Origin of: "plain jane"

[T. Main]

Looking for ORIGIN of phrase "plain jane". The meaning is obvious, but
I'm interested in first usage and/or possible origin of.
I've checked AUE FAq, Dejanews back to 90 (all groups), 'net etc....
plenty of usage hits but no origin hits.

please copy my email mailto:tm...@netlabs.net in your post.
thanks... Ted
--
http://www.netlabs.net/hp/tmain

[Skitt]

T. Main wrote in message <35486D7D...@www.netlabs.net>...

>Looking for ORIGIN of phrase "plain jane". The meaning is obvious,
but
>I'm interested in first usage and/or possible origin of.
>I've checked AUE FAq, Dejanews back to 90 (all groups), 'net etc....
>plenty of usage hits but no origin hits.

MWCD10:

Main Entry: plain-Jane
Pronunciation: 'plAn-'jAn
Function: adjective
Etymology: from the name Jane
Date: 1912
: not fancy or glamorous : ORDINARY
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/

[Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting]

In article <35486D7D...@www.netlabs.net>, "T. Main"
<tm...@www.netlabs.net> writes:

>Looking for ORIGIN of phrase "plain jane".

Is it not possible that the phrase was first used of females or ordinary looks,
and that "Jane" was the most common female name that rhymed with "plain"?

Gary Williams
WILL...@AHEC.EDU

[John Holmes]

Skitt wrote in message <6i9v1a$pg...@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>...

>T. Main wrote in message <35486D7D...@www.netlabs.net>...
>>Looking for ORIGIN of phrase "plain jane". The meaning is obvious,
>but
>>I'm interested in first usage and/or possible origin of.

>MWCD10:
>
>Main Entry: plain-Jane
>Pronunciation: 'plAn-'jAn
>Function: adjective
>Etymology: from the name Jane
>Date: 1912
>: not fancy or glamorous : ORDINARY

This is just a speculation, but I wonder if the origin might be
connected with another meaning of 'jane' [1], a type of twilled cotton
cloth. If the expression 'plain jane' was commonly used for the
unpatterned cloth, it might have influenced the usage above. Perhaps the
description was first transferred from a plain jane dress to its wearer.

Regards,
John.
hol...@smart.net.au
email copies of any replies would be appreciated.

[1] Also 'jean', a corruption of Genoa, where it was made. Is
it connected with 'blue jeans'? I don't know whether the name is still
used for a type of cloth, but it was certainly current in the 19th
century.

[John Davies]

In article <6i9v1a$pg...@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>, Skitt <al...@myself.com>
writes

>T. Main wrote in message <35486D7D...@www.netlabs.net>...
>>Looking for ORIGIN of phrase "plain jane". The meaning is obvious,
>but
>>I'm interested in first usage and/or possible origin of.

>>I've checked AUE FAq, Dejanews back to 90 (all groups), 'net etc....
>>plenty of usage hits but no origin hits.

>MWCD10:
>
>Main Entry: plain-Jane
>Pronunciation: 'plAn-'jAn
>Function: adjective
>Etymology: from the name Jane
>Date: 1912
>: not fancy or glamorous : ORDINARY

My mother (b.1903), one of the few people I know who uses the phrase,
usually expands it to "plain Jane and no nonsense."
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)

[Steve Barnard]

T. Main wrote:
>
> Looking for ORIGIN of phrase "plain jane". The meaning is obvious, but
> I'm interested in first usage and/or possible origin of.
> I've checked AUE FAq, Dejanews back to 90 (all groups), 'net etc....
> plenty of usage hits but no origin hits.
>

> please copy my email mailto:tm...@netlabs.net in your post.
> thanks... Ted
> --
> http://www.netlabs.net/hp/tmain

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that 'plain Jane' refers originally
to Jane Austin.

Steve Barnard

[Dave Crane]

John Davies <jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <6i9v1a$pg...@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>, Skitt <al...@myself.com>
>writes
>>T. Main wrote in message <35486D7D...@www.netlabs.net>...

>>>Looking for ORIGIN of phrase "plain jane". The meaning is obvious,
>>but
>>>I'm interested in first usage and/or possible origin of.
>>>I've checked AUE FAq, Dejanews back to 90 (all groups), 'net etc....
>>>plenty of usage hits but no origin hits.

>>MWCD10:
>>
>>Main Entry: plain-Jane
>>Pronunciation: 'plAn-'jAn
>>Function: adjective
>>Etymology: from the name Jane
>>Date: 1912
>>: not fancy or glamorous : ORDINARY
>
>My mother (b.1903), one of the few people I know who uses the phrase,
>usually expands it to "plain Jane and no nonsense."
>--
>John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)

I had always assumed it was somehow related to the grade-school readers in
universal use in the USA during the first part of the century. "Dick and Jane"
were innocuous, totally asexual children whose life was, at best, boring.
Was that reader in use in the U.K., too?

In any case, "Jane", as in Jane Doe, has always been considered to be a
common, if not plain name. Taat, and the fact that "plain Jane" rhymes
probably caused the phrase to be popular.

[Donna Richoux]

Dave Crane <dcr...@hal-pc.org> wrote:

> I had always assumed it was somehow related to the grade-school readers in
> universal use in the USA during the first part of the century. "Dick and Jane"
> were innocuous, totally asexual children whose life was, at best, boring.

That series is not as old as you think. I don't have any reference
around to verify the date, but I'd say 1950. Anyone got a copy of "Why
Johnny Can't Read"?

Best wishes --- Donna Richoux

[Bun Mui]

>
> Re: Origin of: "plain jane"
>
> From: tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> Reply to: [1]Donna Richoux
> Date: 31 May 1998 20:36:28 GMT
> Organization: EuroNet Internet
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.usage.english
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<35486D7D...@www.netlabs.net>
> [5]<6i9v1a$pg...@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>
> [6]<51Jq5CA$xjS1...@redwoods.demon.co.uk>
> [7]<35712504...@news.hal-pc.org>

>
>Dave Crane <dcr...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
>> I had always assumed it was somehow related to the grade-school readers in
>> universal use in the USA during the first part of the century. "Dick and Jane
>"
>> were innocuous, totally asexual children whose life was, at best, boring.

Not in only in the U.S., but in the U.K.. too in the later part of the
century. I can give testimony to that. :) Nah I'm not that old. :)

I think they used that book in Form 1 in the U.K..

The book has pictures at the top to make it interesting and captioned
words at the bottom.

Goes something like this-

This is Dick.
This is Jane.
Look Dick see Jane run.
Look Jane see Dick run.

I think there was a dog, its name was called "Spot" I think.

Aweful stuff IMHO.

Bun Mui

[Truly Donovan]

On Sun, 31 May 1998 09:42:36 GMT, dcr...@hal-pc.org (Dave Crane)
wrote:

>I had always assumed it was somehow related to the grade-school readers in
>universal use in the USA during the first part of the century. "Dick and Jane"
>were innocuous, totally asexual children whose life was, at best, boring.

>Was that reader in use in the U.K., too?

Not the first part of the century -- there must have been something
else between McGuffey's and Dick and Jane. D & J came along
mid-century or so -- I encountered them in 1944. I found them
ridiculous as well as boring. In the first grade, my teacher had me
lead the reading sessions with the better readers so she could work
with the ones who were struggling. In retrospect, I was probably
reading at a fourth-grade level by then.

--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com

[Peter Moylan]

Dave Crane <dcr...@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>I had always assumed it was somehow related to the grade-school readers in
>universal use in the USA during the first part of the century. "Dick and Jane"
>were innocuous, totally asexual children whose life was, at best, boring.
>Was that reader in use in the U.K., too?

Unlikely. I can tell you that the Australian equivalent was
called "John and Betty".

This is John.
This is Betty.
John can walk.
Betty can run.
I can skip and jump and hop
With ten apples up on top.

(Or something like that.)

--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au

[nickey davies]

A little while back, Dave Crane was browsing these newsgroups, just like
you are now...

> I had always assumed it was somehow related to the grade-school readers
> in universal use in the USA during the first part of the century. "Dick
> and Jane" were innocuous, totally asexual children whose life was, at >
best, boring.
> Was that reader in use in the U.K., too?

Not as far as I know - I was brought up on 'Janet and John'.

--
Nickey
ndaviesa at cix dot co dot uk
London, England

[Frances Kemmish]

nickey davies wrote:
>
> A little while back, Dave Crane was browsing these newsgroups, just like
> you are now...
>
> > I had always assumed it was somehow related to the grade-school readers
> > in universal use in the USA during the first part of the century. "Dick
> > and Jane" were innocuous, totally asexual children whose life was, at >
> best, boring.
> > Was that reader in use in the U.K., too?
>
> Not as far as I know - I was brought up on 'Janet and John'.
>

I used to work with the grandson of the publisher of the 'Janet and
John' stories. My friend told me that, as a small boy in the thirties,
he helped his grandfather correct the proofs for the original book.

I think that the same publisher - Schofield and Sims - also published
'Mac and Tosh' stories, which I remember from my own early schooldays.
Mac and Tosh were Scotch terriers; they seem to be selling whisky these
days.

Fran

[David McMurray]

Thanks to Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> for advising me that Dave
Crane <dcr...@hal-pc.org> wrote, in a post I haven't seen:

> > [...] "Dick and Jane"

> > were innocuous, totally asexual children whose life was, at best, boring.

From their names and the pictures of them in the books, I always assumed
that Dick was a boy and Jane was a girl. If you mean that they were
totally asexual apart from that, I guess I was too at that age.

But then I have led a sheltered life - not boring, though.

--
David

[N.Mitchum]

Donna Richoux wrote:
------

> That series is not as old as you think. I don't have any reference
> around to verify the date, but I'd say 1950. Anyone got a copy of "Why
> Johnny Can't Read"?

>......

It's always been my own impression that the books dated from the
'40s and perhaps earlier. An AltaVista search turns up the
following: "... an era in American education which began in 1930
with the first "Dick and Jane" reader, by Zena Sharp. Starting in
the 1940's, Elizabeth Julesberg, writing as Elizabeth Montgomery,
took up the authorship of the series.

----NM

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[abe.fl...@gmail.com]

I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

[Derek Turner]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 02:58:02 -0800, abe.fletcher wrote:

> I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

Nice idea but the phrase was in use in 1844, three years before it was
published.

[Peter Young]

On 15 Jan 2015 abe.fl...@gmail.com wrote:

> I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

I imagine it was just because it rhymes.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Re)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 02:58:02 -0800 (PST), abe.fl...@gmail.com wrote:

>I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

I don't know. The phrase is in the OED but there is no suggestion of its
origin. The earliest quotation is:

1912 C. Mackenzie Carnival ii. 14 She sha'n't be a Plain Jane
and No Nonsense, with her hair screwed back like a broom, but she
shall be Jenny, sweet and handsome, with lips made for kissing and
eyes that will sparkle and shine.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Guy Barry]

abe.fl...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:3bb3ba1b-d81c-4fb1...@googlegroups.com...

>I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

It's a girl's name and it rhymes. No other explanation needed.

--
Guy Barry

[John Ritson]

In article <8UPtw.83852$xe1....@fx47.am4>, Guy Barry
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes

As with "Sweaty Betty".

--
John Ritson

[Derek Turner]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:08:17 +0000, John Ritson wrote:

> As with "Sweaty Betty".

Sticky Vicky and Tacky Jacqui, for views of UK television :)

There is a boat in our harbour called Betty Swallocks. Again, probably
only funny to the Brits and Australians.

[Jen Hewitt]

Do you perhaps have a source for it appearing in print prior to Jane Eyre? Thanks.
Jen

[Jerry Friedman]

I can't find Fr. Derek's 1844 citation, and he may not be around, but a
racehorse of that name ran in April, 1846.

https://books.google.com/books?id=n-sNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA107

By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
etc.) and software you used?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

On 2015-Nov-25 02:42, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
> threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
> Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
> and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
> etc.) and software you used?

I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
abe.fletcher. One other characteristic of people who do this is that
they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter T. Daniels]

abe "dug it up" in January, after which there were six postings, all the
same day, and then Jen "dug it up" today.

[Default User]

Jerry Friedman wrote:


> By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
> old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
> from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
> thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
> smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in Groups
just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up threads of
interest that are easily "revived".


Brian

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 4:50:15 PM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2015-Nov-25 02:42, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >
> > By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
> > threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
> > Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
> > and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
> > etc.) and software you used?
>
> I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
> get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
> abe.fletcher.

Commented on elsewhere

> One other characteristic of people who do this is that
> they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
> discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.

Since this Jen asked a question, I'd expect her to be watching /something/
to see if there is an answer to her query.

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were replying
to would be automatically quoted at the top of their message. I suppose
_some_ who do it might choose to select and delete it, but _every single user_?

[snide...@gmail.com]

Hence the question about mobile apps.

/dps

[Jerry Friedman]

Well, I was hoping that since Jen asked a question, she'd be be back for
the answer, but it certainly doesn't look that way.

I wonder whether people think GG will give them e-mail notification of
a response, as happens at other forums.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:58:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 5:50:15 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 2015-Nov-25 02:42, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> >
>> > By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
>> > threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
>> > Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
>> > and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
>> > etc.) and software you used?
>>
>> I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
>> get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
>> abe.fletcher. One other characteristic of people who do this is that
>> they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
>> discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.
>
>Well, I was hoping that since Jen asked a question, she'd be be back for
>the answer, but it certainly doesn't look that way.
>

If it's the Jen (or was it "Jenn"?) that was here a year or so ago,
why would you hope she'd be back?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[musika]

We *know* they are using GG because the user agent appears in the headers.
Jen's message did quote.

[Jerry Friedman]

But why always or almost always gmail?

--
Jerry Friedman

[snide...@gmail.com]

That's a big if. The name doesn't match (except for the first 3 letters),
and the way the question was asked doesn't match.

The J-of-a-year-ago didn't seem like someone who would change their handle
to evade kill files. She revisited several times without a name change.

But I don't know what Jerry would answer if
the Jen of this thread was the Jenn-of-a-year-ago.

/dps

[Jerry Friedman]

If she were that Jenn, I wouldn't hope she'd be back. But I doubt she is.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Default User]

I guess I'm not sure of the question. Do you think this is something
Gmail is doing? It seems unlikely that someone would be replying to a
usenet thread from Google Groups without realizing it.

What is the sample size here that exhibits the GG + Gmail + old threads?


Brian

[Default User]

> message. I suppose some who do it might choose to select and delete

> it, but _every single user_?

If you're questioning whether they are using Google Groups to post,
then that is relatively easy to check. Examine the full headers and
look at the user agent line. For GG, you should see something like:

User-Agent: G2/1.0

I checked Jen's message, and it does have that, so hers at least came
from GG.


Brian

[Default User]

Upon further reflection, I recall that back when Google rolled out the
new Groups interface that there was a rash of people replying to very
old threads. I thought that they then changed it so that there was a
limit to how old of a thread could be "revived". I see that Jen's
message was almost a year after the previous one. I thought the limit
was less than that, along the lines of six months, but I could be
mistaken.

I have often maintained that Google had two criteria for the people
assigned the Google Groups project:

1. Be poor software developers.
2. Be largely unfamiliar with usenet.


Brian

[Jerry Friedman]

Maybe about 20 in the past year or so using GG. I think there was one
that wasn't gmail.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

I regularly check revivals of ancient threads, and there has only ever
been one that didn't come from GG. That one was from Steve Hayes, who
did it deliberately.

I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2015-Nov-28 06:47, Default User wrote:

> I have often maintained that Google had two criteria for the people
> assigned the Google Groups project:
>
> 1. Be poor software developers.
> 2. Be largely unfamiliar with usenet.

We are occasionally told that Google has many projects going on at any
given time -- some of which are clearly intellectually challenging --
and that there is little or no interaction between sections. Perhaps the
poor performers are moved into low-priority projects where they can do
less damage. It's clear, certainly, that Google Groups is a low-priority
project, and that they're getting no help from the people who know how
to design search engines.

[Peter T. Daniels]

But it must be that it doesn't look to a reviver like a GG post, or at least
some, probably most, would have the previous message quoted.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:47:32 PM UTC-5, Default User wrote:
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> > On 11/24/15 5:36 AM, Jen Hewitt wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 12:43:45 PM UTC, Derek Turner
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 02:58:02 -0800, abe.fletcher wrote:
>
> > By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
> > old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
> > from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
> > thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
> > smartphone, etc.) and software you used?
>
> Upon further reflection, I recall that back when Google rolled out the
> new Groups interface that there was a rash of people replying to very
> old threads. I thought that they then changed it so that there was a
> limit to how old of a thread could be "revived". I see that Jen's
> message was almost a year after the previous one. I thought the limit
> was less than that, along the lines of six months, but I could be
> mistaken.

nono -- most of the revivals tend to come from the 1990s. And any non-GGers
here don't know that, because their systems have thrown away all the older
stuff.

[Jerry Friedman]

If we really wanted to know, we could e-mail the revivers.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

I've tried that already. No response. That was only one attempt, though.

[Janet]

In article <17116f75-e520-49cf...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

nono. Anybody with a proper newsreader can see that information in
the headers of the post (where it originated, when, and author).

Janet.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Then why do all the users of supposed "proper newsreaders" react as if the
revived threads have come out of the middle of nowhere, unaware that they
may be 20 years old?

[Default User]

Intriguing. I'm not sure what form that would take if it seems to be
particular to Android systems. I suppose there could be some sort of
aggregation that made it seem like blog messages with an option to
reply (apparently without quoting) or something like that.


Brian

[Janet]

In article <e9ca4ede-3ff4-4d7b...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

ALL of them? I don't.

maybe some don't read headers; just like some people don't read
attributions.

Janet

[Default User]

Interesting. It's possible that GG changed the way things worked or
that there is indeed another mechanism for replying to usenet
particular to certain users that bypass certain features of the usual
interface. I could also be wrong about the way it worked.

I would be happy to look at it through my GG account and see if reply
is possible to very old posts. I might look into that when I get a
chance.


Brian

[Peter T. Daniels]

That suggests that you do not use a supposed proper newsreader, but an actual
proper newsreader.

[GordonD]

Maybe they'll respond in ten years' time.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Robert Bannister]

On 28/11/2015 06:54, Peter Moylan wrote:

> I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
> discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

Now if I read that in a SF novel...
--
Robert Bannister
Beware the Android Systems!

[Peter Moylan]

On 2015-Nov-29 13:57, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 28/11/2015 06:54, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
>> discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.
>
> Now if I read that in a SF novel...

This entire newsgroup is an SF novel, but most of the characters haven't
realised it yet.

[Robert Bannister]

On 29/11/2015 11:31, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2015-Nov-29 13:57, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 28/11/2015 06:54, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>>> I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
>>> discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.
>>
>> Now if I read that in a SF novel...
>
> This entire newsgroup is an SF novel, but most of the characters haven't
> realised it yet.
>

I love conspiracy theories.
--
Robert Bannister
Imperial Library, Trantor

[RH Draney]

On a recent tour of Google HQ, I managed to slip away from the tour
group at one point and peeked behind a closed door marked "Google Groups
Development"....

Typewriters...rows and rows of typewriters...with a monkey at each one....r

[snide...@gmail.com]

Jen Hewitt's messages does indeed have a references line that tells you
what message she is replying too, but without any quoting you don't have
anything in Jen's message that tells you how old the replied-too message,
or anything about its original threading.

Jen, however, did quote, so we see 2 posts back, to the original revival
at the beginning of the year.

/dps

[mcha...@gmail.com]

It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure, plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.

Murty Calla
Mcha...@gmail.Com

[HVS]

On 27 Jan 2016, wrote

> It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure, plain
> and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's opinion of
> herself is, especially, her plainness.

A reasonable surmise, but it seems unlikely -- Jane Eyre was published in
1847, while the OED's earliest example for "plain Jane" dates to 1912 (which
does surprise me).

I wonder if it's just a case of rhyming an adjective with a personal name, as
in "Steady Eddie" or "Juicy Lucy".

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[James Hogg]

HVS wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2016, wrote
>
>> It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure,
>> plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's
>> opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.
>
> A reasonable surmise, but it seems unlikely -- Jane Eyre was
> published in 1847, while the OED's earliest example for "plain Jane"
> dates to 1912 (which does surprise me).
>
> I wonder if it's just a case of rhyming an adjective with a personal
> name, as in "Steady Eddie" or "Juicy Lucy".

Can we be sure that the original reference is to the woman's looks? It
could just as easily be a reference to the commonplace name Jane.

Google finds an example from the Tatler 1803:

"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

--
James

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:39:22 +0100, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
wrote:

In that, "plain" seems to refer to the mode of address and reference. It
is the name that is plain rather than the person.

Here in AUE we might word the Tatler quotation as:

"Let every common maid-servant be plain 'Jane', 'Doll' or 'Sue', and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by 'Mrs. Patience',
'Mrs. Prue', or 'Mrs. Abigail'."


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[James Hogg]

Another 19th-century example, this time Joel Chandler Harris describing
"Sister Jane":

"Verging on years of age my sister was still plain Jane Wornum."

This means that she was still unmarried, not that she was unattractive.

--
James

[RH Draney]

On 1/27/2016 8:39 AM, James Hogg wrote:
>
> "Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
> better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
> Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In the first episode of Comedy Central's series "Another Period" (a sort
of "Downton Abbey" meets the Kardsashians), the new servant has her name
changed from "Celine" to something the rich folks decide is more
befitting her menial status: "Chair"....r

[Katy Jennison]

I remember a story by someone, Saki I wouldn't be surprised, in which a
rather pretentious lady is telling an acquaintance that in order not to
bother to learn her maids' names she calls them all Jane; the
acquaintance observes with some asperity that Jane is in fact her own name.

--
Katy Jennison

[Lewis]

In message <b84e8f19-34be-4e7c...@googlegroups.com>

mcha...@gmail.com <mcha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure,
> plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's
> opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.

Supposition without evidence?

Pretty sure it is a 20th century phrase that has nothing at all to do
with Jane Eyre.

--
I NO LONGER WANT MY MTV Bart chalkboard Ep. 3G02

[Lewis]

In message <n8ao62$9l3$2...@dont-email.me>

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.



--
If the laws of action and reaction had anything to do with it, it should
have flopped to the ground a few feet away. But no-one was listening to
them.

[Lewis]

In message <n8ara...@news3.newsguy.com>

This is amusing, but also rooted in truth. AIUI it was not uncommon for
the lesser maids (like the scullery maids) to simply be called by a
single name, regardless of the name of the girl actually in that
position currently.

--
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

[David Kleinecke]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 11:08:46 AM UTC-8, Lewis wrote:

> That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
> be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
> their last names.

There are people who still think that way.

The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <n8ara...@news3.newsguy.com>
> RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 1/27/2016 8:39 AM, James Hogg wrote:
>>>
>>> "Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
>>> better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
>>> Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".
>
>> In the first episode of Comedy Central's series "Another Period" (a sort
>> of "Downton Abbey" meets the Kardsashians), the new servant has her name
>> changed from "Celine" to something the rich folks decide is more
>> befitting her menial status: "Chair"....r
>
>This is amusing, but also rooted in truth. AIUI it was not uncommon for
>the lesser maids (like the scullery maids) to simply be called by a
>single name, regardless of the name of the girl actually in that
>position currently.

Also noted that in Downton Abbey that there are two women addressed as
"Mrs" who have never been married. Well, one is now married.

Certain positions were always held by women addressed as "Mrs (name)"
even though they were unmarried.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 01/27/2016 02:51 PM, David Kleinecke wrote:

>> That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
>> be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
>> their last names.
>
> There are people who still think that way.
>
> The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
> The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
> The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
> ... ad nauseam

I commented on this to the nurse who prepped me for a procedure
recently: The surgeon and anesthetist were both Dr. LastName, whereas
the nurses were all FirstName RN.

Perce

[Peter T. Daniels]

Actually, the employee is Simpson. I don't think Mr. Burns or Smithers has
ever addressed the other guys at the plant, but if they did, we'd know their
last names.

[RH Draney]

On 1/27/2016 2:15 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 2:51:36 PM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:

>> The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
>

> Actually, the employee is Simpson. I don't think Mr. Burns or Smithers has
> ever addressed the other guys at the plant, but if they did, we'd know their
> last names.

In the case of Homer's close friends Lenny and Carl, it doesn't much
matter whether you first- or last-name them....r

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <8281df5b-7b1e-4024...@googlegroups.com>,

We do know the names of Lenny and Carl, sort of.

Lenny Leonard and Carl Carlson, although Lenny's name has been given two
or three variations.

[Cheryl]

I think that's a hangover from the days all women, or at least those who
get a title other than Lady So and so, were Mrs (name). 'Miss' came later.

--
Cheryl

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jan-28 06:05, Lewis wrote:
> In message <n8ao62$9l3$2...@dont-email.me> James Hogg
> <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:

>> Google finds an example from the Tatler 1803:
>
>> "Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
>> the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
>> Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".
>
> That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
> only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
> referred to by their last names.
>
> This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
> unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

[Katy Jennison]

On 27/01/2016 19:05, Lewis wrote:
> In message <n8ao62$9l3$2...@dont-email.me>
> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:

>> Google finds an example from the Tatler 1803:
>
>> "Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
>> better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
>> Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".
>
> That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
> be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
> their last names.
>

Not the 'elite' as such, simply the upper servants (cook, housekeeper, etc).

--
Katy Jennison

[RH Draney]

In myE, "plain" is the opposite of "peanut"....r

[Tony Cooper]

Many females do not want their last name on their name badge. Not
just nurses.

[Tony Cooper]

The (unmarried) cook is Mrs Patmore, but the kitchen maid is Daisy.

Miss Daisy came along later. Someone drove her.

[Lewis]

In message <n8bhl8$168$1...@dont-email.me>

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.


--
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you
really make them think, they'll hate you.” ― Don Marquis

[Jerry Friedman]

On 1/27/16 12:51 PM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 11:08:46 AM UTC-8, Lewis wrote:
>
>> That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
>> be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
>> their last names.
>
> There are people who still think that way.
>
> The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
> The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John

I resemble that remark!

> The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
> ... ad nauseam

Around here, it seems most people think that way. I'm starting to give
up on getting my students to call me Jerry. Of course, the more gray
hair I have, the harder it is for them.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On 1/27/16 12:05 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <n8ao62$9l3$2...@dont-email.me>
> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>> HVS wrote:
>>> On 27 Jan 2016, wrote
>>>
>>>> It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure,
>>>> plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's
>>>> opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.
>>>
>>> A reasonable surmise, but it seems unlikely -- Jane Eyre was
>>> published in 1847, while the OED's earliest example for "plain Jane"
>>> dates to 1912 (which does surprise me).
>>>
>>> I wonder if it's just a case of rhyming an adjective with a personal
>>> name, as in "Steady Eddie" or "Juicy Lucy".
>
>> Can we be sure that the original reference is to the woman's looks? It
>> could just as easily be a reference to the commonplace name Jane.
>
>> Google finds an example from the Tatler 1803:
>
>> "Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
>> better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
>> Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".
>
> That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
> be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
> their last names.

First names for the elite servants too, right?

> This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
> unattractive or unadorned.

--

Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <n8bhl8$168$1...@dont-email.me>
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-Jan-28 06:05, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <n8ao62$9l3$2...@dont-email.me> James Hogg
>>> <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Google finds an example from the Tatler 1803:
>>>
>>>> "Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
>>>> the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
>>>> Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".
>>>
>>> That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
>>> only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
>>> referred to by their last names.
>>>
>>> This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
>>> unattractive or unadorned.
>
>> Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
>> and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.
>
>It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
>consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.

I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
particularly attractive.

[GordonD]

Did the original one come on a tandem?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[GordonD]

In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.

And if your nurse was Albert RN you were in real trouble.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:49 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

Albert RN might be able to perform a rough-and-ready amputation, aka
(crossthread alert) truncation.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:49 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>

>In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.

Or Miss/Ms/Mrs Lastname.

[Peter Young]

On 28 Jan 2016 "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:49 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:

>>
>>In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.

> Or Miss/Ms/Mrs Lastname.

Until, they want their car serviced, or their boiler fixed, when they
miraculously become "Dr".

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Os)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:54:03 GMT, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 28 Jan 2016 "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:34:49 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.
>
>> Or Miss/Ms/Mrs Lastname.
>
>Until, they want their car serviced, or their boiler fixed, when they
>miraculously become "Dr".
>
>Peter.

I don't doubt it. I had a university coworker with a non-medical
doctorate. He was happy to be addressed as "Mr" in normal life but there
was at least one occasion when he found it beneficial to mention that he
was "a doctor".

[Charles Bishop]

In article <m7gkabp68pn4pprjs...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >In message <n8bhl8$168$1...@dont-email.me>
> > Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2016-Jan-28 06:05, Lewis wrote:
> >>> In message <n8ao62$9l3$2...@dont-email.me> James Hogg
> >>> <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Google finds an example from the Tatler 1803:
> >>>
> >>>> "Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
> >>>> the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
> >>>> Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".
> >>>
> >>> That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
> >>> only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
> >>> referred to by their last names.
> >>>
> >>> This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
> >>> unattractive or unadorned.
> >
> >> Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
> >> and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.
> >
> >It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
> >consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.
>
> I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
> unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.

I don't think it means "unattractive", just, if you will, "plain" with
no beauty. Nothing to make her unattractive. Even so, a makeover show
will have us believe that a plain woman can be made to look attractive,
and I daresay they're right if she wants to make the effort.

>
> I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
> plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
> particularly attractive.

Oh, well, you should have said before I typed.

--
charles

[Robert Bannister]

I'm with Lewis. If you are speaking to a woman, "attractive" is the
lowest you go.
--
Robert B.

[David Kleinecke]

Moving about in the business world I found using my PhD overtly
was overkill. So I only owned up to club someone objectionable.

[Default User]

When I started working as an engineer, I was surprised to find out that
it was expected that everyone would be on a first-name basis. That was
all the way up to the CEO should happen to run into him. The only one
that was ever called "Mr." was the founder, and that was more of a
nickname. He had died by the time I started, so it wasn't a concern for
me.


Brian

[Default User]

When I became a graduate student back in the long-ago, it was a bit of
an odd transistion as I had done my undergraduate work at the same
school. One still called the professors "Dr." in class, but outside of
it was now first names.


Brian

[Peter T. Daniels]

At the University of Chicago Linguistics Department's new students orientation
meeting, Jim McCawley wrote (slowly) on the board the following lines:

*Professor McCawley
*Dr. McCawley
*Mr. McCawley
Jim

(The U of C in general had a "reverse snobbism" policy and the members of
the teaching staff were never called by title or "Dr." Mr./Miss/Mrs. was
usual, but first-naming was also popular, especially for younger ones.)

[Peter Moylan]

About half a year after I got my PhD I wanted a telephone installed in
the house. It's likely that the title cut three weeks off the delivery time.

[Peter Moylan]

I seem to be the only one here who thinks that "plain" can refer to
things other than physical appearance.

But then I'm not a literary expert; I'm just a plain engineer.

[James Hogg]

Quang Phúc Đông

--
James

[Tony Cooper]

In college, when someone tried to fix you up with a blind date, and
you asked what she looked like, if the answer was "She has a good
sense of humor and she's a lot of fun", you knew she'd never meet the
minimum "attractive" level.

One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".

Turns out she did. The other eye was green. They ended up dating for
quite some time, though.

Does "fix up" travel across the pond? I suppose the meaning is
obvious from context.