wit to speak of [he
admits that himself] and who is monolingual to the max has few
alternatives. Mostly he just writes quite plodingly and with a
pedestrian _basso continuo_. He is a chemist. He has no real education
in the Liberal Arts.
He is cautious, but occasionally goes quite obscene and threatening in
what he construes as a protected private channel. That is why I
insisted long ago [over two years ago] that he post whatever he had to
say to me in the newsgroups. I have utterly no desire to correspond in
e-mail with a 220 pound 5' 9 1/2" whistling marmot, who thinks he can
threaten and intimidate. In the classroom, I imagine he gets away with
it.
He is another one, much like Einde the Omega Female, who takes the
attitude that if he can't understand what you're talking about --- you
shouldn't be doing it. "I will proscribe what I can't understand."
Some of this is Unabated High School Clique Syndrome, on his part, but
some appears to be based on his Marxist-Leninist past and a general
desire to dumb things down to the level where "The People," as he
understands them, can easily understand what is being said.
No. We can do much better than that. His standards are far too low for
the intelligent people on these newsgroups. Currently, he is trying to
orchestrate the Yahoo Component here to endorse his very low standards
for literacy.
Sincerely and Merry Christmas,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:7qb74.48$BB3....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Elron Xemoo
>>In my Irish youth we used "granduncle" and "grandniece" for this
relationship.
Irish? Oh, well yeah, sure...
--
Bot-bait: word...@writeme.com Gen...@fifthamendmentpress.com
Paul Pfalzner
Elron Xemoo <Fil...@MailCity.Com> wrote in message
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote in message
<385CBE2D...@planet-interkom.de>...
>
> >>In my Irish youth we used "granduncle" and "grandniece" for this
> relationship.
>
And if we have grandfathers and greatgrand etc., then why is the usage
greataunt and greatuncle? This seems illogical. If we adopt grandaunt,
we can then also talk of greatgrandaunt and so on.
I have advocated the use of these terms - correspondingly grandnieces
and grandnephews, and greatgrandnieces etc.
I even devised a revised kinship chart which uses these terms, and does
away with the "removed cousin" terminology and replaces it with 1st,
2nd, 3rd etc grandnephew or grandaunt etc.
Removed (once, twice, etc) cousins are objectionable.
PM
Robert Lieblich
< Assuming that Vaughan Williams's "legal"
> last name (however one defines that) is indeed Vaughan Williams,
> then yes, he should be known that way. But (and I'm assuming
> here) if he adopted it late in life without a formal name
> change, then folks are, I think, quite all right in referring
> him to his last name which would be "Williams".
The composer Ralph Vaughan Williams came from a family of many lawyers.
One of his ancestors at least three generations back had done a Conan
Doyle and amalgamated his middle name Vaughan into his surname Williams.
By the time Ralph was born, 1872, Vaughan Williams was well established
as the family surname. And so it appeared on his birth records, I would
assume (I've never seen them or read a report of them).
His first name was pronounced "rafe" by those who knew him. Yes, it
was. Please don't start that one again.[1]
[1] Among other things, there's the evidence of the first recording of
VW's Ninth Symphony, Sir Adrian Boult conducting the London Phil,
recorded not on English Decca, like the eight preceding symphonies, but
on Everest, which once was a fine high-fidelity recording company. VW
died only hours before the orchestra began to make the recording, and
the first Everest edition of the symphony, which I have, has an
announcement at the beginning by Sir Adrian, noting VW's death. Sir
Adrian was by far the foremost conductorial proponent of VW's music
during VW's lifetime; the men were very close friends. And Sir Adrian
pronounced VW's first name "Rafe." VW's widow Ursula also wrote that VW
preferred "Rafe." So let's not get started, okay?
Bob Lieblich
tiglath
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:ZqN64.2046$_f....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Gentle Readers,
>
> Two Points:
>
> 1. It makes no difference to History whether Sir Arthur received the
> compound surname _Conan Doyle_ at birth --- as Daniel Stashower, his
> quite competent biographer seems to think --- or later in life. Sir
> Arthur died in 1930 and his surname is known to History as _Conan
> Doyle_. So, I've been correct from the beginning on the Main Point
> here. His surname is _Conan Doyle_. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
[large bullsnip]
Here Mr. Hines goes into his usual flights of fancy to discredit sources
that do harm to his views. He tried the same tack against the OED. Now is
time to wax poetic about the terribly incompetent census takers. Had the
census presented here been favorable to his view, we would be hearing about
the stout reliability of Scottish officials and the good old days when
people did a conscientious job. More sophistic garbage to rescue a
proposition in so much trouble that he AGAIN stands alone against the gale
of contrary opinion, which keeps blowing away his toupee.
tiglath
> In alt.usage.english Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
> > D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> >>
> >> Mary Doyle's youngest daughter, born about 1877, was indeed named
Bryan.
>
> > Which invalidates your primary example for the inaccuracy of the census
> > recordation.
>
> > Ever hear of the golfer Clifford Ann Creed?
>
> Also gives a hint that he had not read the book when he
> began extolling its virtues...
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
He is a sponge reader in a hurry to cover his ass. A man who speaks
vociferously and has to scurry about searching for supporting reference
AFTER shooting from the hip, is imitating depth of knowledge -- a fake.
Paul J. Gans
> Just checking. Jacob.
I'd say it depends. Assuming that Vaughan Williams's "legal"
last name (however one defines that) is indeed Vaughan Williams,
then yes, he should be known that way. But (and I'm assuming
here) if he adopted it late in life without a formal name
change, then folks are, I think, quite all right in referring
him to his last name which would be "Williams".
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
John Flynn
[Several bits removed since I'm just commenting on his English]
> An ignorant pogue like the chemist, who has no wit to speak of [he
> admits that himself] and who is monolingual to the max has few
> alternatives. Mostly he just writes quite plodingly and with a
> pedestrian _basso continuo_. He is a chemist. He has no real
> education in the Liberal Arts.
This paragraph was the first in which you made some errors. It
occurred a decent way into your text, so I think your writing skills
are definitely improving. Anyway...
The first thing I notice is that your first sentence is out of balance.
There is the first clause "An ignorant pogue like the chemist" that
doesn't really say anything, and then the rest of the sentence. My
suggestion would be to put a comma after "...to the max" in order to
have a predicate relating to your main clause (i.e. "the chemist" is
being being described as having "few alternatives"). In your version,
there is no such predicate, so the Gentle Reader is left hanging,
waiting for the revelation about the chemist.
Next point is the word "plodingly" -- I can't find it in any of my
dictionaries. Is it, perhaps, an erroneous version of "ploddingly"?
That WOULD make sense. Or maybe "plodingly" is a rare word that has
not been included in the several dictionaries I have consulted. If it
is the latter case, then I would really appreciate either a definition
posted in response or an emailed definition. I do mean this sincerely,
by the way.
My final point about this paragraph is your "He is a chemist."
sentence. Very nice, it is a statement, but what's it trying to say?
I would have linked it to the successive sentence in some way (a comma,
a colon, a dash, whatever -- you choose!) to make it relevant to
something. Unless, of course, you were merely stating that Paul Gans
is indeed a chemist for the sake of any Gentle Readers that have either
misplaced this fact or entered the scene late and are unaware of this.
> He is cautious, but occasionally goes quite obscene and threatening
> in what he construes as a protected private channel. That is why I
> insisted long ago [over two years ago] that he post whatever he had
> to say to me in the newsgroups. I have utterly no desire to
> correspond in e-mail with a 220 pound 5' 9 1/2" whistling marmot, who
> thinks he can threaten and intimidate. In the classroom, I imagine
> he gets away with it.
"That is why I insisted long ago [over two years ago]..." doesn't need
the repetition of "ago" in its parenthetical clause. Removing the
excess reiteration (from either part, and rephrasing as necessary)
makes the sentence and its parenthesis flow smoothly, and leaves the
meaning identical. Just a style tip, not really a serious error.
"In the classroom, I imagine he gets away with it." is quite an
ambiguous sentence. It could be read as stating that when you are in
the classroom, that's when you can imagine Paul Gans getting away with
whatever you have claimed. Just rearrange the words a little, and the
intended meaning will be obvious without any potential confusion. For
example, "I imagine he gets away with it in the classroom." Placing
together the two related terms of the primary object of the sentence
(i.e. Paul Gans' location and action) makes the meaning more apparent.
The rest of it was okay, really. No errors, no stylistic gaffes.
Well done indeed, my lad! You're showing real promise.
--
johnF
=======================================================================
Communicate with people who understand: join the D. Spencer Hines email
discussion list today! There's no need to be alone and frightened: we
understand, we really do. And we don't persecute pooch-screwers.
mailto:dsh-su...@listbot.com with a blank message.
Jonathan Graham Harston
> > Excuse me, Mr. Hines, we get our surnames from our parents, not our
> > uncles. The use of "Conan Doyle" as a surname was merely an
> > affectation.
In English law, your name is 'that that you are known by'.
The name on your birth certificate is just that - the name you were given
when your birth was registered.
If people know me as Jebbediah Springfield, then legally, that is my name.
Practically, some institutions may be reluctant to enter into legal
contracts with you (such as giving you a bank account) if your name
if a lot different to that on your birth certificate. That is why there
is the 'deed poll' business - pay a lawyer to draw up a fancy declaration
that you can show to the bank manager.
Approximately 30% of the population of this country legally exist using
names that are different to the name on their birth certificate.
My mother for one...
As for giving your child the name of a relative, that is a strong
tradition in many cultures:
Mary Chambers and Henry Walker named their son
William Chambers Walker
Emily Pickering and William Chambers Walker named their son
William Pickering Walkler
Laura Marsay and William Pickering Walker named their daughter
Harriet Marsey Walkler
see the pattern?
Harriet Marsay Walker, traumatised by her husband Robert Harker's death
in WWI three weeks after her daughter was born, slipped up and named her
Harriet Marsey Harker (instead of Harriet Walker Harker)
then after WWII the pattern changes:
Howard Edwards and Harriet Marsey Harker named their son
Robert Howard Edwards
Alfred Harston and Minnie Cooper named their son
Graham Alfred Harston
Graham Alfred Harston and Susan Elizabeth Edwards named me
Jonathan Graham Harston.
See the pattern?
Similar patterns happen in Russian, Spanish, Portugese and Chinese
that I know of, probably many others. It's more unusual NOT to be
named after more than just your father.
--
Cllr Jonathan Harston <j...@arcade.demon.co.uk>
http://www.libdems.force9.co.uk/usr/jgh/
Office IT Administrator
Councillor for Walkley Ward, Sheffield City Council
paul draper
D+ Ash <see.a...@end.ok> wrote in message
news:83j8s9$ee3$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "D. Spencer Hines" wrote a period drama _in parvo_:
>
<SNIP> |
> | "Why, no sir, she's gone a shopping with most of the children to
> | the shoe store. They keeps outgrowing their shoes."
>
> Small detail ... is this intended to suggest that the Doyles were
> eccentric and kept their shoes in storage? I think Mary meant to
> say 'shoe-shop'.
>
Cobblers.
I should really have attached this to DSH's post but it hadn't occurred to
me then. Better late than never,eh?
--
Paul Draper
0171 369 2754
paul draper
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:YXT64.3179$_f.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Vide infra postea.
>
> Frankly, my preference would have been to write Grand-Uncle; but please
> remember that I was quoting Mr. Stashower.
>
> I say Great-Uncle when I mean the brother of one of my
> Great-Grandparents.
>
> To me, that is clearer.
>
But that's not the point, it should be clear to other people as well. I say
this because in my family a great-uncle would be the brother of a
grandmother or grandfather. Now I don't propose that I'm right or that you
are wrong on this point but I would like to know what the general usage is.
Not your usage but the general usage.
Matti Lamprhey
news:385E3450...@libdems.force9.co.uk...
A very interesting post, and introducing, to me at least, the "trained
typo".
See the way you mistyped "Walker" as "Walkler" a couple of times? Your sig.
provides the reason, I think.
Matti
Paul J. Gans
> My mother for one...
> see the pattern?
> See the pattern?
Of course.
For most of us the issue is quite simple. Ample evidence
exists that Doyle was known both as "Doyle" and as "Conan
Doyle" (not to mention Dr. Doyle). It is clearly not
improper to refer to him by one of these names as folks
not only did so during his lifetime but have continued
to do so long after.
That's it. There is one fellow who keeps insisting that we
MUST refer to him as Conan Doyle. I *may* but I reject MUST.
Opinicus
> Practically, some institutions may be reluctant to enter into legal
> contracts with you (such as giving you a bank account) if your name
> if a lot different to that on your birth certificate.
--
Bob
Foça, Turkey
---
Kanyak's Doghouse <http://www.geocities.com/kanyak.geo>
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you kindly.
It's really quite excellent to hear from someone who actually knows what
he is talking about, rather than someone who is just bugling personal
epiphenomenal opinions, such as Josep Maria Pere Rafael Suriol Alfaro.
It's also quite easy to tell the difference between the two.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"Jonathan Graham Harston" <j...@libdems.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:385E3450...@libdems.force9.co.uk...
| tiglath wrote:
| > > Excuse me, Mr. Hines, we get our surnames from our parents, not
our
| > > uncles. The use of "Conan Doyle" as a surname was merely an
| > > affectation.
|
| In English law, your name is 'that that you are known by'.
|
| The name on your birth certificate is just that - the name you were
given
| when your birth was registered.
|
| If people know me as Jebbediah Springfield, then legally, that is my
name.
|
| Practically, some institutions may be reluctant to enter into legal
| contracts with you (such as giving you a bank account) if your name
D. Spencer Hines
Surely.
Some errant pogues have locked their feet in the hardening concrete of
their own sloth, ineptitude and ignorance, and there is certainly no
moving them.
The sad thing is that there are so many folks of this ilk in the
professing, prating, instructing and scribbling classes.
Sir Arthur's compound surname is Conan Doyle, as is that of his
children.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:dqs74.13$2m4....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
tiglath
>
> This is a man, a chemist, who supposedly has learned the Scientific
> Method. Yet he equates "many, many posters" to a newsgroup and
their
> secondary and tertiary references to the professional judgement of
Sir
> Arthur's most recent biographer, Daniel Stashower _and_ Sir Arthur's
> clear preference for _Conan Doyle_.
A clear reference is not equal to the ultimate truth, much is you wish
it were so. Aristotle made a clear reference to the fact that women
had fewer teeth than men, even though he was married. Since logic and
reason can't help you here, you rely on pronouncements from authority,
the authority of one Daniel Stashower, of no Aristotelian stature to
be sure, but, according to you, infallible in nature. The
references you try to discredit are far more authoritative than your
"Johnnie come lately" latest biographer, and include the Encyclopedia
Britannica, The British Library, and the Scottish Census. You are
outgunned.
> His clear pattern of stubborn lunacy
I choice phrase, which best describes you in the last few weeks.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Elron Xemoo schrieb:
> >
> > Alex Chernavsky <Chern...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>What's a great-uncle, anyway?
> >
> > It's the brother of a grandparent, just as an uncle is the brother
> > of a parent. I'm my sister's granddaughters' great-uncle, and
> > they're my great-nieces, and cute as bugs, too.
>
> In my Irish youth we used "granduncle" and "grandniece" for this
> relationship.
Do you go to "great-granduncle" for the brother of a
great-grandparent?
For me, as with Elron, the elder of a pair of zeroth cousins twice
removed is a "great-uncle/aunt". I'm not sure that I have ever heard
"great-niece/nephew", but I'd understand it to refer to the younger of
the pair.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |looking on the bright side of any
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking
|on the bright side, the catastrophe
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |is still there.
(650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke
tiglath
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:UtT64.3045$_f.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Sir Arthur's children also have the
> compound surname _Conan Doyle_.
Why is this so significant, while the fact that his father didn't have
the surname Conan Doyle isn't? In your Book of Fallacies you will
find one called Observational Selection, by which you support your
conclusion by counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Your very
kind of thinking. Yale spits on you Hines.
ACD, and anyone, can change his name and pass the new name to his
children. Once Conan Doyle became a universally recognized name
there was a good reason for his descendants to adopt it as their
surname to distinguished themselves from the plain Doyles of this
world. This fact still makes you an stupid moron for calling Paul an
idiot for saying that ACD's surname was Doyle.
Lacking clear, legal guidelines on names, as there seems to be a lack
of them in ACD's time and place, common sense must prevail. It is
reasonable to say that the name registered at birth is a person's
official name, the one available to anyone who doesn't know how people
address that person in life. The effective name is that which people
use everyday to refer to that person, which can be anything. In
ACD's case the change between his original, official, real, given name
and his effective, adopted, famous name was slight. Since you have
not provided any proof (the burden is on you ) that ACD bothered to
change his official name, there is no reason to think that it changed.
You have not established either that any adopted name has primacy
over, and cancels, the official name of a person. A very sloppy job
on your part for which you continue to get low marks.
Marion Gevers
>I even devised a revised kinship chart which uses these terms, and does
>away with the "removed cousin" terminology and replaces it with 1st,
>2nd, 3rd etc grandnephew or grandaunt etc.
>
>Removed (once, twice, etc) cousins are objectionable.
That's why they were removed.
--
Peter Moylan
Paul Pfalzner
paul draper <pdr...@baig.co.uk> wrote in message
news:83ldta$r26$1...@nclient9-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > Vide infra postea.
> >
> > Frankly, my preference would have been to write Grand-Uncle; but
please
> > remember that I was quoting Mr. Stashower.
> >
> > I say Great-Uncle when I mean the brother of one of my
> > Great-Grandparents.
> >
> > To me, that is clearer.
Unfortunately, this is not the correct term. The bro. of yr ggparents
is a gguncle.
The brother of yr gparents is a greatuncle or granduncle.
I make the case for using granduncle instead of the more customary
greatuncle on the basis of consistency with grandfather - we do not say
greatfather! - and then going on, for the next generation, saying
greatgranduncle, etc. just as for ggparents.
This also makes sense when replacing the removed cousin terms by
replacing these with terms that make use of uncle/aunt and
nephew/niece, for example, 1stcousin once removed becomes either 2nd
uncle/aunt or 2nd nephew/niece, and so on. This seems much prferable to
the nongendered cousins and the absence of any indication of the
generationasl differences. Also Uncle/niece relations are much more
pleasant than removed cousin/rem.cousin.
PM
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:v9hvh5t...@garrett.hpl.hp.com...
| Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> writes:
|
| > Elron Xemoo schrieb:
| > >
| > > Alex Chernavsky <Chern...@aol.com> wrote:
| > >
| > > >>What's a great-uncle, anyway?
| > >
| > > It's the brother of a grandparent, just as an uncle is the brother
| > > of a parent. I'm my sister's granddaughters' great-uncle, and
| > > they're my great-nieces, and cute as bugs, too.
| >
| > In my Irish youth we used "granduncle" and "grandniece" for this
| > relationship.
Quite.
And your formulation, learned in your Irish youth, is much better
founded in logic and language and therefore more sensible. It's best to
forget and erase the wrong-headed and potentially confusing gibberish,
supra.
Eschew the warblings of false prophets and errant pogues, who know not
whereof they speak. For they shall lead you into the pit of damnation,
ignorance and sloth.
_Granduncle_ is the best formulation for the brother of a Grandparent.
The fact that many ignoramuses do not use it makes no conceivable
difference to the cognoscenti.
| Do you go to "great-granduncle" for the brother of a
| great-grandparent?
Yes.
And 23rd Great-Granduncle [N.B. I capitalise out of respect for them.]
for the brother of a 23rd Great-Grandparent.
See how much more coherent and logical that is?
It actually saves many casual mistakes and pratfalls when doing complex
Genealogical or Historical calculations.
Of course, one must define one's terminology at the outset, on first
use, so the reader is aware. That burden remains on the writer.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
Semper Fidelis
tiglath
Jonathan Graham Harston <j...@libdems.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:385E3450...@libdems.force9.co.uk...
> tiglath wrote:
> > > Excuse me, Mr. Hines, we get our surnames from our parents, not
our
> > > uncles. The use of "Conan Doyle" as a surname was merely an
> > > affectation.
Not that I disagree with the phrase above but I didn't write it. If
you are this careful with your attributions I wonder how reliable is
what you write below.
>
> In English law, your name is 'that that you are known by'.
>
> The name on your birth certificate is just that - the name you were
given
> when your birth was registered.
>
> If people know me as Jebbediah Springfield, then legally, that is my
name.
>
> Practically, some institutions may be reluctant to enter into legal
> contracts with you (such as giving you a bank account) if your name
> if a lot different to that on your birth certificate.
This seems to indicate that people following the convention to pass
their surnames to their children and to use the name they were
registered with, compensate for needed regulation there.
>
> Approximately 30% of the population of this country legally exist
using
> names that are different to the name on their birth certificate.
What is your source for this statistic? I lived in England for many
years and I can tell you I did not find one person in three who had
undergone a name chance.
>
> My mother for one...
That explains.
>
> As for giving your child the name of a relative, that is a strong
> tradition in many cultures:
>
> Mary Chambers and Henry Walker named their son
> William Chambers Walker
>
> Emily Pickering and William Chambers Walker named their son
> William Pickering Walkler
>
> Laura Marsay and William Pickering Walker named their daughter
> Harriet Marsey Walkler
>
> see the pattern?
A pattern which wasn't apparent when Arthur Conan Doyle was in medical
school and his name was recorded in the national census. It doesn't
follow from your examples that ACD's surname wasn't Doyle, which is
the point. It is not the point to show that people mess with their
names whimsically; we know that.
> Similar patterns happen in Russian, Spanish, Portugese and Chinese
> that I know of, probably many others. It's more unusual NOT to be
> named after more than just your father.
Again I see you miss the point. This conversation refers to ACD's
SURNAME; we know people usually adopt fornames different from those of
their father.
Please clarify. Are you saying that it is more unusual NOT to be
given a surname different from your father's. If so please give
supporting evidence.
We know that most children are not named EXACTLY as their father,
specially in the case of daughters.
tiglath
> He has supposedly heard of St. Conan [that's his cultural component]
and
> Conan the Barbarian [that's his entertainment component].
>
> But he has not heard of the four Dukes and/or Counts of Brittany who
> were named Conan
Hines is no Conan The Grammarian, or The Teletyper, or the
Etymologist.
Since when does the etymology of a word if it is a proper name depend
on who has been the bearer of that name? Just because there is an
Eskimo call Spencer, does that mean that Hines likes to eat raw
blubbler?
Conan is Gaelic for wolf, or hound. How can an Irish name like Doyle
be helped out if its Irishness by joining it with the Gaelic name
Conan?
>
> Nor has he heard of Conan ap Maredudd of Wales.
>
> So, he commits an egregious pratfall and comes to the conclusion
that
> Conan was either an Irish name or a fictional barbarian.
Heeeeeeere cooooooomes Hiney! If you though the Doyle pratfall was
his last before the year 2000, he is here to prove you wrong.
Murray Arnow
[...]
> For me, as with Elron, the elder of a pair of zeroth cousins twice
> removed is a "great-uncle/aunt". I'm not sure that I have ever heard
> "great-niece/nephew", but I'd understand it to refer to the younger of
> the pair.
Evan, would you draw a diagram or explain in detail what you wrote above.
What are zeroth cousins--are they siblings?
FWIW, my great niece and nephews are my sister's grandchildren which makes
me their great-uncle.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In alt.usage.english Evan Kirshenbaum <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > For me, as with Elron, the elder of a pair of zeroth cousins twice
> > removed is a "great-uncle/aunt". I'm not sure that I have ever
> > heard "great-niece/nephew", but I'd understand it to refer to the
> > younger of the pair.
>
> Evan, would you draw a diagram or explain in detail what you wrote
> above. What are zeroth cousins--are they siblings?
Any two people who are related share a common ancestor. For the sake
of simplicity, let's suppose that they share only one (or one pair).
Count up the number of generations that you need to go from each to
reach the common ancestor. Subtract one from that number. (If the
numbers differ, subtract one from the smaller.) This is the "cousin
value". First cousins share a grandparent: their parents are
siblings. Second cousins share a great-grandparent: their
grandparents are siblings. If the two numbers differ, the difference
is the "removedness". For first cousins once removed, the grandparent
of one is the great-grandparent of the other. (Or, equivalently, the
parent of one is the sibling of the other's grandparent.)
We have special names for zeroth and minus-oneth cousins:
Minus-oneth cousin: yourself
Minus-oneth cousin, once removed: parent, child
Minus-oneth cousin, twice removed: grandparent, grandchild
Minus-oneth cousin, three times removed: great-grandparent/child
...
Zeroth cousin: sibling
Zeroth cousin, once removed: aunt, uncle, niece, nephew
Zeroth cousin, twice removed: great-aunt/uncle/niece/nephew
...
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |network-wide use of encryption, but
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle
|key distribution, is a useless
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |farce.
(650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer
tiglath
Avi Jacobson <A...@GallerySystems.com> wrote in message
news:EeZ64.666$5v2....@nntp1-sf.pbi.net...
> I am conveniently hitching a ride on Paul's posting, since Hines' has not
> shown up on my server yet.> news:lgR64.20$hT2....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
> > In alt.usage.english D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
> wrote:
> > > It's really quite curious, indeed risible, that some folks, who are
> > > supposedly adult and ostensibly at least semi-literate have never
passed
> > > Thinking 101.
> >
> > > The Scientific Method in its simplest formulation is _terra incognita_
> > > to their minds and hearts.
> >
> > > When they are trying to determine the truth of some postulated fact,
> > > they run around frantically like rabid marmots gathering secondary,
> > > non-relevant information --- and piling it on top of overripe factoids
> > > they have already proudly taken back to their dens and burrows.
>
> Hines, what in the name of Hell is a "postulated fact"?
He meant a "pustulated" fact -- the Doyle question, which festered on him
just like the teletype question and the sit/set question. He's been
supurating on the Usenet for years now.
>
> The same is true of your outrageous teletype gaffe: you made the
impossible
> assertion (which, by the way, you have neither full-heartedly admitted to
> nor full-heartedly denied having made) that teletype machines put new
> material at the top of the page, on top of older material. What teletype
> machines did is a matter of historical fact, easily proven or disproven.
He tiptoed away from that one, hoping for it to blow over. Wild horses
won't drag him back to face that question.
>
> > > They make a dog's
> > > breakfast of their own unfiltered personal opinions and call it
> > > reasoning, based on evidence. There is much "coulda, mighta, shoulda,
> > > woulda" in their febrile analyses.
>
> I cannot bring myself to believe that even you -- with all you have
stooped
> to -- are incapable of understanding the basic fact that no typing machine
> ever put new material at the top of the page, nor could it. I cannot
bring
> myself to believe that if someone calls an individual by the surname with
> which he was born, there is no justification for deeming him an idiot, and
> that the person who so deems him is, in fact, the idiot. No coulda. No
> mighta. No shoulda. No woulda. In fact, no analysis, febrile or
> otherwise. No theory. No postulate. No hypothesis. Just fact.
Teletype
> machines typed from the top down (and still do). A man whose surname was
> "Doyle" may legitimately be referred to as "Doyle". And no amount of
> Latinesque sophistry, poor prose, name-calling, or exposition of personal
> information can possibly change that.
Don't stop.
>
> Here's some reality testing, Hines. Can you produce a single posting in
any
> of the threads in which you have participated, where someone -- anyone --
> defends your position? Can you find a single individual here who says "By
> Jove, he's right! People sit, things set. Teletypes type backwards. A
man
> named Doyle should never be called Doyle, and he who calls him that is an
> idiot"?
He won't face the facts that are facing him. A man with balls would not
mind putting those issues under the spotlight for anyone to see them with
laser-beam like clarity, ready to admit whatever came out of the public
scrutiny. Unfortunately, he uses a medium were a public record is created
of everything he writes, so he stands condemned by each word he wrote, much
as he tries to distance himself from them, or make us forget them.
piddy
>Vide infra pro sapientia.
>Thank you kindly.
Hi Spence! I always wanted to know who Carly Simon was singing about.
Was it Warren Beaty, Mick Jagger, or Spencer Hines?
piddy
D. Spencer Hines
dilute the Irishness of the surname "Doyle" by prefacing it with
"Conan," which is, if anything, even more Irish, dating back to St.
Conan, a seventh century Irish missionary, later bishop of the Isle of
Man. Unless, as others have observed, one seeks to pass oneself off as
a barbarian, Conan is Irish." [cs]
Robert Lieblich
----------------------Cordon Sanitaire--------------------
I've previously pointed out how badly Lieblich has screwed the pooch on
this one.
He did not prepare his brief with even a modicum of due care and
diligence. Attorneys have been disbarred for lesser acts of negligence.
Nor did he do his homework with respect to _Conan Doyle's_ Granduncle,
Michael Conan.
Had he done that essential homework, which is the minimal to be expected
of a competent lawyer, he would have known that Michael Conan took a
great interest in Genealogy, History and Heraldry and passed this
interest on to young Arthur and his Mother, Mary [Foley] Doyle.
Michael Conan reportedly believed he was genealogically linked to the
Conans, Counts and Dukes of Brittany --- the four Conans --- and that
Arthur was too. This is not to say that his belief was true.
Conan II, comte de Bretagne, as Lieblich would have known --- had he
done the minimum expected of a competent lawyer in the preparation of
his brief --- was an adversary of Guillaume, duc de Normandie [William
The Conqueror].
In his Breton War of 1064, Guillaume, duc de Normandie, defeated Conan
II de Bretagne, comte de Bretagne, thereby neutralising the threat of a
hostile Brittany on his left flank when he made his move to conquer
England two years later.
Conan II died on 11 Dec 1066, while besieging Chateau-Gonthier.
Ordericus Vitalis and William of Jumieges both take the position that
Conan was poisoned at the direct instigation of William The Conqueror.
The story goes that Conan's hunting horn, the reins of his horse and his
gloves were all poisoned and that when he put on his gloves and touched
the reins of his horse and then raised his hands to his lips he was soon
food for worms.
Modern scholars are sceptical of this story.
One can readily imagine the effect that romantic stories of this sort
would have had on young Arthur and why he was proud to carry the
compound surname _Conan Doyle_.
Had Lieblich read any of the other works of Sir Arthur, beyond the
Holmesian canon, [perhaps he's not even read that] such as _The White
Company_, a historical novel set in the 14th Century reign of King
Edward III, he might have avoided this revealing gaffe.
_The White Company_ was inspired by tales of "gallant, pious knights"
and "the valiant deeds of English chivalry" that had so thrilled Sir
Arthur as a boy. --- Had he read it, the plodding Lieblich might have
picked up on the scent.
But, he failed to do that, or do any other basic research, and therefore
executed a thunderous pratfall. In attempting to "correct" me --- he
fell into massive error.
Good lawyers don't do this sort of thing. They get their ducks in a row
before they try to "correct" someone on the facts or the law.
Perhaps this should be referred to as _Hines' Corollary to Skitt's Law_.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Pax Vobiscum.
Exitus Acta Probat
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| One of the reassuringly consistent things about Robert Lieblich, the
| cocker spaniel, is his plodding yet clueless and frolicsome ignorance
| combined with an astounding and quite unjustified arrogance. Others
| have commented on it as well, I need go no further.
|
| He has supposedly heard of St. Conan [that's his cultural component]
and
| Conan the Barbarian [that's his entertainment component].
|
| But he has not heard of the four Dukes and/or Counts of Brittany who
| were named Conan
|
| Nor has he heard of Conan ap Maredudd of Wales.
|
| So, he commits an egregious pratfall and comes to the conclusion that
| Conan was either an Irish name or a fictional barbarian.
|
| I've fired many an incompetent lawyer for a much lesser error of
| judgement than that.
|
| The cocker spaniel seems, by his own admission, to be yet another of
| those faceless yet incredibly arrogant bureaucrats who suck at the
| public teat --- financed by the taxpayers --- in Washington, D.C.
|
| The cocker spaniel apparently did not have either the smarts or the
| credentials to get into a really first-class Washington law firm,
where
| he could make some real money. After reading his work product in this
| newsgroup for several weeks now, I'm not surprised in the least at
that
| outcome.
|
| Continuing with Conan I 'le Tort' duc de Bretagne, who died in 992:
|
| Anyone who is a descendant of William The Conqueror is also a
descendant
| of Conan I, duc de Bretagne. Conan I, duc de Bretagne is the
| Great-Grandfather of William The Conqueror [c.1027-1087]
|
| Mary Doyle, Arthur's Mother, reportedly was a descendant of the Percy
| Family, Earls of Northumberland --- at least she allegedly thought she
| was. If that were true, Arthur could easily be a descendant of these
| Conans, counts and dukes of Brittany. His Mother reportedly pumped
him
| up with many romantic tales of these noble and chivalrous ancestors.
|
| The cocker spaniel doesn't know any of this --- hence his pratfall ---
| thinking that Conan was only Irish or a barbarian fantasy.
|
| ---------------Cordon Sanitaire----------------------
|
| "But that foolishness pales in comparison to the suggestion that one
can
| dilute the Irishness of the surname "Doyle" by prefacing it with
| "Conan," which is, if anything, even more Irish, dating back to St.
| Conan, a seventh century Irish missionary, later bishop of the Isle of
| Man. Unless, as others have observed, one seeks to pass oneself off
as
| a barbarian, Conan is Irish." [cs]
|
| --------------Cordon Sanitaire-----------------------
|
| Since when is Brittany or Wales too, for that matter, part of Ireland?
|
| Now that is _really vintage ignorance_ --- unsurpassed even in our
| Nation's capital, among those hordes of government bureaucrats,
sucking
| at the public teat.
|
| Combine that ignorance with overweening arrogance and you have a most
| volatile mix ---- a formula virtually guaranteed to grease pratfalls,
| well into the new millennium.
|
| Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Jack Gavin
>Murray Arnow <ar...@iname.com> writes:
>
>>
>> Evan, would you draw a diagram or explain in detail what you wrote
>> above. What are zeroth cousins--are they siblings?
>
>Any two people who are related share a common ancestor. For the sake
>of simplicity, let's
>
>We have special names for zeroth and minus-oneth cousins:
>
What you mean, "we"?
> Minus-oneth cousin: yourself
> Minus-oneth cousin, once removed: parent, child
> Minus-oneth cousin, twice removed: grandparent, grandchild
> Minus-oneth cousin, three times removed: great-grandparent/child
> ...
> Zeroth cousin: sibling
> Zeroth cousin, once removed: aunt, uncle, niece, nephew
> Zeroth cousin, twice removed: great-aunt/uncle/niece/nephew
> ...
>
--
Jack Gavin
Dick Durbin
In the short time that I have been reading this newsgroup you have
been asked to refrain from crossposting to unrelated newsgroups, refrain
from argumentum ad hominem attacks, and have been asked to trim your
replies. In spite of these requests, you persist in this antisocial
behavior. Can you please explain why?
--
Dick Durbin
Tallahassee, FL
www.tfn.net/~ddurbin
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jonathan Graham Harston
> Not that I disagree with the phrase above but I didn't write it. If
> you are this careful with your attributions I wonder how reliable is
> what you write below.
Oops, sorry, sloppy editing.
> Please clarify. Are you saying that it is more unusual NOT to be
> given a surname different from your father's. If so please give
> supporting evidence.
Some people who have been passed a matronimic as well as a patronimic
actually use both those names together as a surname.
In my family listing I gave, William Chambers Walker was known as
Mr Chambers Walker, no hyphen. Being some distance from my family
history stuff, I can't go into much more correct detail - I'd be
dredging stuff from my own memory - but I have some documents that
were titled 'Mr Chambers Walker' amongst them.
> We know that most children are not named EXACTLY as their father,
> specially in the case of daughters.
I know of a man called Chris who named his daughter Chris ;)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote in message ...
> >Murray Arnow <ar...@iname.com> writes:
>
> >We have special names for zeroth and minus-oneth cousins:
> >
>
> What you mean, "we"?
I was under the impression that most English speakers had the words
"parent", "child", "sibling", "aunt", etc. These words describe
relationships that, according to the (snipped) algorithm that
identifies first cousins and second cousins would be categorized as
zeroth cousins and minus-oneth (or minus-first) cousins.
> > Minus-oneth cousin: yourself
> > Minus-oneth cousin, once removed: parent, child
> > Minus-oneth cousin, twice removed: grandparent, grandchild
> > Minus-oneth cousin, three times removed: great-grandparent/child
> > ...
> > Zeroth cousin: sibling
> > Zeroth cousin, once removed: aunt, uncle, niece, nephew
> > Zeroth cousin, twice removed: great-aunt/uncle/niece/nephew
> > ...
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When correctly viewed,
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U | Everything is lewd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |I could tell you things
| about Peter Pan,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |and the Wizard of Oz--
(650)857-7572 | there's a dirty old man!
| Tom Lehrer
D+ Ash
: "Evan Kirshenbaum" <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote...
:
[ - ]
:
: | Do you go to "great-granduncle" for the brother of a
: | great-grandparent?
:
: Yes.
:
: And 23rd Great-Granduncle [N.B. I capitalise out of respect
: for them.] for the brother of a 23rd Great-Grandparent.
Ahem. The following individuals and groups (culled from your
posts) will be gratified to learn that you capitalise out of
respect for them.
"Follett The Pornographer ... Einde the Omega Female ... Some
Arrant Pogues ... the Yahoo Component ... the Narrow-Minded and
Parochial ... Silly Buggers!"
Etc. Etc.
--
D+ Ash London England
Mail: d+ {at} dash {dot} greatxscape {dot} net
D. Spencer Hines
The Weak of Mind often do not understand that one may have different
reasons for the same action, taken on different occasions and under
differing circumstances.
The Strong of Mind and Heart have no such problems.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Fortem Posce Animum
Ex Tridens Scientia
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"D+ Ash" <see.a...@end.ok> wrote in message
news:83ogts$egs$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
John Flynn
> "D+ Ash" <see.a...@end.ok> wrote in message
> news:83ogts$egs$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> revealed...
>>
>>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote...
>>>
>>> [ - ]
>>>
>>>> Do you go to "great-granduncle" for the brother of a
>>>> great-grandparent?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> And 23rd Great-Granduncle [N.B. I capitalise out of respect
>>> for them.] for the brother of a 23rd Great-Grandparent.
>>
>> Ahem. The following individuals and groups (culled from your
>> posts) will be gratified to learn that you capitalise out of
>> respect for them.
>>
>> "Follett The Pornographer ... Einde the Omega Female ... Some
>> Arrant Pogues ... the Yahoo Component ... the Narrow-Minded and
>> Parochial ... Silly Buggers!"
>>
>> Etc. Etc.
>
> The Weak of Mind often do not understand that one may have different
> reasons for the same action, taken on different occasions and under
> differing circumstances.
>
> The Strong of Mind and Heart have no such problems.
Translation: I shall do whatever I want whenever I want, and anyone
that notices my inconsistencies belongs in a prison cell.
Less words, stronger image, much more forceful and to the point.
I thank you.
--
johnF
=======================================================================
Communicate with people who understand: join the D. Spencer Hines email
discussion list today! There's no need to be alone and frightened: we
understand, we really do. And we don't persecute pooch-screwers.
mailto:dsh-su...@listbot.com with a blank message.
D. Spencer Hines
_FEWER_ words.
Encapsulating LESS thought, to be sure.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly
recognizes genius." --- Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle [1859-1930] ---
"The Valley of Fear" [1914]
"John Flynn" <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:385FCEFC...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk...
| "Barbara Cartland" wrote:
|
| > "D+ Ash" <see.a...@end.ok> wrote in message
| > news:83ogts$egs$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
| >
| >> "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> revealed...
| >>
| >>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote...
| >>>
| >>> [ - ]
| >>>
| >>>> Do you go to "great-granduncle" for the brother of a
| >>>> great-grandparent?
| >>>
| >>> Yes.
| >>>
| >>> And 23rd Great-Granduncle [N.B. I capitalise out of respect
| >>> for them.] for the brother of a 23rd Great-Grandparent.
| >>
| >> Ahem. The following individuals and groups (culled from your
| >> posts) will be gratified to learn that you capitalise out of
| >> respect for them.
| >>
| >> "Follett The Pornographer ... Einde the Omega Female ... Some
| >> Arrant Pogues ... the Yahoo Component ... the Narrow-Minded and
| >> Parochial ... Silly Buggers!"
| >>
| >> Etc. Etc.
| >
| > The Weak of Mind often do not understand that one may have different
| > reasons for the same action, taken on different occasions and under
| > differing circumstances.
| >
| > The Strong of Mind and Heart have no such problems.
|
| Translation: I shall do whatever I want whenever I want, and anyone
| that [sic] (WHO would be much better) notices my inconsistencies
| belongs in a prison cell.
|
| Less [sic^3] words, stronger image, much more forceful and to the
| point.
That was really a pooch-screwer --- hence [sic^3] = [sic cubed].
Decidedly Not. That is not the same thought at all. Even an errant
pogue should be able to understand that truism.