serviette/napkin
howard richler
things in Britain as compared to USA. One of the British terms I
mentioned was the usage of "serviette" instead of "napkin." Another
friend who was listening in and who was born in Britain claimed that I
was wrong and that "napkin" was the definitive term in Britain. Can
anyone shed light on this dispite?
Skitt
It comes from French, and thus is somewhat of an international term. It is
used also in Latvia and Germany, where "napkin" is unknown.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Matti Lamprhey
For a summary have a quick glance at:
http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-most-recent/msg01195.html
To answer the question raised early in the article, the U/non-U terminology
was seen first from Alan Ross, not Nancy Mitford.
Matti
david56
Both words are used and both are perfectly well understood, but your
social status will fall if you do not ascertain which of the two your
hostess considers "common".
--
David
... the Kings are three; and one of them is black!
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Paul Vivash
"david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3E19D0E8...@ntlworld.com...
'napkin' (usually abbreviated to 'nappie') is also commonly used for what in
American English goes under the name of 'diaper'.
Paul
M. J. Powell
richler <hric...@sympatico.ca> writes
'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Joona I Palaste
> howard richler wrote:
>> Recently I was telling a friend about some of the different terms for
>> things in Britain as compared to USA. One of the British terms I
>> mentioned was the usage of "serviette" instead of "napkin." Another
>> friend who was listening in and who was born in Britain claimed that I
>> was wrong and that "napkin" was the definitive term in Britain. Can
>> anyone shed light on this dispite?
> It comes from French, and thus is somewhat of an international term. It is
> used also in Latvia and Germany, where "napkin" is unknown.
Also in Finland.
Fun fact: The cafeteria at the University of Helsinki Computer Science
Department has a sign saying, and I quote:
"Please take only one servet [sic]"
Now, with my Java programming experience, I sometimes (intentionally)
misread it as:
"Please take only one servlet"
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"And according to Occam's Toothbrush, we only need to optimise the most frequent
instructions."
- Teemu Kerola
Fabian
"Paul Vivash" <mountp...@goginan.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> 'napkin' (usually abbreviated to 'nappie') is also commonly used for
what in
> American English goes under the name of 'diaper'.
While I have heard nappy for that a lot, I have never heard napkin for
that in Britain.
--
--
Fabian
Conspiracy theories are nothing more than a conspiracy to get people to
believe in conspiracies so that they can really conspire to do
something.
Harvey V
I'd probably put that in the past tense, now.
I can't recall hearing any people in real situations -- other than
Mitford and/or Alan Ross wannabees, who are spottable a few miles off -
- paying much attention to the distinction for at least 20 years (other
than to remark that one is U and the other non-U).
--
Cheers,
Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
M. J. Powell
<harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
I'm very old-fashioned...
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
david56
> "david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3E19D0E8...@ntlworld.com...
>
>>howard richler wrote:
>>
>>>Recently I was telling a friend about some of the different terms for
>>>things in Britain as compared to USA. One of the British terms I
>>>mentioned was the usage of "serviette" instead of "napkin." Another
>>>friend who was listening in and who was born in Britain claimed that I
>>>was wrong and that "napkin" was the definitive term in Britain. Can
>>>anyone shed light on this dispite?
>>
>>Both words are used and both are perfectly well understood, but your
>>social status will fall if you do not ascertain which of the two your
>>hostess considers "common".
>>
> American English goes under the name of 'diaper'.
Always abbreviated to "nappy". In fact I'd go so far as to say that the
UK word for the US "diaper" _is_ nappy, which may be a descendent of
"napkin".
Joe Fineman
> 'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), calls "serviette" a genteelism &
recommends "napkin". Evidently this has been going on of some time.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: The world goes its way past all who will not partake of its :||
||: folly. :||
Paul Vivash
It's not a descendant of but a short form of napkin which is not so much
used now but certainly was within my memory.
This is one of the definitions of 'napkin' from the Oxford English
Dictionary:
'A rectangular piece of towelling or absorbent material used as a baby's
undergarment by folding, drawing up between the legs, and fastening at the
waist.'
.
1961 Brit. Med. Dict. 1212/1 The skin..is the more easily affected by the
free ammonia liberated through the interaction of acid urine and badly
washed napkins.
1974 Janet Frazer Catal. Spring & Summer 292/2 Fully-bleached terry napkins.
Soft and absorbent... Size 24" × 24"..Ł3_35 (dozen).
Paul
Robert Bannister
> Paul Vivash wrote:
>
>>"david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:3E19D0E8...@ntlworld.com...
>>
>>
>>>howard richler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Recently I was telling a friend about some of the different terms for
>>>>things in Britain as compared to USA. One of the British terms I
>>>>mentioned was the usage of "serviette" instead of "napkin." Another
>>>>friend who was listening in and who was born in Britain claimed that I
>>>>was wrong and that "napkin" was the definitive term in Britain. Can
>>>>anyone shed light on this dispite?
>>>
>>>Both words are used and both are perfectly well understood, but your
>>>social status will fall if you do not ascertain which of the two your
>>>hostess considers "common".
>>>
>>
>>'napkin' (usually abbreviated to 'nappie') is also commonly used for what in
>>American English goes under the name of 'diaper'.
>
>
> Always abbreviated to "nappy". In fact I'd go so far as to say that the
> UK word for the US "diaper" _is_ nappy, which may be a descendent of
> "napkin".
>
"Always" is a bit strong. I have both heard and read 'napkin' for AmE
diaper in England. Also used, very occasionally, for women's sanitary pads.
--
Rob Bannister
Padraig Breathnach
>"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> 'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
>
>Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), calls "serviette" a genteelism &
>recommends "napkin". Evidently this has been going on of some time.
I don't care what people think: I call it a serviette. It seems so
naff to call a piece of paper a napkin.
PB
david56
Perhaps in formal or medical dialogue, but I've never heard it in real
life to refer to a nappy. I would say the para above is misleading
(please fondle my buttocks) - if you asked in a shop for napkins, you
would get serviettes. If you asked for baby napkins, you would get
small serviettes.
Laura F Spira
napkins. (Obaue: should there be commas in that sentence?) Only posh
people had the cloth kind, and they had napkin rings to go with them.
I am now unfortunately reminded of a dire and ancient comedy sketch
involving dozens of double damask dinner napkins. This is, potentially,
a worse affliction than STS.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Ronald Raygun
Paper napkins (the term rolls off the tongue much more easily
than paper serviettes) are naff *per se* no matter what you call
them. Frankly, I'd rather use no napkin than a paper one.
Skitt
> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>> "M. J. Powell" writes:
>>>> 'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
>>>
>>> Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), calls "serviette" a genteelism &
>>> recommends "napkin". Evidently this has been going on of some time.
>>
>> I don't care what people think: I call it a serviette. It seems so
>> naff to call a piece of paper a napkin.
>>
> I was taught to call the paper kind serviettes and the cloth kind
> napkins. (Obaue: should there be commas in that sentence?) Only posh
> people had the cloth kind, and they had napkin rings to go with them.
Funny. I would have said that "serviette" is a much more posh term than
"napkin". All our serviettes in Latvia were cloth. That might be because
there was no such paper product there at the time.
Ronald Raygun
> "david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>>
>> Always abbreviated to "nappy". In fact I'd go so far as to say that the
>> UK word for the US "diaper" _is_ nappy, which may be a descendent of
>> "napkin".
>
> It's not a descendant of but a short form of napkin which is not so much
> used now but certainly was within my memory.
Point of order: If A is a short form of B, is it not *ipso facto*
a descendant thereof?
Raymond S. Wise
news:avd4ai$eaenu$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
> Laura F Spira wrote:
> > Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> >> Joe Fineman wrote:
> >>> "M. J. Powell" writes:
>
> >>>> 'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
> >>>
> >>> Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), calls "serviette" a genteelism &
> >>> recommends "napkin". Evidently this has been going on of some time.
> >>
> >> I don't care what people think: I call it a serviette. It seems so
> >> naff to call a piece of paper a napkin.
> >>
> > I was taught to call the paper kind serviettes and the cloth kind
> > napkins. (Obaue: should there be commas in that sentence?) Only posh
> > people had the cloth kind, and they had napkin rings to go with them.
>
> Funny. I would have said that "serviette" is a much more posh term than
> "napkin". All our serviettes in Latvia were cloth. That might be because
> there was no such paper product there at the time.
>
This was discussed before in this group. The assertion was made that in
Great Britain the sort of people who use the term "serviette" are people
like Hyacinth Bucket of *Keeping Up Appearances,* people who fear social
embarrassment and are following what they erroneously believe to be posh
practise. The upper-class, old-money people simply use the term "napkin."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Evan Kirshenbaum
I haven't done this parliamentary procedure stuff in a while, but
isn't that a point of information, not a point of order? Or if the
question is whether he's allowed to make the point in that way, a
point of inquiry.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Other computer companies have spent
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |15 years working on fault-tolerant
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |computers. Microsoft has spent
|its time more fruitfully, working
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |on fault-tolerant *users*.
(650)857-7572
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> Funny. I would have said that "serviette" is a much more posh term
>> than "napkin". All our serviettes in Latvia were cloth. That might
>> be because there was no such paper product there at the time.
>
> This was discussed before in this group.
Ah, yes -- a year ago, almost to the day.
> The assertion was made that
> in Great Britain the sort of people who use the term "serviette" are
> people like Hyacinth Bucket of *Keeping Up Appearances,* people who
> fear social embarrassment and are following what they erroneously
> believe to be posh practise. The upper-class, old-money people simply
> use the term "napkin."
Somehow, that earlier discussion had slipped my mind. Old age, I suppose
...
John Dean
> Laura F Spira wrote:
>> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>> Joe Fineman wrote:
>>>> "M. J. Powell" writes:
>
>>>>> 'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
>>>>
>>>> Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), calls "serviette" a genteelism
>>>> & recommends "napkin". Evidently this has been going on of some
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> I don't care what people think: I call it a serviette. It seems so
>>> naff to call a piece of paper a napkin.
>>>
>> I was taught to call the paper kind serviettes and the cloth kind
>> napkins. (Obaue: should there be commas in that sentence?) Only posh
>> people had the cloth kind, and they had napkin rings to go with them.
>
> Funny. I would have said that "serviette" is a much more posh term
> than "napkin". All our serviettes in Latvia were cloth. That might
> be because there was no such paper product there at the time.
That's the point. A humble Scots word has been Frenchified and that is
terribly terribly nouveau riche. The *proper* word is napkin so the Aristos
use it.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Gary Vellenzer
de...@frag.lineone.net says...
25 years ago, I asked for a napkin in a restaurant in Johannesburg.
Fortunately I realized my error when I saw the "what the hell do I do
now" look on the face of the waiter.
Gary
Charles Riggs
Those who know you already knew this. All stuffed shirts use
serviettes, once they learn of the term. They are too good to use a
common napkin, especially since the common man finds the word quite
satisfactory. Don't ever get off your pedestal, Paddy: it suits you
well.
--
Charles Riggs
chriggs |at| eircom |dot| com
John Smith
>
> Recently I was telling a friend about some of the different terms for
> things in Britain as compared to USA. One of the British terms I
> mentioned was the usage of "serviette" instead of "napkin." Another
> friend who was listening in and who was born in Britain claimed that I
> was wrong and that "napkin" was the definitive term in Britain. Can
> anyone shed light on this dispite?
"Serviette" has for years been a posh alternative for napkin in the U.S.
In some secluded rendez-vous
That overlooks the avenue
Two people sharing a delightful chat
Of this and that
With cocktails for two.
As we enjoy a cigarette
To some exquisite chansonette
Two hands are sure to slyly meet beneath
The serviette
With cocktails for two...
Music and Lyrics by Arthur Johnston and Sam Coslow, from the 1934 movie
"Murder at the Vanities" with the Duke Ellington Orchestra.
Widely know today from the hilarious Spike Jones version.
\\P. Schultz
Mary Shafer Iliff
> Paper napkins (the term rolls off the tongue much more easily
> than paper serviettes) are naff *per se* no matter what you call
> them. Frankly, I'd rather use no napkin than a paper one.
Don't eat much corn on the cob or barbeque, do you?
Mary
Pan
<la...@DRAGONspira.u-net.com> wrote:
>I was taught to call the paper kind serviettes and the cloth kind
>napkins. (Obaue: should there be commas in that sentence?)
[snip]
I don't believe so. It's a list with two items connected by "and."
Michael
Paul Vivash
"Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:FyoS9.18851$eD3.12...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Point taken - but why use 'may be' when there is no doubt? :-) In any case I
don't quite agree with the statement since, to me 'descendant' implies a
development over time, whereas 'nappy' has been used as the parallel short
form of 'napkin' for at least 200 years.
Paul
Paul Vivash
Perhaps the whole thing is academic as regards modern usage since nowadays
few people use nappies anyhow. I'm delighted at how easy it is to change my
little grandson's 'pampers' , 'paddy pads' etc etc
:-)
Paul
Paul Vivash
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:pc3k1v837c0ht8pjh...@4ax.com...
It might seem naff but I feel that I should tend to use 'paper napkin'
rather than 'paper serviette' possibly to imply a certain disdain - I only
use them for barbecues and picnics, you understand :-)
Paul
Mike Barnes
>"Skitt" <sk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:avd4ai$eaenu$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> "napkin". All our serviettes in Latvia were cloth. That might be because
>> there was no such paper product there at the time.
>>
>
>This was discussed before in this group. The assertion was made that in
>Great Britain the sort of people who use the term "serviette" are people
>like Hyacinth Bucket of *Keeping Up Appearances,* people who fear social
>embarrassment and are following what they erroneously believe to be posh
>practise. The upper-class, old-money people simply use the term "napkin."
In practice people who use the term "serviette" are not a "sort of
people" but simply people who've picked that term up from their family
and friends. The notion that the British generally distinguish between
"serviette" and "napkin" makes a nice story: like the character of
Hyacinth Bucket, and equally risible.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Martin Ambuhl
> Recently I was telling a friend about some of the different terms for
> things in Britain as compared to USA. One of the British terms I
> mentioned was the usage of "serviette" instead of "napkin." Another
> friend who was listening in and who was born in Britain claimed that I
> was wrong and that "napkin" was the definitive term in Britain. Can
> anyone shed light on this dispite?
You might consider that COD5 (1964) had this entry:
serviette, n. Table-napkin. [F]
while napkin got the full treatment:
napkin, n. (Also table-~) square piece of linen for wiping lips or fingers
with at meals, or serving fish etc. on; small towel esp. for nursery
purposes, baby's diaper; "lay up" etc. "in a ~", make no use of (Luke xix.
20); ~-ring, to distinguish person's table-~. [ME, f. OF nappe f. L. mappa
(MAP[1]), + KIN).
This suggests that if you were right, you would have found a shift in usage
from the Fowler-influenced COD (pre-COD9). Later COD's did modify the
serviette definition slightly, to "a napkin for use at table." Note that
these all assume that the (British) dictionary user knew "napkin," but
perhaps not "serviette."
david56
To be honest I was exercising my vocabulary and chose "descendent" as
more interesting than "short version".
david56
> "david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3E1A0F50...@ntlworld.com...
>
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>>> david56 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Vivash wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'napkin' (usually abbreviated to 'nappie') is also commonly
>>>>> used for what in American English goes under the name of
>>>>> 'diaper'.
>>>>
>>>> Always abbreviated to "nappy". In fact I'd go so far as to say
>>>> that the UK word for the US "diaper" _is_ nappy, which may be
>>>> a descendent of "napkin".
>>>
>>> "Always" is a bit strong. I have both heard and read 'napkin' for
>>> AmE diaper in England. Also used, very occasionally, for women's
>>> sanitary pads.
>
>> Perhaps in formal or medical dialogue, but I've never heard it in
>> real life to refer to a nappy. I would say the para above is
>> misleading (please fondle my buttocks) - if you asked in a shop for
>> napkins, you would get serviettes. If you asked for baby napkins,
>> you would get small serviettes.
>>
> nowadays few people use nappies anyhow. I'm delighted at how easy it
> is to change my little grandson's 'pampers' , 'paddy pads' etc etc
Don' you just call them "disposable nappies". That was the usage when
our children were babies.
david56
I've just reread what I wrote and I can now defend myself by reference
to your post. "may be a descendent" as the two words might have come
from a single source and evolved in parallel. OTOH, "nappy" may have
descended from "napkin".
OTOH I could be talking twaddle.
david56
perfect in other areas, of course).
Padraig Breathnach
Just for you, Charles, I will append an explanatory something to my
remarks above: :-)
PB
Steve Hayes
>Recently I was telling a friend about some of the different terms for
>things in Britain as compared to USA. One of the British terms I
>mentioned was the usage of "serviette" instead of "napkin." Another
>friend who was listening in and who was born in Britain claimed that I
>was wrong and that "napkin" was the definitive term in Britain. Can
>anyone shed light on this dispite?
Napkin was U and serviette was non-U.
"If your name's in Debrett's, you don't say 'serviette'".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Ronald Raygun
> Ronald Raygun <no....@localhost.localdomain> writes:
>>
>> Point of order: If A is a short form of B, is it not *ipso facto*
>> a descendant thereof?
>
> I haven't done this parliamentary procedure stuff in a while, but
> isn't that a point of information, not a point of order? Or if the
> question is whether he's allowed to make the point in that way, a
> point of inquiry.
Whatever you say, Mr Speaker, Sir.
But isn't a point of information one which seeks to clarify
an issue of fact? I was raising an issue of definition.
There again, perhaps definitions are also facts...
Ronald Raygun
Bzzt! That would be pronounced "bar-beck", wouldn't it?
But, to answer your question, not in polite company, no.
Corn on the cob and barbecued food events are generally
such informal affairs that shirt sleeves are the tool of
choice for wiping one's mouth, and trousers for one's hands.
I carry a hanky for emergencies, should the etiquette of the
occasion rule out those options.
M. J. Powell
Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> writes
>Joe Fineman <j...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> 'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
>>
>>Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), calls "serviette" a genteelism &
>>recommends "napkin". Evidently this has been going on of some time.
>
>I don't care what people think: I call it a serviette. It seems so
>naff to call a piece of paper a napkin.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about proper linen napkins.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
John Holmes
"david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A0F50...@ntlworld.com...
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> > "Always" is a bit strong. I have both heard and read 'napkin' for
AmE
> > diaper in England. Also used, very occasionally, for women's
sanitary pads.
>
> Perhaps in formal or medical dialogue, but I've never heard it in real
> life to refer to a nappy. I would say the para above is misleading
> (please fondle my buttocks) - if you asked in a shop for napkins, you
> would get serviettes. If you asked for baby napkins, you would get
> small serviettes.
Why (if not to differentiate them from baby napkins) would it be
necessay to refer to serviettes as danner nipkins?
--
Regards
John
Fabian
"John Holmes" <hol...@smart.net.au> wrote in message news:aven15
> Why (if not to differentiate them from baby napkins) would it be
> necessay to refer to serviettes as danner nipkins?
Same reason cars have windscreen wipers and not wipers. Euphony.
--
--
Fabian
Once you get over the initial panic stage, oxygen starvation is actually
a rather pleasant sensation, almost like falling asleep.
Frances Kemmish
> Why (if not to differentiate them from baby napkins) would it be
> necessay to refer to serviettes as danner nipkins?
>
>
Perhaps to distinguish them from luncheon napkins.
Gary Vellenzer
says...
Gary
Jacqui
> In practice people who use the term "serviette" are not a "sort of
> people" but simply people who've picked that term up from their
> family and friends. The notion that the British generally
> distinguish between "serviette" and "napkin" makes a nice story:
> like the character of Hyacinth Bucket, and equally risible.
I, like Laura, would say that the paper kind are serviettes and the
cloth kind are napkins. I might use "paper napkin" occasionally, but it
would generally be "serviette" if I wasn't thinking about it. A cloth
one is *always* a napkin, though. I have heard people use "serviette"
for the cloth kind, and I'm afraid they generally ARE "that sort of
person", an observation discernable in other ways.
Jac
Simon R. Hughes
Me too. My guess is that usage differs according to pond-sidage,
though.
--
Simon R. Hughes
<!-- -->
Wood Avens
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I, like Laura, would say that the paper kind are serviettes and the
>cloth kind are napkins. I might use "paper napkin" occasionally, but it
>would generally be "serviette" if I wasn't thinking about it.
I have several half-full packets of these - they're very decorative,
and I use them for parties. I've just checked through them, and all
the packets, without exception, call them 'napkins' in English but
'serviette/servietten' etc in other European languages.
I think I usually call them 'paper napkins', if I call them anything.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove number to reply
K. Edgcombe
I don't think I've ever called them anything but "paper bibs". But if I had to
ask for them in a shop I think I'd go for "serviettes". I can never remember
which one is non-U anyway (or I'd make a point of using it).
Katy
howard richler
> Ronald Raygun wrote:
> > Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Joe Fineman <j...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
> >>>
> >>>Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), calls "serviette" a genteelism &
> >>>recommends "napkin". Evidently this has been going on of some time.
> >>
> >>I don't care what people think: I call it a serviette. It seems so
> >>naff to call a piece of paper a napkin.
> >
>>>"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do 'U' + 'non-U' stand for?
Paul Vivash
To prevent this fascinating topic from dying a death may I suggest that you
may as well call a computer an adding machine. Modern technology has
decreed that it's now essential to be able to distinguish between
'snuggies' and a 'pull-ups' :-)
Paul
Evan Kirshenbaum
I'm sure there are people much more qualified than I am to address
this, but I think it depends on who you're asking. If you're asking
the speaker, then it is probably a point of information or else it's
just out of order and you should wait your turn to raise it. If
you're asking the Speaker, then it's probably a point of inquiry,
clarifying whether you can raise a point of order. But unless I'm
mistaken, a point of order is a statement, not a question, an
accusation that someone is doing something improper.
But I only did the Model UN thing once, and that was a long time ago.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If to "man" a phone implies handing
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it over to a person of the male
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |gender, then to "monitor" it
|suggests handing it over to a
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |lizard.
(650)857-7572 | Rohan Oberoi
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Mary Shafer Iliff wrote:
>
> > Don't eat much corn on the cob or barbeque, do you?
>
> Bzzt! That would be pronounced "bar-beck", wouldn't it?
MW gives it as a variant, but doesn't date it. The OED doesn't cite it.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The reason that we don't have
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |park is that there is a significant
|overlap in intelligence between the
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |smartest bears and the dumbest
(650)857-7572 |humans.
| Yosemite Park Ranger
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Bob Cunningham
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> said:
> Ronald Raygun <no....@localhost.localdomain> writes:
>
> > Mary Shafer Iliff wrote:
> >
> > > Don't eat much corn on the cob or barbeque, do you?
> >
> > Bzzt! That would be pronounced "bar-beck", wouldn't it?
>
> MW gives it as a variant, but doesn't date it.
Same with Random House.
> The OED doesn't cite it.
All that may mean is that the spelling was not found in the late 19th
century when the OED put its b's to bed, but modern OUP dictionaries
don't show "barbeque" either.
However, another UK dictionary, Chambers, lists the main entry
"barbecue, barbeque or (informal) bar-b-q."
Laura F Spira
>
> In article <t2ul1v4jujkol85om...@4ax.com>,
> Wood Avens <woodav...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:33:17 +0000 (UTC), Jacqui
> ><sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I, like Laura, would say that the paper kind are serviettes and the
> >>cloth kind are napkins. I might use "paper napkin" occasionally, but it
> >>would generally be "serviette" if I wasn't thinking about it.
> >
> >I have several half-full packets of these - they're very decorative,
> >and I use them for parties. I've just checked through them, and all
> >the packets, without exception, call them 'napkins' in English but
> >'serviette/servietten' etc in other European languages.
> >
> >I think I usually call them 'paper napkins', if I call them anything.
>
> I don't think I've ever called them anything but "paper bibs".
Bibs? Surely only if you tuck them under your chin?
[..]
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Paul Vivash
"Laura F Spira" <la...@DRAGONspira.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:3E1B2C93...@DRAGONspira.u-net.com...
That's right! Bib at one end, nappie at the other :-)
Paul
mb
> In practice people who use the term "serviette" are not a "sort of
> people" but simply people who've picked that term up from their family
> and friends. The notion that the British generally distinguish between
> "serviette" and "napkin" makes a nice story: like the character of
> Hyacinth Bucket, and equally risible.
Not so risible. In "U and non-U revisited" (1978), Ross says:
"It is natural to to wonder whether matters have changed since
Noblesse Oblige appeared in 1956...
The answer is that the antitheses between U and non-U have _not_
changed. To pronounce "forehead" almost as if it were two words is
just as non-U to-day as it was in 1956 or 1926; the U make -and made-
it rhyme with 'horrid', and that old favourite non-U 'serviette' / U
'napkin' is still in full force."
Elsewhere in the book, discussing the impact of the original "U /
non-U", the authors show that after reading the book the
self-conscious U started using 'serviette', among other words, while
language-conscious non-Us reverted to 'napkin'.
The notion that social (self-) consciousness is at the root of most of
sociolinguistic behavior is far from risible. In fact, it is
fundamental.
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>david56 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paul Vivash wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>howard richler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Recently I was telling a friend about some of the different terms for
>>>>>>things in Britain as compared to USA. One of the British terms I
>>>>>>mentioned was the usage of "serviette" instead of "napkin." Another
>>>>>>friend who was listening in and who was born in Britain claimed that I
>>>>>>was wrong and that "napkin" was the definitive term in Britain. Can
>>>>>>anyone shed light on this dispite?
>>>>>
>>>>>social status will fall if you do not ascertain which of the two your
>>>>>hostess considers "common".
>>>>
>>>>'napkin' (usually abbreviated to 'nappie') is also commonly used for
>>>>what in American English goes under the name of 'diaper'.
>>>
>>>Always abbreviated to "nappy". In fact I'd go so far as to say that the
>>>UK word for the US "diaper" _is_ nappy, which may be a descendent of
>>>"napkin".
>>>
>>
>>"Always" is a bit strong. I have both heard and read 'napkin' for AmE
>>diaper in England. Also used, very occasionally, for women's sanitary pads.
>
>
> Perhaps in formal or medical dialogue, but I've never heard it in real
> life to refer to a nappy. I would say the para above is misleading
> (please fondle my buttocks) - if you asked in a shop for napkins, you
> would get serviettes. If you asked for baby napkins, you would get
> small serviettes.
>
LOL
--
Rob Bannister
John Dean
Easy to remember - 'serviettes' are non-U because there's no 'U' in
serviette!
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
david56
It wouldn't. I have never encountered the phrase "dinner napkin".
Raymond S. Wise
news:EKyS9.19113$Zh.129...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Mary Shafer Iliff wrote:
>
> > Ronald Raygun wrote:
> >
> >> Paper napkins (the term rolls off the tongue much more easily
> >> than paper serviettes) are naff *per se* no matter what you call
> >> them. Frankly, I'd rather use no napkin than a paper one.
> >
> > Don't eat much corn on the cob or barbeque, do you?
>
> Bzzt! That would be pronounced "bar-beck", wouldn't it?
>
[snip]
It's a standard variant of "barbecue," and is listed in *Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate,* the dictionary at www.infoplease.com (a dictionary derived, it
appears, from the *Random House Webster's Unabridged,* 2nd ed.), the
*Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American Edition, and the
(Australian) *Macquarie Concise Dictionary.* (And don't those Australians
know their barbecue?)
See
http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0333621.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?ref
id=561501279
http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/
It also appears in the entry for "barbecue; barbeque" in the following Web
page, based upon *The Food Lover's Companion,* 2nd ed., by Sharon Tyler
Herbst:
http://allrecipes.com/encyc/terms/b/5236.asp
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Ronald Raygun
> "Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote
>> Mary Shafer Iliff wrote:
>> >
>> > Don't eat much corn on the cob or barbeque, do you?
>>
>> Bzzt! That would be pronounced "bar-beck", wouldn't it?
>
> It's a standard variant of "barbecue," and is listed in *Merriam-Webster's
> Collegiate,* the dictionary at www.infoplease.com (a dictionary derived,
> it appears, from the *Random House Webster's Unabridged,* 2nd ed.), the
> *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American Edition, and the
> (Australian) *Macquarie Concise Dictionary.* (And don't those Australians
> know their barbecue?)
Dictionaries merely describe. To call "barbeque" a "standard variant"
of "barbecue" is saying no more nor less than that it is widely enough
used to have to be taken seriously. It doesn't change the fact that it
obviously came about by screwed-up thinking via the "BBQ" abbreviation.
In other words, just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean
it's not wrong, or doesn't deserve correcting when used by people
who should know better.
K. Edgcombe
david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>It wouldn't. I have never encountered the phrase "dinner napkin".
>
damask dinner napkins?
Katy
david56
Never.
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes <ReplyT...@senrab.com> wrote
>> In practice people who use the term "serviette" are not a "sort of
>> people" but simply people who've picked that term up from their family
>> and friends. The notion that the British generally distinguish between
>> "serviette" and "napkin" makes a nice story: like the character of
>> Hyacinth Bucket, and equally risible.
>
>Not so risible. In "U and non-U revisited" (1978), Ross says:
>"It is natural to to wonder whether matters have changed since
>Noblesse Oblige appeared in 1956...
>The answer is that the antitheses between U and non-U have _not_
>changed. To pronounce "forehead" almost as if it were two words is
>just as non-U to-day as it was in 1956 or 1926; the U make -and made-
>it rhyme with 'horrid', and that old favourite non-U 'serviette' / U
>'napkin' is still in full force."
That was written quite some time ago. I wonder what a "U and non-U re-
revisited" would have to say in 2003.
>Elsewhere in the book, discussing the impact of the original "U /
>non-U", the authors show that after reading the book the
>self-conscious U started using 'serviette', among other words, while
>language-conscious non-Us reverted to 'napkin'.
I would be careful of reading too much into the behaviour of those few
members of the British population who actually read the original book.
>The notion that social (self-) consciousness is at the root of most of
>sociolinguistic behavior is far from risible. In fact, it is
>fundamental.
Generally speaking that's true, of course, but I was talking of a
particular situation - why people today use "napkin" or "serviette". I
don't believe the original assertion (now snipped) that people who say
"serviette" are "following what they erroneously believe to be posh
practice" and "fear social embarrassment" through using the wrong word.
If you questioned the Great British Public I really don't think you'd
find that that most people would know that there was such a distinction
to be made and which way round it was - and it's the impression that
they *would* know that I was attempting to counter.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Charles Riggs
<no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>I carry a hanky for emergencies, should the etiquette of the
>occasion rule out those options.
Carry a what? I haven't heard that word in a coon's age. (1)
1. Not a racist term, as we've established.
--
Charles Riggs
chriggs |at| eircom |dot| com
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Me too. My guess is that usage differs according to pond-sidage,
>though.
Cute, but it doesn't ring true. The only precedent is "sideage", so
pond-sideage is your man. We, in AUE, want to get it right, especially
if invented here.
Charles Riggs
Exactly. Serviette is a word poncy people use when they want to appear
posh, but let's not pretend it has been accepted into the English
language by most. British rules may differ, for I think this *is* a
pondian thing, as the man said.
Charles Riggs
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>Easy to remember - 'serviettes' are non-U because there's no 'U' in
>serviette!
There is in *my* seruiettes.
Charles Riggs
<padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>Charles Riggs <chrigg...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 23:15:09 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
>><padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>
>>>Joe Fineman <j...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
>>>>
>>>>Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), calls "serviette" a genteelism &
>>>>recommends "napkin". Evidently this has been going on of some time.
>>>
>>>I don't care what people think: I call it a serviette. It seems so
>>>naff to call a piece of paper a napkin.
>>
>>Those who know you already knew this. All stuffed shirts use
>>serviettes, once they learn of the term. They are too good to use a
>>common napkin, especially since the common man finds the word quite
>>satisfactory. Don't ever get off your pedestal, Paddy: it suits you
>>well.
>
>Just for you, Charles, I will append an explanatory something to my
>remarks above: :-)
Sorry, then. You do realise we Americans never cop on to irony, I
hope. For some strange reason, I could picture you saying to herself,
"Please bring me, sweetest dear, a serviette, while you're up and
about", so you'll, perhaps, excuse my momentary lack of sensitivity to
this peculiarly British art.
Charles Riggs
<mountp...@goginan.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>It might seem naff but I feel that I should tend to use 'paper napkin'
>rather than 'paper serviette' possibly to imply a certain disdain - I only
>use them for barbecues and picnics, you understand :-)
We do of course. I'm sure none of us would be caught dead with a paper
napkin on our table at home. Well, almost none of us. There is that
fellow in Disneyworld.
Charles Riggs
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <pc3k1v837c0ht8pjh...@4ax.com>, Padraig
>Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> writes
>>I don't care what people think: I call it a serviette. It seems so
>>naff to call a piece of paper a napkin.
>
>Sorry, I thought we were talking about proper linen napkins.
If there's one thing I hate it's improper linen which doesn't know its
place in life.
Charles Riggs
>On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 23:27:06 +0000, Laura F Spira
><la...@DRAGONspira.u-net.com> wrote:
>
>>I was taught to call the paper kind serviettes and the cloth kind
>>napkins. (Obaue: should there be commas in that sentence?)
Everyone loves a joke now and again.
Charles Riggs
<mountp...@goginan.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>news:FyoS9.18851$eD3.12...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> Paul Vivash wrote:
>>
>> > "david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>> >>
>> >> Always abbreviated to "nappy". In fact I'd go so far as to say that
>the
>> >> UK word for the US "diaper" _is_ nappy, which may be a descendent of
>> >> "napkin".
>> >
>> > It's not a descendant of but a short form of napkin which is not so
>much
>> > used now but certainly was within my memory.
>>
>> Point of order: If A is a short form of B, is it not *ipso facto*
>> a descendant thereof?
>>
>
>Point taken - but why use 'may be' when there is no doubt? :-) In any case I
>don't quite agree with the statement since, to me 'descendant' implies a
>development over time, whereas 'nappy' has been used as the parallel short
>form of 'napkin' for at least 200 years.
Not to jump on a new man, but what evidence do you have for that? The
earliest reference to nappy in the OED is:
"1927 W. E. Collinson Contemp. Eng. 7 Mothers and nurses use
pseudo-infantile forms like pinny (pinafore), nappy (napkin)."
and I'm rather surprised the word is even that old, with the napkin
meaning.
Charles Riggs
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>david56 wrote:
>> Perhaps in formal or medical dialogue, but I've never heard it in real
>> life to refer to a nappy. I would say the para above is misleading
>> (please fondle my buttocks) - if you asked in a shop for napkins, you
>> would get serviettes. If you asked for baby napkins, you would get
>> small serviettes.
>>
>
>LOL
This is a good example of why I dislike the semiliterate use of
abbreviations in correspondence, whether it be newsgroup posts or
letters. How will we know whether this man, too tired to spell out his
words, means "Lots of luck" or "Laughing out loud"? Since either fits,
no information has been exchanged. As Shannon would say, the
informational content of his post is zero.
Laura F Spira
and I can't remember who played the characters. Elsie and Doris Waters
perhaps?
M. J. Powell
<chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
Exactly. Napkins, handkerchiefs and the like.
--
M.J.Powell
K. Edgcombe
>> >
>> You mean you never practised the tongue-twister about twelve dozen double
>> damask dinner napkins?
>>
>>
>Was it a tongue twister? I am still haunted by the awful comedy sketch,
>and I can't remember who played the characters. Elsie and Doris Waters
>perhaps?
When was the comedy sketch? (I don't remember one, which doesn't prove that
isn't how the phrase originated). I certainly remember the phrase from the
early Fifties, possibly before, so you may be too young to remember its
origin...
Katy
Ronald Raygun
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:21:20 -0000, "John Dean"
> <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Easy to remember - 'serviettes' are non-U because there's no 'U' in
>>serviette!
>
> There is in *my* seruiettes.
Perhaps it would be better to say that napkins are U because
the two 'N's in "napkin" cancel each other out, like a double
negative, hence "napkin" is not non-U.
Ronald Raygun
I can't hold back my curiosity any longer.
What exactly distinguishes double damask from ordinary damask?
Laura F Spira
You too are too young, Katy.
Google throws up http://www.musicalheaven.com/a/at_home_abroad.shtml
which places the source in the show "At Home Abroad" in 1935. If you
click on the link to the original cast recording you arrive at Amazon
where you can actually listen to part of the sketch being performed.
Strange things people laughed at in those days.
Laura F Spira
Threads per inch, at a guess.
Jacqui
>>LOL
>
> This is a good example of why I dislike the semiliterate use of
> abbreviations in correspondence, whether it be newsgroup posts or
> letters. How will we know whether this man, too tired to spell out
> his words, means "Lots of luck" or "Laughing out loud"? Since
> either fits, no information has been exchanged. As Shannon would
> say, the informational content of his post is zero.
You missed out "lots of love". However, since most people read for
context, and "lots of luck" and "lots of love" tend to be found only in
personal correspondence, I don't think there's much confusion to be
found here unless you go actively looking for it. Why you would wish to
do that is beyond me.
Jac
david56
If it wasn't Laughs Out Loud, I'm going to be very disappointed - it
quite makes my day when I amuse somebody.
John Dawkins
"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:EKyS9.19113$Zh.129...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > Mary Shafer Iliff wrote:
> >
> > > Ronald Raygun wrote:
> > >
> > >> Paper napkins (the term rolls off the tongue much more easily
> > >> than paper serviettes) are naff *per se* no matter what you call
> > >> them. Frankly, I'd rather use no napkin than a paper one.
> > >
> > > Don't eat much corn on the cob or barbeque, do you?
> >
> > Bzzt! That would be pronounced "bar-beck", wouldn't it?
> >
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> It's a standard variant of "barbecue," and is listed in *Merriam-Webster's
> Collegiate,* the dictionary at www.infoplease.com (a dictionary derived, it
> appears, from the *Random House Webster's Unabridged,* 2nd ed.), the
> *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American Edition, and the
> (Australian) *Macquarie Concise Dictionary.* (And don't those Australians
> know their barbecue?)
"Standard" may be a stretch. The variant spelling "barbeque" is not
listed in the OED, AHD4, or the COD.
--
J.
John Dean
And http://www.stud.chemie.tu-muenchen.de/~eichenbe/pobrway.htm
which specifies Bea Lillie, as do other sites. It seems to be connected
mainly to Noel Coward, author-wise
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
David McMurray
> >>>>'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what do 'U' + 'non-U' stand for?
Arguably, inexcusable ignorance is unpardonable almost by definition.
Or was there something about the Canadian Oxford's explanations of the
terms that you found unsatisfactory?
Mary Shafer Iliff
> "Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:EKyS9.19113$Zh.129...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
>>Mary Shafer Iliff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ronald Raygun wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Paper napkins (the term rolls off the tongue much more easily
>>>>than paper serviettes) are naff *per se* no matter what you call
>>>>them. Frankly, I'd rather use no napkin than a paper one.
>>>
>>>Don't eat much corn on the cob or barbeque, do you?
>>
>>Bzzt! That would be pronounced "bar-beck", wouldn't it?
You missed the accent over the terminal "e", I think.
> [snip]
>
>
> It's a standard variant of "barbecue," and is listed in *Merriam-Webster's
> Collegiate,* the dictionary at www.infoplease.com (a dictionary derived, it
> appears, from the *Random House Webster's Unabridged,* 2nd ed.), the
> *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American Edition, and the
> (Australian) *Macquarie Concise Dictionary.* (And don't those Australians
> know their barbecue?)
>
> See
>
> http://www.m-w.com
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0333621.html
>
> http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?ref
> id=561501279
>
> http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/
>
> It also appears in the entry for "barbecue; barbeque" in the following Web
> page, based upon *The Food Lover's Companion,* 2nd ed., by Sharon Tyler
> Herbst:
>
> http://allrecipes.com/encyc/terms/b/5236.asp
I'm grateful for the save, but I just hit the wrong key.
I usually spell it with a "c" but the "q" leapt in to keep
the "u" commpany and I missed catching it.
Mary
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Generally speaking that's true, of course, but I was talking of a
>particular situation - why people today use "napkin" or "serviette". I
>don't believe the original assertion (now snipped) that people who say
>"serviette" are "following what they erroneously believe to be posh
>practice" and "fear social embarrassment" through using the wrong word.
>If you questioned the Great British Public I really don't think you'd
>find that that most people would know that there was such a distinction
>to be made and which way round it was - and it's the impression that
>they *would* know that I was attempting to counter.
Well, let's widen it a bit...
Do you sweat or do you perspire?
Does your nose detect a nasty smell or an unpleasant odo(u)r?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
R H Draney
>
>I'm grateful for the save, but I just hit the wrong key.
>I usually spell it with a "c" but the "q" leapt in to keep
>the "u" commpany and I missed catching it.
Were I of a mind to make trouble, I'd ask where you managed to find a bicycle
with a reverse gear....r
Frances Kemmish
Here is what "all-about-fabrics" gives as a definition. I don't really
understand it, though:
damask (1) a grayish red. (2) Linen, silk, rayon, cotton,
synthetics, wool, worsteds. Figured on Jacquard loom. Originally made
of silk, that came to us from China via Damascus. In the XIII Century,
Marco Polo gave an interesting tale about it. It is one of the oldest
and most popular cloths to be found today. Very elaborate designs are
possible. Cloth is beetled, calendared and the better qualities are
gross-bleached. Very durable. Reversible fabric. Sheds dirt. The
firmer the texture, the better the quality. Launders well and holds a
high lustre - particularly in linen. There are two types of damask
table cloths:
1) Single damask table cloths: construction. Thread count is usually
around 200.
2) Double damask has an 8 shaft satin construction with usually twice as
many filling yarns as warp yarns. This gives a much greater distinctness
to the pattern. Thread count ranges from 165 to 400.
The quality of both depends on the yarn used and the thread count. If
the same quality and thread count are used, single is better than double
because the shorter floats are more serviceable and the yarns hold more
firmly. Double damask with less than 180 thread count is no good for
home use.
Robert Bannister
You are quite right. I should have emailed my laughter at baby napkins,
instead of posting.
I don't use Usenet abbreviations often - I almost always write out in
full 'as far as I know', 'as far as I can recall', 'in my opinion'(don't
use that much anyway) or 'by the way'. To be honest, I don't even
understand half the strings of letters I see here, but I did think 'LOL'
was fairly standard.
--
Rob Bannister
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>howard richler <hric...@sympatico.ca> wrote, in part:
>
>> >>>>'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
>>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but what do 'U' + 'non-U' stand for?
>
>Arguably, inexcusable ignorance is unpardonable almost by definition.
Do the objections to hopefully meaning "it is to be hoped" also apply to
"arguably" meaning "it may be argued?
mb
(mb)
> >...and that old favourite non-U 'serviette' / U
> >'napkin' is still in full force."
>
> That was written quite some time ago. I wonder what a "U and non-U re-
> revisited" would have to say in 2003.
For 'napkin', I wouldn't know after 20 years in the US and I'll take
your word about current usage. Even though you make clear that your
remarks are limited to this word I'd like to point out that the
disappearance of all class-(and self-)consciousness about a word is
unexpected and needs explanation. As Steve Hayes rightly observes,
it's not just re napkins, but more a question of the choice between
sweat/perspire, soon/momentarily, etc. by those aspiring to upward
mobility through language. Obviously not something limited to Britain.
> >Elsewhere in the book, discussing the impact of the original "U /
> >non-U", the authors show that after reading the book the
> >self-conscious U started using 'serviette', among other words, while
> >language-conscious non-Us reverted to 'napkin'.
>
> I would be careful of reading too much into the behaviour of those few
> members of the British population who actually read the original book.
Very few they are, of course. Their behavior, however, is indicative
of the basic rules of this game; it confirms the expectations
suggested by sociolinguistic studies. Again, another 30 years are
hardly likely to have changed the rules. So if things are in fact
different for 'napkin' what's the explanation?
...
> Generally speaking that's true, of course, but I was talking of a
> particular situation - why people today use "napkin" or "serviette". I
> don't believe the original assertion (now snipped) that people who say
> "serviette" are "following what they erroneously believe to be posh
> practice" and "fear social embarrassment" through using the wrong word.
> If you questioned the Great British Public I really don't think you'd
> find that that most people would know that there was such a distinction
> to be made and which way round it was - and it's the impression that
> they *would* know that I was attempting to counter.
I don't think that anyone seriously suggested that these behaviors are
conscious; they wouldn't happen the way they do if people were aware
of the mechanism. It just exists, regular as clockwork, in any
language are that's been observed or studied. The most consciousness
one can document about U/non-U choice seems limited to the statement:
"I'd like to speak well / not to speak like the uneducated", or, on
the other side of the tracks, "I won't be caught dead speaking like a
sissy". The U themselves are probably even less conscious here. That's
why those that read the book switched to serviette, as observed.
All this is speculation, of course, in the absence of some serious
study.
Raymond S. Wise
> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
> > "Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote
> >> >
> >> > Don't eat much corn on the cob or barbeque, do you?
> >>
> >> Bzzt! That would be pronounced "bar-beck", wouldn't it?
> >
*Merriam-Webster's
> > Collegiate,* the dictionary at www.infoplease.com (a dictionary derived,
> > it appears, from the *Random House Webster's Unabridged,* 2nd ed.), the
> > *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American Edition, and the
> > (Australian) *Macquarie Concise Dictionary.* (And don't those
Australians
> > know their barbecue?)
>
> of "barbecue" is saying no more nor less than that it is widely enough
> used to have to be taken seriously. It doesn't change the fact that it
> obviously came about by screwed-up thinking via the "BBQ" abbreviation.
>
> In other words, just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean
> it's not wrong, or doesn't deserve correcting when used by people
> who should know better.
>
It's part of Standard English. It is thus by definition not "wrong."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Raymond S. Wise
news:artfldodgr-89C71...@news.fu-berlin.de...
In one sense, "barbeque" is unquestionably standard. I have taken a close
look at how *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate,* and the *Encarta World English
Dictionary* treat entries as far as the question of standard usage is
concerned, and I can say for certain that the editors of those dictionaries
include "barbeque" in Standard English. I believe that the dictionary at
www.infoplease.com and the *Macquarie Concise Dictionary* treat standard
usage similarly. I do know that they both have the usage note "nonstandard"
(spelled "non-standard" by the Macquarie), and they do not give "barbeque"
such a label.
If a word is shown to be standard usage by just one dictionary, I might have
some doubts about its actual status as a standard usage. If it is shown in
only two dictionaries to be standard, I would tend to see it as standard. If
it is in four dictionaries--and I am talking about current, major
dictionaries here, not, for example, reprints of old dictionaries--then
there is little point in arguing that the usage in question is not standard,
and I myself would never consider it to be nonstandard.
Laura F Spira
>
> Laura F Spira wrote:
> > Ronald Raygun wrote:
> >
> >>K. Edgcombe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <3E1BEC95...@ntlworld.com>,
> >>>david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>It wouldn't. I have never encountered the phrase "dinner napkin".
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>You mean you never practised the tongue-twister about twelve dozen double
> >>>damask dinner napkins?
> >>
> >>I can't hold back my curiosity any longer.
> >>
> >>What exactly distinguishes double damask from ordinary damask?
> >
> >
> > Threads per inch, at a guess.
>
> Here is what "all-about-fabrics" gives as a definition. I don't really
> understand it, though:
>
> damask (1) a grayish red. (2) Linen, silk, rayon, cotton,
> synthetics, wool, worsteds. Figured on Jacquard loom. Originally made
> of silk, that came to us from China via Damascus. In the XIII Century,
> Marco Polo gave an interesting tale about it. It is one of the oldest
> and most popular cloths to be found today. Very elaborate designs are
> possible. Cloth is beetled, calendared and the better qualities are
> gross-bleached.
NSOED says that "beetle" means:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beat with a beetle in order to crush, flatten, etc.; emboss or heighten
the lustre of (cloth) by pressure from rollers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but gives no relevant verb form for "calendar".
[..]
Raymond S. Wise
news:3e1ce903....@news.saix.net...
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:03:10 -0500, djmcm...@canada.com (David McMurray)
> wrote:
>
> >howard richler <hric...@sympatico.ca> wrote, in part:
> >
> >> >>>>'Napkin' is 'U'. The other is non-'U'.
> >>
> >> Pardon my ignorance, but what do 'U' + 'non-U' stand for?
> >
> >Arguably, inexcusable ignorance is unpardonable almost by definition.
>
> Do the objections to hopefully meaning "it is to be hoped" also apply to
> "arguably" meaning "it may be argued?
>
I have never heard of anyone objecting to "arguably," as a sentence adverb
or in any other use. I just did a search of *The American Heritage Book of
English Usage* for "arguably" and the only example of it was as a term used
by the editors when discussing another term:
From
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C006/036.html
[quote]
_Hispanic_ and _Latino_ are both widely used in American English as terms
for a person of Spanish-language heritage living in the United States.
Though often used interchangeably, they are not identical, and in certain
contexts the choice between them can be significant. _Hispanic,_ from the
Latin word for "Spain," is arguably the broader term, potentially
encompassing all Spanish-speaking peoples in both hemispheres and
emphasizing the common denominator of language among communities that
sometimes have little else in common.
[end quote]