Origin of "friendly fire"
AS
was first used in 1925 but I have no more details. Help please!!
Mark Wallace
"AS" <xxg...@yahoonospamdot.co.uk> wrote in message
news:izli8.1243$y76.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> I have tried to find the origin of this phrase. As far as I can
gather, it
> was first used in 1925 but I have no more details. Help please!!
Well, it's almost certainly from the US. US troops are experts at
it.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
George Hardy
> "AS" <xxg...@yahoonospamdot.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:izli8.1243$y76.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> > I have tried to find the origin of this phrase. As far as I can
> gather, it
> > was first used in 1925 but I have no more details. Help please!!
>
> Well, it's almost certainly from the US. US troops are experts at
> it.
Quite true. During the Iraq War in 1991, every single M1A1 tank
damaged or destroyed by gunfire was shot by "friendly fire". The
US has "IFF" (information, friend or foe) systems in its vehicles,
but many people turn them off. That is what happened to the female
helicopter pilot after the end of the war. The reason they turn
off the system is the fear that something might "home in" on their
vehicle.
GFH
Mark Wallace
"George Hardy" <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote in message
news:7c7350d8.02030...@posting.google.com...
So if you switch them on, the enemy gets you; but if you leave them
off, your mates blow you to smithereens.
I think I'll give this war malarkey a miss. It sounds dangerous.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you bloody nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
Donna Richoux
> I have tried to find the origin of this phrase. As far as I can gather, it
> was first used in 1925 but I have no more details. Help please!!
Sorry, there's nothing in the several slang and specialist dictionaries
I own. Maybe someone else here at a.u.e with access to the OED can find
the earliest reference for you.
Where did you get the 1925 reference from? Merriam-Webster has no entry
for the phrase at all, and they're pretty good at documenting two-word
phrases. (No one has documented two-word phrases as thoroughly as single
words.)
I just searched the Web for "friendly fire" and 1925. I see an article
says, "On March 12, 1925, Michigan State Trooper William Martz was
accidentally shot and killed when a colleague's gun accidentally
discharged." But it doesn't say that the term "friendly fire" was used
*at that time.* This could just the oldest example anyone could find of
that sort of incident.
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
Murray Arnow
>
>Quite true. During the Iraq War in 1991, every single M1A1 tank
>damaged or destroyed by gunfire was shot by "friendly fire". The
>US has "IFF" (information, friend or foe) systems in its vehicles,
>but many people turn them off.
I always thought IFF stood for "Identifaction, Friend or Foe."
Brian Wickham
wrote:
They phrase may be older but I don't think it entered the general
vocabulary until the late 1960s.
Brian Wickham
ntaylor
>> US has "IFF" (information, friend or foe) systems in its vehicles,
>> but many people turn them off.
Then there is FFI, Free from infection, dropping your pants
in front of the M.O.
Alan Jones
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1f8sdug.1k0x3315gnn30N%tr...@euronet.nl...
> AS <xxg...@yahoonospamdot.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have tried to find the origin of this phrase. As far as I can gather,
it
> > was first used in 1925 but I have no more details. Help please!!
>
> Sorry, there's nothing in the several slang and specialist dictionaries
> I own. Maybe someone else here at a.u.e with access to the OED can find
> the earliest reference for you.
Not in OED2; defined but with no citation in NSOED. This would imply a
recent origin.
> Where did you get the 1925 reference from? Merriam-Webster has no entry
> for the phrase at all, and they're pretty good at documenting two-word
> phrases. (No one has documented two-word phrases as thoroughly as single
> words.)
>
> I just searched the Web for "friendly fire" and 1925. I see an article
> says, "On March 12, 1925, Michigan State Trooper William Martz was
> accidentally shot and killed when a colleague's gun accidentally
> discharged." But it doesn't say that the term "friendly fire" was used
> *at that time.* This could just the oldest example anyone could find of
> that sort of incident.
Like many other servicemen, my great-uncle Ambrose was killed by "friendly
fire" in his first week at the Front in the 1914-18 Great War. I should
suppose that sort of incident is inevitable in battle, and was so even in
the days of bows and arrows.
Alan Jones
Ben Zimmer
>
> AS <xxg...@yahoonospamdot.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have tried to find the origin of this phrase. As far as I can gather, it
> > was first used in 1925 but I have no more details. Help please!!
>
> Sorry, there's nothing in the several slang and specialist dictionaries
> I own. Maybe someone else here at a.u.e with access to the OED can find
> the earliest reference for you.
>
> Where did you get the 1925 reference from? Merriam-Webster has no entry
> for the phrase at all, and they're pretty good at documenting two-word
> phrases. (No one has documented two-word phrases as thoroughly as single
> words.)
The 1925 date probably comes from OED2's earliest citation for
"friendly" in the military sense. But the first citation given for the
phrase "friendly fire" is from 1976:
------------
friendly, a. (n.) and adv.
Mil. Of troops, equipment, etc.: of, belonging to, or in alliance with
one's own forces; spec. resulting in accidental damage by allied troops
to one's own installations, aircraft, or personnel, esp. as in friendly
fire.
1925 FRASER & GIBBONS Soldier & Sailor Words, Friendly, a trench phrase
in the War, used of a shell heard either passing high overhead or one
falling short in our lines, meaning in that case one of our own shells.
[...]
1976 C. D. B. BRYAN Friendly Fire xvii. 204, I am informed that each
instance where Americans have been killed by friendly artillery fire is
investigated.
[...]
------------
This is a case where OED2 has seriously missed the boat. A search on
the redoubtable ProQuest database turns up much earlier citations for
"friendly fire", dating back to World War I:
--------------------
ARMY CHAPLAIN WINS D.S.C. FOR BRAVERY; T.E. Iwan of Saginaw Rewarded by
Pershing for Heroism Shown in Fighting on the Marne.
New York Times; Oct 18, 1918; pg. 11
"When the infantry was advancing in a position exposed to cross fire he
volunteered and carried a message to the advancing troops, informing
them that a machine gun barrage laid down on the enemy emplacements was
friendly fire from a unit not in their support and acting without orders
to cover their advance."
--------------------
--Ben
Ray Heindl
@bob.news.rcn.net:
Acronymfinder.com agrees with you (except in the spelling of
"identification"). And I always thought it was "Identify Friend or
Foe".
--
Ray Heindl
Spooky Guy Next Door
(a...@blueyonder.co.uk) wrote:
> Like many other servicemen, my great-uncle Ambrose was killed by "friendly
> fire" in his first week at the Front in the 1914-18 Great War. I should
> suppose that sort of incident is inevitable in battle, and was so even in
> the days of bows and arrows.
More so, in fact, in the days of bows and arrows. Back then, see, there
was always some poor bugger rushing forward to hack at things with a
really long sword.
So, more chances for them to get in the line of fire.
--
The ideas expressed in the above post are my own, with the possible
exception of the one involving a scarecrow and a stick of butter.
blog - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/infinitebabble/
cyberfuddle - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/
netiquette (read!) - http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
AS
Thanks for the reply. This is where I got 1925:
http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/history/20thcentury/1990s/?view=
where it says:
"The other major hot conflict of the 90s was the Gulf War (1991), a punitive
action by the United Nations to expel the Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. A
number of US military euphemisms were brought to wider public notice as a
result (notably collateral damage (1975) and friendly fire (1925))"
I guessed it meant that the phrase was first used in 1925. I guess I may
have guessed incorrectly.
Donna Richoux
> Thanks for the reply. This is where I got 1925:
>
> http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/history/20thcentury/1990s/?view=
>
> where it says:
>
> "The other major hot conflict of the 90s was the Gulf War (1991), a punitive
> action by the United Nations to expel the Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. A
> number of US military euphemisms were brought to wider public notice as a
> result (notably collateral damage (1975) and friendly fire (1925))"
>
> I guessed it meant that the phrase was first used in 1925. I guess I may
> have guessed incorrectly.
No, it looks like it was accurate. The OED entry was a bit confused, but
I hope you saw Ben Zimmer's post where he found "friendly fire" used in
the New York Times, 1918.
From the way it was described in the 1925 entry, it was used to describe
the source of the fire or shells themselves passing overhead. Nowadays
we associate it mainly with *deaths and injuries caused by* such
friendly fire, but it's logical that it went through a period of simply
identifying whether what was heard or seen came from "our" side or
"theirs" -- independent of whether it had any effect.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Charles Riggs
Richard Maurer
From the way it was described in the 1925 entry, it was used to describe
the source of the fire or shells themselves passing overhead. Nowadays
we associate it mainly with *deaths and injuries caused by* such
friendly fire, but it's logical that it went through a period of simply
identifying whether what was heard or seen came from "our" side or
"theirs" -- independent of whether it had any effect. >>
I would guess that the "source" sense is still used by those in battle.
It is just that the news is heavily controlled by the military and we
do not hear much about anything in progress, only important effects
like deaths. When the war against insane religious fundamentalists
in Afghanistan is over, the soldiers will return and may write or
talk about "friendly fire" that scared but did not kill them.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wallace
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:vkhl8u0hkbpb9smas...@4ax.com...
I think it should be called the 'WGT'.
No prizes for guessing why.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
AS
AS <xxg...@yahoonospamdot.co.uk> wrote in message
news:izli8.1243$y76.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> was first used in 1925 but I have no more details. Help please!!
>
>
extra research. I appreciate it very much.
Ant
Skitt
"Ray Heindl" <rhe...@nccw.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91CC99F4...@209.249.90.101...
"Identification, Friend or Foe" is right.
That's the box I repaired once on a T-33 AA gun. I was in Ordnance,
assigned to service the T-38s, and the box was restricted to being serviced
only by Signal Corps dudes, but hey, we were at the range, and the SC dude
was nowhere to be found, so I told the anxious gun officer to step away for
a while ... . After a bit, happiness was felt all around.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Ray Heindl
news:a6gh4p$e106v$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de:
>> > I always thought IFF stood for "Identifaction, Friend or Foe."
>>
>> Acronymfinder.com agrees with you (except in the spelling of
>> "identification"). And I always thought it was "Identify Friend
>> or Foe".
>
> "Identification, Friend or Foe" is right.
>
> That's the box I repaired once on a T-33 AA gun. I was in
> Ordnance, assigned to service the T-38s, and the box was
> restricted to being serviced only by Signal Corps dudes, but hey,
> we were at the range, and the SC dude was nowhere to be found, so
> I told the anxious gun officer to step away for a while ... .
> After a bit, happiness was felt all around.
Did the pilots who might have found themselves on the business end of
the T-33 feel the happiness as well?
--
Ray Heindl
Skitt
There were no pilots at the range. Only drones.
The T-33s fired in unison as a battery of four guns. They did not go for a
direct hit. They fired a pattern that was designed to knock it out of the
sky with the resulting shrapnel. Just thought you might want to know. The
T-38s fired individually and aimed for direct hits.
meirman
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) posted:
>AS <xxg...@yahoonospamdot.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Thanks for the reply. This is where I got 1925:
>>
>> http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/history/20thcentury/1990s/?view=
>>
>> where it says:
>>
>> "The other major hot conflict of the 90s was the Gulf War (1991), a punitive
>> action by the United Nations to expel the Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. A
People just throw words around. It seems clear to me that the goal was
to expel, than it wasn't a punitive action. I am not an expert in
military terminology, but I think punitive measures are taken after or
ancillary to victory, and don't include softening up the target by
destroying their radar, their communications, and their bridges, used
for getting their army from one place to another.
>> number of US military euphemisms were brought to wider public notice as a
>> result (notably collateral damage (1975) and friendly fire (1925))"
Collateral damage probably is a euphemism, but I think they
misunderstand friendly fire, and I am not sure how one could say it in
a less nice way. I'll come back to this.
>> I guessed it meant that the phrase was first used in 1925. I guess I may
>> have guessed incorrectly.
>
>No, it looks like it was accurate. The OED entry was a bit confused, but
>I hope you saw Ben Zimmer's post where he found "friendly fire" used in
>the New York Times, 1918.
>
>From the way it was described in the 1925 entry, it was used to describe
>the source of the fire or shells themselves passing overhead. Nowadays
>we associate it mainly with *deaths and injuries caused by* such
>friendly fire, but it's logical that it went through a period of simply
>identifying whether what was heard or seen came from "our" side or
>"theirs" -- independent of whether it had any effect.
We are still in that stage. There is friendly fire, and there are
injuries and deaths caused by friendly fire. Friendly fire that
doesn't hurt one of our own just doesn't get a lot of comment in the
newspaper. When a patrol comes back with injuries and they say "it
was friendly fire", they are referring to who fired and not the
results. The results are apparent from looking or from the rest of
their story.
So I don't see how friendly fire is a euphemism. When the shots are
being fired at the enemy, they are indeed friendly to those speaking.
And even if I can't convince you that it means what I say now, it
meant that at the start, so it wasn't a euphemism when it started. I
don't see how it can earn that status later on, just because the users
of the term change their use of it.
AFAIK, there is no other simple phrase to use to refer to this.
"Shots fired by our side", "Fire by/from our side"? Do those sound
any less pleasant? What harsh phrase was 'friendly fire' coined to
replace?
(Collateral damage probably replaces "civilian casualties and property
loss". Casualties represents what they care about in the military,
where, regarding the army, especially the opposing army, an injury
that takes someone out of combat is as harmful to the fighting ability
as a death. Moreso because medics, nurses, doctors, and transport are
tied up trying to help the injured soldier recover.)
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
Ray Heindl
news:a6gkbo$e1e63$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de:
>> Did the pilots who might have found themselves on the business
>> end of the T-33 feel the happiness as well?
>
> There were no pilots at the range. Only drones.
Did anyone think to ask the drones how they felt about it? I'm sure
Bertie Wooster, in particular, would have had an opinion.
> The T-33s fired in unison as a battery of four guns. They did not
> go for a direct hit. They fired a pattern that was designed to
> knock it out of the sky with the resulting shrapnel. Just thought
> you might want to know. The T-38s fired individually and aimed
> for direct hits.
I'm surprised any AA gun would try for a direct hit. Did they ever
get any?
--
Ray Heindl
Skitt
Yup. They had radar, computers (electromechanical type), and hydraulic
positioning systems controlled with servos, you know. They could only
predict the future position of the target along a straight line, but hey,
sooner or later under continuous firing conditions (the guns had reels
holding many shells and could fire at the rate of one shot per second, IIRC)
... kablooey!
We had a lot of fun tracking airplanes in the "present position" mode,
looking at them through the bore. Neat! When the gun was switched to the
"future position", we saw just blue sky above and in front of the plane. No
fun at all.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I just searched the Web for "friendly fire" and 1925. I see an
> article says, "On March 12, 1925, Michigan State Trooper William
> Martz was accidentally shot and killed when a colleague's gun
> accidentally discharged." But it doesn't say that the term "friendly
> fire" was used *at that time.* This could just the oldest example
> anyone could find of that sort of incident.
Given that there appears to be a 1999 book by Webb Garrison entitled
_Friendly Fire in the Civil War: More Than 100 True Stories of Comrade
Killing Comrade_, I would guess that the phenomenon is older than
that. Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, fatally wounded at the
Battle of Chancellorsville by his own 18th North Carolina Infantry
Regiment, would appear to be one of the more notable cases.
Just in case anybody was wondering:
(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire"
in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long
as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full
intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or
equipment.
Paragraph 2-8, Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards)
25 February 1995
http://www.americal.org/awards/ph.htm
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |_Bauplan_ is just the German word
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for blueprint. Typically, one
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |switches languages to indicate
|profundity.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Richard Dawkins
(650)857-7572
Ben Zimmer
meirman wrote:
>
> >AS <xxg...@yahoonospamdot.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the reply. This is where I got 1925:
> >> http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/history/20thcentury/1990s/?view=
> >>
> >> where it says:
> >>
> >> "The other major hot conflict of the 90s was the Gulf War (1991), a punitive
> >> action by the United Nations to expel the Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. A
> >> result (notably collateral damage (1975) and friendly fire (1925))"
>
> Collateral damage probably is a euphemism, but I think they
> misunderstand friendly fire, and I am not sure how one could say it in
> a less nice way. I'll come back to this.
> (Collateral damage probably replaces "civilian casualties and property
> loss". Casualties represents what they care about in the military,
> where, regarding the army, especially the opposing army, an injury
> that takes someone out of combat is as harmful to the fighting ability
> as a death. Moreso because medics, nurses, doctors, and transport are
> tied up trying to help the injured soldier recover.)
Safire discussed the origins of "collateral damage" in last Sunday's "On
Language" column:
--------
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/magazine/10ONLANGUAGE.html
(free registration req'd)
Another military euphemism, collateral damage, was used above. This was
not a subliminal plug for Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest movie epic of
vigilante revenge. It was an introduction to a phrase used in restrained
apology for casualties among civilians or to destruction of other than
military targets. It was also used by the mass murderer Timothy McVeigh
-- there's always collateral damage'' -- in dismissing contrition for
the children his truck bomb killed in Oklahoma City.
The adjective collateral, ''parallel,'' came to mean ''ancillary,
subordinate''; as a noun, it is a pledge of security alongside a debt to
ensure its payment. The essential meaning is now ''on the side of.''
Where the adjective is used to modify damage, the meaning becomes
''unintended, inadvertent.'' It is in the same league of hesitant regret
as friendly fire.
The phrasedick Fred Shapiro at Yale tracked it back in its current sense
to a 1961 usage by Thomas Schelling in Operations Research magazine:
''Measures to locate and design our strategic forces so as to minimize
collateral damage.'' Reached at the University of Maryland, where he is
now a distinguished professor, Schelling says, ''I used it because it
seemed to be the common terminology.'' He disclaims coinage of that and
of counterforce and second strike, also often attributed to him; such
modesty is rare. (When I coin something, I make sure all the nattering
nabobs of negativism know it.)
In running the traps with Shapiro's help at the American Dialect
Society, I get word from John Baker that collateral damage was used in a
British court in 1820. It has been cooking along quietly in legal usage
until the 1990's, when it exploded into military parlance.
--------
meirman
<bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> posted:
>
>meirman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Collateral damage probably is a euphemism, but I think they
>> misunderstand friendly fire, and I am not sure how one could say it in
>> a less nice way. I'll come back to this.
>[...]
>> (Collateral damage probably replaces "civilian casualties and property
>> loss". Casualties represents what they care about in the military,
>> where, regarding the army, especially the opposing army, an injury
>> that takes someone out of combat is as harmful to the fighting ability
>> as a death. Moreso because medics, nurses, doctors, and transport are
>> tied up trying to help the injured soldier recover.)
>
>Safire discussed the origins of "collateral damage" in last Sunday's "On
>Language" column:
>
>--------
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/magazine/10ONLANGUAGE.html
>(free registration req'd)
------------------
Well worth it. I did so years ago and havent' had to enter the values
since then, well maybe once, except just now when I was using win98
instead win3.1.
Bill Safire's articles on English are always good but his passing
reference to a similarity with 'friendly fire' would require a lot of
explanation to convince me, given what I said two posts ago.
But, thank you, I'm pleased to have read the article, and that was
only a little part of it.
Althought "(When I coin something, I make sure all the nattering
nabobs of negativism know it.)" is a reminder of a bitter past.
>Another military euphemism, collateral damage, was used above. This was
>not a subliminal plug for Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest movie epic of
>vigilante revenge. It was an introduction to a phrase used in restrained
>apology for casualties among civilians or to destruction of other than
>military targets. It was also used by the mass murderer Timothy McVeigh
>-- there's always collateral damage'' -- in dismissing contrition for
>the children his truck bomb killed in Oklahoma City.
>
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
Ray Heindl
news:3C8D5C8E...@midway.uchicago.edu:
Quoting William Safire:
> It has been cooking along quietly in legal usage
> until the 1990's, when it exploded into military parlance.
Far be it from me to criticize the Language Maven, but shouldn't that
be "had been"? (I'm assuming the above was cut-and-pasted, so that a
possible typo by Mr. Zimmer is not an issue.)
--
Ray Heindl
AS
Could it be that it has continued to cook quietly in legal circles after its
explosion into military parlance (has been), as opposed to a cessation of
cooking in legal circles after exploding into military parlance (had been).
That was a guess, I teach maths.
Pat Durkin
pundit?
Robert Lieblich
Safire. He sold the idea to the NYT, and now he's Mr. Language
Usage Man. Or is that Dave Barry?
Ben Zimmer
>
> Ray Heindl <rhe...@nccw.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns91CFA34F...@209.249.90.101...
> > Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in
> > news:3C8D5C8E...@midway.uchicago.edu:
> >
> > Quoting William Safire:
> > > It has been cooking along quietly in legal usage
> > > until the 1990's, when it exploded into military parlance.
> >
> > Far be it from me to criticize the Language Maven, but shouldn't that
> > be "had been"? (I'm assuming the above was cut-and-pasted, so that a
> > possible typo by Mr. Zimmer is not an issue.)
> >
> explosion into military parlance (has been), as opposed to a cessation of
> cooking in legal circles after exploding into military parlance (had been).
> That was a guess, I teach maths.
Regardless of Safire's aspectual problems, the sentence is factually
shaky. As I mentioned in an aue thread some months ago, "collateral
damage" was widely used by the military long before the '90s. Press
reports in the '70s quote military sources using the term to refer
either to casualties in Vietnam or to casualties in a potential nuclear
war (cruise missiles and neutron bombs would supposedly minimize
collateral damage).
--Ben
J. J. Lodder
Fire wasn't that friendly in those days.
The English invented the moving walls of fire,
to get their soldiers to advance.
There would be an moving artillery barrage
ahead of the advancing troops,
but also one behind them.
The wounded unable to continue the advance were often blasted to pieces
by their own sides 'friendly' artillery.
Not so good,
Jan
Mark Wallace
"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1f8xc4y.5h1...@de-ster.demon.nl...
It's called a 'rolling' barrage.
> The wounded unable to continue the advance were often blasted to
pieces
> by their own sides 'friendly' artillery.
>
> Not so good,
Quite right.
I mean, people could get hurt!
The current method -- keeping the troops well back, and blasting the
crap out of an enemy from a distance -- is a lot easier on the
infantry.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Old Spice -- The Stupidest Story Ever Written
(and the second-best selling e-book in history)
The first volume is now FREE!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/os/freebie.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Don Phillipson
news:u8t1c53...@corp.supernews.com...
> Who elected Safire the "Language Maven"? Another journalist? A FOXTV
> pundit?
The usual person, himself, by
(1) practice in a daily paper column
(2) republished as books. I think there are by
now two or three, which get reviewed and
debated on their intrinsic worth.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
dphil...@trytel.com
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
[..]
Since we're talking about weapons again, I refer to a previous thread
about the sort of rifles used during the late 19th century. I
mentioned Rorke's Drift during the Zulu wars, and meir asked when that
was. It was 1879 and the British army was using what I call Martini
action breech loaders. The breech block is hinged at the back by a
horizontal pin and has a groove in it. One pulls a lever under the
stock which lowers the front of the breech block (ejecting any
cartridge case already in the weapon), slides a bullet down the groove
into the barrel and pushes the lever up again. The operation also
cocks the gun and maybe a sustained fire of 12-15 rounds a minute
could be made.
I recently watched the three westerns made by John Ford in the late
1940s/early 1950s with John Wayne. (These are 'Fort Apache', 'She Wore
a Yellow Ribbon' and 'Rio Grande'. 'Cheyenne Autumn', which was made
later with Widmark maybe because Wayne was not available, is also part
of the same general series.) They took place just after the Civil War
and I presume that Ford got the details of the US Cavalry's equipment
right. The soldiers are armed with the same sort of rifle as the one
described above at a time when Winchester pattern 7-shot repeaters
seemed to be generally available.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
M.J.Powell
>> Like many other servicemen, my great-uncle Ambrose was killed by "friendly
>> fire" in his first week at the Front in the 1914-18 Great War. I should
>> suppose that sort of incident is inevitable in battle, and was so even in
>> the days of bows and arrows.
>
>Fire wasn't that friendly in those days.
>The English invented the moving walls of fire,
>to get their soldiers to advance.
>
>There would be an moving artillery barrage
>ahead of the advancing troops,
>but also one behind them.
Source, please?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Gary Williams
> The current method -- keeping the troops well back, and blasting the
> crap out of an enemy from a distance -- is a lot easier on the
> infantry.
But if you've seen "Gallipoli" you know that keeping the troops too
far behind the barrage--giving the enemy the opportunity to come out
of their bunkers and back to their machine guns--could be equally or
more hazardous to the advancing infantry.
Gary Williams
Mark Wallace
"M.J.Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xTsuOUAM...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
Just about any book, website, or idle chat about the artillery in
World War One.
Ray Heindl
news:3C8E8F65...@Verizon.net:
>> > Far be it from me to criticize the Language Maven, but
>> > shouldn't that be "had been"? (I'm assuming the above was
>> > cut-and-pasted, so that a possible typo by Mr. Zimmer is not an
>> > issue.)
>> >
>> Who elected Safire the "Language Maven"? Another journalist? A
>> FOXTV pundit?
>
> Safire. He sold the idea to the NYT, and now he's Mr. Language
> Usage Man. Or is that Dave Barry?
Mr. Safire describes himself (in one of his books of collected
columns) as a language maven. The capitals were my idea.
Personally, I prefer Mr. Barry.
--
Ray Heindl
Ray Heindl
news:dRuj8.38317$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com:
That may be what he meant, but his sentence as written is incorrect
in my opinion. Whether it's still cooking along is irrelevant, since
the date in question is the 1990s. (I thought he had given up on the
plural apostrophe, but I may have been thinking of Dave Barry).
To be charitable, we could assume the 'has' is a typo and he really
meant 'had'. Or maybe one of his editors changed it. Yeah, that's
the ticket.
--
Ray Heindl
J. J. Lodder
I have seen a reference sometime to the effect
that well-trained WW I German machine gun crews
could get their guns up from deep down, on their mounts,
and firing within 30 seconds, in places where they were well dug in.
That made the artillery barrage somewhat ineffective.
Even a few machine guns left meant disaster to the attackers.
Best,
Jan
John Dean
>
> "M.J.Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:xTsuOUAM...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
> > snip
> >
> > >> Like many other servicemen, my great-uncle Ambrose was killed
> by "friendly
> > >> fire" in his first week at the Front in the 1914-18 Great War.
> I should
> > >> suppose that sort of incident is inevitable in battle, and was
> so even in
> > >> the days of bows and arrows.
> > >
> > >Fire wasn't that friendly in those days.
> > >The English invented the moving walls of fire,
> > >to get their soldiers to advance.
> > >
> > >There would be an moving artillery barrage
> > >ahead of the advancing troops,
> > >but also one behind them.
> >
> > Source, please?
>
> Just about any book, website, or idle chat about the artillery in
> World War One.
I've never seen any reference to a moving barrage *behind* advancing troops.
What on earth would be the point?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
M.J.Powell
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> writes
>
>"M.J.Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:xTsuOUAM...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
>> snip
>>
>> >> Like many other servicemen, my great-uncle Ambrose was killed
>by "friendly
>> >> fire" in his first week at the Front in the 1914-18 Great War.
>I should
>> >> suppose that sort of incident is inevitable in battle, and was
>so even in
>> >> the days of bows and arrows.
>> >
>> >Fire wasn't that friendly in those days.
>> >The English invented the moving walls of fire,
>> >to get their soldiers to advance.
>> >
>> >There would be an moving artillery barrage
>> >ahead of the advancing troops,
>> >but also one behind them.
>>
>> Source, please?
>
>Just about any book, website, or idle chat about the artillery in
>World War One.
News to me, and I've read about 30 of them over 20 years.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Mark Wallace
They haven't mentioned rolling barrages? That's surprising. I'll
confess I've not heard of barrages following troops unless the
troops were in two waves -- in which case I'd tend to think of the
second barrage as preceding the second wave, rather than following
the first -- but I've read no end of anecdotes, saying that if you
walked to fast you copped it, but if you walked too slow, you were
gone for a Burton, too.
Perhaps following barrages were to pick off all the not-so-quick
Germans, so that they wouldn't set up their machine-gun posts behind
the advancing troops.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Doctor Charles.
You can trust him.
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/doc01.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
J. J. Lodder
There being no other way to force British soldiers to attack.
Deighton's Blood, Tears, and Folly, Ch 7
mentions the double 'creeping barrage',
and gives Ludendorff's Notes on Offensive Battles as a source.
It is not surprising that information of this kind
was not made available to the British public.
Even statistics of executions for 'cowardice' were kept secret.
Best,
Jan
John Dean
I'm still doubtful - web searches don't provide any support for this though
I did find the following :-
''The Creeping Barrage, or rolling barrage, meant that the barrage would
lift in advance of forward troop movements. This worked on occasion, but it
demanded a better system of communication than was available at the time.
Sometimes the timing could be accurate, but not take into account the
terrain the men were having to traverse, meaning that the infantry were
often way behind the ‘lifts’. When the timing was not accurate men, could
get in advance of a barrage and be killed by what is now known as ‘friendly
fire’ ''
From http://www.granada-learning.com/yitm/ww1/study_notes/1915i.html
M.J.Powell
>> >> >Fire wasn't that friendly in those days.
>> >> >The English invented the moving walls of fire,
>> >> >to get their soldiers to advance.
>> >> >
>> >> >There would be an moving artillery barrage
>> >> >ahead of the advancing troops,
>> >> >but also one behind them.
>> >>
>> >> Source, please?
>> >
>> >Just about any book, website, or idle chat about the artillery in
>> >World War One.
>>
>> News to me, and I've read about 30 of them over 20 years.
>
>They haven't mentioned rolling barrages? That's surprising.
I know of rolling barrages ahead, but not one following which I took to
mean was to encourage the laggards.
> I'll
>confess I've not heard of barrages following troops unless the
>troops were in two waves -- in which case I'd tend to think of the
>second barrage as preceding the second wave, rather than following
>the first -- but I've read no end of anecdotes, saying that if you
>walked to fast you copped it, but if you walked too slow, you were
>gone for a Burton, too.
I can't see a point to a barrage ahead of the second wave since it would
cover any of your stalled troops as well as killing the wounded from the
first wave.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M.J.Powell
<nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes
Did he say that the second barrage followed the troops?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
J. J. Lodder
Yes, and irrespective of the actual progress of the troops.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
> news:1f911r6.1vw...@de-ster.demon.nl...
> > John Dean <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> > > I've never seen any reference to a moving barrage *behind* advancing
> > > troops. What on earth would be the point?
> >
> > There being no other way to force British soldiers to attack.
> > Deighton's Blood, Tears, and Folly, Ch 7
> > mentions the double 'creeping barrage',
> > and gives Ludendorff's Notes on Offensive Battles as a source.
> >
> > It is not surprising that information of this kind
> > was not made available to the British public.
> > Even statistics of executions for 'cowardice' were kept secret.
> I'm still doubtful - web searches don't provide any support for this though
> I did find the following :-
>
> ''The Creeping Barrage, or rolling barrage, meant that the barrage would
> lift in advance of forward troop movements. This worked on occasion, but it
> demanded a better system of communication than was available at the time.
> Sometimes the timing could be accurate, but not take into account the
> terrain the men were having to traverse, meaning that the infantry were
> often way behind the ‘lifts'. When the timing was not accurate men, could
> get in advance of a barrage and be killed by what is now known as ‘friendly
> fire' ''
There must have been very few cases of troops
having overtaken the leading barrage.
They saw it ahead of them.
It worked the other way round.
Where the barrage would be at any given time was scheduled in advance,
and the troops had to adapt, or....
That is why Ludendorff was very critical of the whole idea:
once set in motion it left no room for any initiative in the field
of men or their officers.
Best,
Jan
meirman
<bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> posted:
>AS wrote:
Neutron bombs, if they exist, would minimize collateral *property*
damage, but they kill everyone equally without regard to race,
religion, national origin, or previous condition of servitude.
I must admit "collateral damage" sounds like an unjustified euphemism,
but at the same time it doesn't sound so bad. It would help if I knew
what they used to call it, and what the plain unvarnished term for it
would be. My mind's a blank.
>--Ben
Mark Wallace
Hey, I'm not an expert in the field. I could well have gathered a
wrong impression.
--
Begin PCP Signature...
ecallaW kraM
...End PCP Signature
_____________________________________________
What does a slightly insane Englishman think of the Dutch?
To find out, visit the Dutch & Such website:
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/dutch/dutch-index.htm
_____________________________________________
Mark Wallace
You, Sir, can go fuck yourself.
Where was the Dutch army hiding, at the time? The same place it hid
during the second world war?
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
John Dean
"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:75c29u0aodiq32dqj...@4ax.com...
parallel in time.
I take it to mean damage that was not intended but which occurred as a
by-product of causing the intended damage. So, the Dambusters did *not*
cause any collateral damage as they intended to destroy dams and fully
expected the resultant flood to destroy property and take lives. Nor did the
Luftwaffe cause collateral damage bombing London - they also intended to
destroy property & take lives. Ditto the Atom Bombs in Japan. But a creeping
barrage that fell on friendly troops *would* cause collateral damage because
the intention was to destroy enemies only.
Frances Kemmish
>
> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
> news:1f911r6.1vw...@de-ster.demon.n
> >
> > There being no other way to force British soldiers to attack.
>
> You, Sir, can go fuck yourself.
> Where was the Dutch army hiding, at the time? The same place it hid
> during the second world war?
>
There is no justification for you to insult a nation merely because
one of their less mature citizens has irritated you.
Charles Riggs
What about two immature citizens? Three mature citizens who insult
you? What do we do in the case of one immature citizen, four whining
children, two irritating mature adults, and their family dog which
bites your leg?
I want to know where I must draw the line.
Charles Riggs
Mark Wallace
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:kp439uc286e9lu217...@4ax.com...
Just draw a few concentric circles on top of Flodder's pointy head,
and give the coordinates to the artillery.
Insane Ranter
If were talking about the French... it's a given that their all retards.
J. J. Lodder
Same to you.
> Where was the Dutch army hiding, at the time?
It was standing firm at the border,
all borders, the country being neutral.
By the immense fear they inspired in all
they detered both the Germans and the English
from attacking the country,
so it remained neutral.
> The same place it hid
> during the second world war?
They did fight in may 1940, after an unprovoked attack,
and even managed to capure a large fraction of the German paratroops.
And the on-land defenses held for the 4 days needed
to ship most of them as prisoners of war to England.
That may well have saved the allies from some further troubles
with German paratroops later on.
Germany also lost a lot of transport planes in Holland,
and with them a significant part of its airlifting capability.
The Dutch army capitulated when the town of Rotterdam
was bombed to complete destruction.
The defenders there were holding the bridges across the river
against all German attempts to take them.
Unfortunately Montgomery's men failed to do the same
and hold their bridge at Arnhem later in the war.
(Armhem is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
But for another example you may prefer the British expeditionary force
in 1940, which ran back to Dunkirk after meeting their first Germans,
escaping only because Hitler did not think it worthwhile to pursue them.
(His famous 'Haltbefehl', still not really understood why)
You could try to be a little less childish about it?
This kind of tit for tat isn't really amusing.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
In my book the one who starts using abusive language
when out of arguments is immature.
But he may be forgiven: he seems to have no idea of
what 'Passchendaele' was like.
Mark is clearly one of those armchair heros,
the kind that knows for sure that if they had been there...
The full horror of WW I warfare was kept from the British public,
and it still hasn't penetrated yet in full.
Deliberately shooting on your own soldiers behind their backs
to force them forwards was part of it.
I see no reason not to believe Ludendorff in this.
It was his job to understand what was happening in front of him.
And he had stopped those futile attacks,
so he had no reason to picture the English as better than they were.
Did see half a year ago that the French did make a start at last coming
to grips with their 'unbewaltigde vergangenheit': (is that English yet?)
originaly data on people being shot for 'cowardice'
was to have been kept secret until 2018,
but they permitted a retired general who really wanted to know
to start an investigation on his own in the archives.
It wasn't as bad as had been feared.
Sorry, have not kept the newspaper.
Jan
PS Just remembered that in Kubrick's 'Path of Glory'
there is a similar scene. The (French this time) general
orders the artilery to fire on his retreating men,
who were sent on a hopeless mission to begin with.
The artillery officer answering the phone notes that the given
coordinates are in the French sector,
and he stalls for time by refuses to obey without a written order.
But that would have been in the panic of a defeat.
British practice is claimed to have been deliberate
and planned beforehand in great detail.
J. J. Lodder
> Just draw a few concentric circles on top of Flodder's pointy head,
> and give the coordinates to the artillery.
Ook van harte welkom in de kleuterklas,
Jan
Frances Kemmish
> (Armhem is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
>
I have never seen "Arnhem" spelt as "Arnheim" in England - and I would
notice.
Bob Lipton
Frances Kemmish wrote:
Since when does Mr. Wallace need any justification except his own high
opinion of himself?
Bob
Dr Robin Bignall
Donna Richoux
> (Armhem
Um, you mean Arnhem
>is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
Misspelled? Like the Dutch misspell Londen and Parijs, you mean.
"Arnheim" is one of the old names for Arnhem. The Getty thesaurus lists
all these variants:
Arnhem (C,V)
Arnheim (C,V)
Arenacum (H,O)
Arecanum (H,O)
Arnhemium (H,O)
Arnum (H,O)
The codes mean:
C for current name;
H for historical name;
V for vernacular name;
O for a variant name in a language other than the vernacular.
Getty says that "Arnheim" is used in the Encyclopędia Britannica
(1988).
Arnheim is also a surname.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Simon R. Hughes
Thus Spake Dr Robin Bignall:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:29:22 +0000, Charles Riggs
> <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:39:03 -0500, Frances Kemmish
> ><fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
[...]
> >>There is no justification for you to insult a nation merely because
> >>one of their less mature citizens has irritated you.
> >
> >What about two immature citizens? Three mature citizens who insult
> >you? What do we do in the case of one immature citizen, four whining
> >children, two irritating mature adults, and their family dog which
> >bites your leg?
> >
> >I want to know where I must draw the line.
> >
> Nuke 'em. Might is right.
I think we had better keep tabs on who is on the list.
Let me see:
Russia;
China;
Iran;
Iraq;
North Korea;
Syria;
The Palestinians;
One immature citizen, four whining children,
two irritating mature adults, and their
family dog which bites your leg.
Did I miss anyone?
--
Simon R. Hughes
Mark Barratt
wrote:
>J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> (Armhem
>
>Um, you mean Arnhem
>
>>is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
>
>Misspelled? Like the Dutch misspell Londen and Parijs, you mean.
And have you noticed how nearly everybody misspells Nieuw Amsterdam?
Padraig Breathnach
Uncle Tom Cobley.
PB
John Dean
"Simon R. Hughes" <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.16fc2c25b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Marmite & Vegemite - see previous thread 'Axis of Evil Spreads'
John Dean
news:1f93tad.q043cr1shgwdiN%tr...@euronet.nl...
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > (Armhem
>
> Um, you mean Arnhem
>
> >is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
>
> Misspelled? Like the Dutch misspell Londen and Parijs, you mean.
> "Arnheim" is one of the old names for Arnhem.
>
> (1988).
In my Britannia DVD there is an entry beginning as follows :
ARNHEM
German Arnheim,
gemeente (municipality) and capital (1794), Gelderland provincie (province),
eastern Netherlands, on the north bank of the Lower Rhine (Neder Rijn)
River. Possibly the site of the Roman settlement of Arenacum, it was first
mentioned in 893 ...
The only other use of Arnheim is the surname of Rudolf
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>[alt.languages.english removed because it doesn't exist]
>
>Thus Spake Dr Robin Bignall:
>> Nuke 'em. Might is right.
>
>I think we had better keep tabs on who is on the list.
>
>Let me see:
>
>Russia;
>China;
>Iran;
>Iraq;
>North Korea;
>Syria;
>The Palestinians;
>One immature citizen, four whining children,
> two irritating mature adults, and their
> family dog which bites your leg.
>
>Did I miss anyone?
Bitchy waitress who plop down already opened wine bottles without a
word;
People who own barking dogs not kept inside the house at night;
People who air gushy, sentimental tripe on the radio;
People who are mean with their money;
People who party and play loud rock `n roll music when I'm trying to
sleep.
There must be many more we can put on this little list.
Charles Riggs
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > (Armhem
>
> Um, you mean Arnhem
Of course. Damned CVBNM keyboards.
> >is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
>
> Misspelled? Like the Dutch misspell Londen and Parijs, you mean.
> "Arnheim" is one of the old names for Arnhem. The Getty thesaurus lists
> all these variants:
More like the Dutch misspelling as Londres.
> Arnhem (C,V)
> Arnheim (C,V)
> Arenacum (H,O)
> Arecanum (H,O)
> Arnhemium (H,O)
> Arnum (H,O)
>
> The codes mean:
>
> C for current name;
> H for historical name;
> V for vernacular name;
> O for a variant name in a language other than the vernacular.
>
> Getty says that "Arnheim" is used in the Encyclopædia Britannica
> (1988).
Not in my edition of the EB.
The Times atlas likewise gives only Arnhem,
without Arnheim as an alternative spelling.
Arnhem is Dutch, Arnheim is German.
The town is, and has been for many centuries, Dutch.
> Arnheim is also a surname.
In Germany perhaps.
A not too unusual Dutch suname is: Van Arnhem,
indication someone originally came from there.
Best,
Jan
PS Australians know better too:
they too have Arnhem, also as cape, land, range,
never Arnheim.
J. J. Lodder
> In my Britannia DVD there is an entry beginning as follows :
>
> ARNHEM
>
> German Arnheim,
That's it.
> gemeente (municipality) and capital (1794), Gelderland provincie (province),
> eastern Netherlands, on the north bank of the Lower Rhine (Neder Rijn)
> River. Possibly the site of the Roman settlement of Arenacum, it was first
> mentioned in 893 ...
Going up the motorway you'll see road signs Utrecht Arnhem, Keulen...
Coming down the same motorway you'll see Köln, Arnheim, Utrecht.
And that's why it's an error in English:
Arnheim is never used in the Netherlands,
it is exclusively German.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
According to Donna, Arnheim is (the? a?) standard spelling
of Arnhem in English.
I am pretty sure I have seen Arnhem misspelled as Arnheim
many times in English text.
[Continued in reply to Donna.]
Jan
Frances Kemmish
>
> Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > "J. J. Lodder" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > (Armhem is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
> > >
> >
> > I have never seen "Arnhem" spelt as "Arnheim" in England - and I would
> > notice.
>
> According to Donna, Arnheim is (the? a?) standard spelling
> of Arnhem in English.
>
According to Donna, according to the Getty Thesaurus, whatever that
is, Arnheim is an alternative spelling.
> I am pretty sure I have seen Arnhem misspelled as Arnheim
> many times in English text.
>
That's a little different from
> (Armhem is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
which was your original assertion.
I repeat: I have never seen Arnhem spelled as Arnheim in England.
Fran
Donna Richoux
> Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > "J. J. Lodder" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > (Armhem is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
> > >
> >
> > I have never seen "Arnhem" spelt as "Arnheim" in England - and I would
> > notice.
>
> According to Donna, Arnheim is (the? a?) standard spelling
> of Arnhem in English.
I didn't think I said *that*, although I suppose my comparison to Londen
and Parijs misled. I just meant that it existed, as a legitimate
alternative. Google showed that Arnhem far outnumbers Arnheim on English
pages, although I lost the note of the exact figures.
Mark Wallace
I had a feeling that's where you were.
Just watch your racist mouth, or the juffrouw will send you home.
Mark Wallace
"Simon R. Hughes" <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.16fc2c25b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Why are the French not at the top of the list?
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
Ever been stuck on a word, or a point of grammar?
You need to visit the APIHNA World Dictionary
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/apihna-0.htm
____________________________________________
Richard Fontana
> >> Nuke 'em. Might is right.
> >
> >I think we had better keep tabs on who is on the list.
[...]
> People who party and play loud rock `n roll music when I'm trying to
> sleep.
That happens in Westport? Shame.
(It's 'cause they didn't grow up reading the Harry Potter books.)
Mickwick
>I repeat: I have never seen Arnhem spelled as Arnheim in England.
Me neither.
--
Mickwick
Mark Barratt
But there's no reason why the English spelling or pronunciation should
be that of the denizens. It hardly ever is, for places famous enough
to be named in English.
By your reasoning, we should not refer to the city of Bruges, in
Belgium, by that name because it is "the French name", whereas the
Dutch-speaking locals call it "Brugge" (/'bryx@/, if anyone cares).
It would make as much sense if you were to say that the French name
was an error because that is actually "the English name".
I must ask my friend from Magyar what he thinks.
--
Only if you assume that the ability to decide something (especially
when, as in the example you objected to, the decision is according to
rules laid down by a human) necessarily has anything to do with
intelligence. -- Evan Kirshenbaum
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Going up the motorway you'll see road signs Utrecht Arnhem, Keulen...
>Coming down the same motorway you'll see Köln, Arnheim, Utrecht.
>
>And that's why it's an error in English:
>Arnheim is never used in the Netherlands,
>it is exclusively German.
What about Mijmegen/Nimwegen?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
J. J. Lodder
The startup page of the Laserwriter should be nuked,
according to a user manual.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
> news:1f93c3g.bi...@de-ster.demon.nl...
> > Mark Wallace <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Just draw a few concentric circles on top of Flodder's pointy
> head,
> > > and give the coordinates to the artillery.
> >
> > Ook van harte welkom in de kleuterklas,
>
> I had a feeling that's where you were.
> Just watch your racist mouth, or the juffrouw will send you home.
My my, 'racist', you are getting more clueless all the time,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> "J. J. Lodder" wrote:
> >
> > Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "J. J. Lodder" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > (Armhem is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have never seen "Arnhem" spelt as "Arnheim" in England - and I would
> > > notice.
> >
> > According to Donna, Arnheim is (the? a?) standard spelling
> > of Arnhem in English.
> >
>
> According to Donna, according to the Getty Thesaurus, whatever that
> is, Arnheim is an alternative spelling.
It is not an alternative spelling,
it is another language, German.
> > I am pretty sure I have seen Arnhem misspelled as Arnheim
> > many times in English text.
> >
>
> That's a little different from
> > (Armhem is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
> which was your original assertion.
OK, too strongly. I was still thinking of poor Mr Snel,
who is almost always misspelled in English as Snell,
in Snell's law.
> I repeat: I have never seen Arnhem spelled as Arnheim in England.
I'll look for a printed example,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "J. J. Lodder" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > (Armhem is almost always misspelled as Arnheim in English)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have never seen "Arnhem" spelt as "Arnheim" in England - and I would
> > > notice.
> >
> > According to Donna, Arnheim is (the? a?) standard spelling
> > of Arnhem in English.
>
> I didn't think I said *that*, although I suppose my comparison to Londen
> and Parijs misled. I just meant that it existed, as a legitimate
> alternative.
You wouldn't think of saying you went to the opera
in the Scala in Mailand, Italy.
Why use the German name of a town in the Netherlands?
> Google showed that Arnhem far outnumbers Arnheim on English
> pages, although I lost the note of the exact figures.
Did you notice that Magritte has an 'Domaine d'Arnheim' painting?
Any idea why?
Jan
Charles Riggs
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> >> Nuke 'em. Might is right.
>> >
>> >I think we had better keep tabs on who is on the list.
>
>[...]
>> People who party and play loud rock `n roll music when I'm trying to
>> sleep.
>
>That happens in Westport? Shame.
Well, it happens here on Pill Hill sometimes. Rare, even there,
though.
Charles Riggs
J. J. Lodder
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:06:35 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Going up the motorway you'll see road signs Utrecht Arnhem, Keulen...
> >Coming down the same motorway you'll see Köln, Arnheim, Utrecht.
> >
> >And that's why it's an error in English:
> >Arnheim is never used in the Netherlands,
> >it is exclusively German.
>
> What about Mijmegen/Nimwegen?
Nijmegen, not Mijmegen or Meinegen.
Nimwegen is medieval Dutch,
and still accurs as a Dutch surname.
There is a famous medieval play:
Marieken van Nimwegen.
She meets the devil, and all that,
Jan
BTW Dutch 'Van' just means coming from,
and does not usually imply any claim to nobility of some kind,
like in German.
Donna Richoux
> Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Google showed that Arnhem far outnumbers Arnheim on English
> > pages, although I lost the note of the exact figures.
>
> Did you notice that Magritte has an 'Domaine d'Arnheim' painting?
> Any idea why?
Yes. A little searching that the (American) writer Edgar Allan Poe wrote
a short story called "The Domain of Arnheim." You'll find it at:
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/poe/works/arnheim.html
A quick reading suggests no connection between this Arnheim (a sort of
mystical mountain hideout) and the Dutch city of Arnhem. But perhaps it
promoted confusion.
I haven't looked up anything about Arnhem's history. Was it perhaps
slower at joining the confederation of Dutch city-states, and had more
of an independent identity?
"battle of Arnhem" 1220
"battle of Arnheim" 41 Ratio 30:1
As a spelling mistake/variant it exists, but it's not remarkably common.
Donna Richoux
> Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > According to Donna, according to the Getty Thesaurus, whatever that
> > is,
A very good database of place-names, found at
http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/tgn/index.html
>>Arnheim is an alternative spelling.
>
> It is not an alternative spelling,
> it is another language, German.
Well, Getty labels it V for vernacular name. By "vernacular" they mean
M-W's first meaning:
1 a : using a language or dialect native to a
region or country rather than a literary, cultured,
or foreign language
that would mean they think that it was, or is, called this *in Dutch*.
No, I have that wrong -- they mean it is called "Arnheim" by (some)
people native to the region. That would suggest a dialectal variant, or
a linguistic minority, such as a substantial number of German-speaking
residents in the area.
Getty says, in its Help section:
Preferred place name: In the TGN, the so-called
preferred place name is the "vernacular" name
(i.e. the name commonly used by people
inhabiting the place.)
In most cases, there is only one "vernacular" name. But a city with two
large linguistic groups would have two names marked "vernacular." For
example, I looked up the city of Antwerp in Belgium:
Names:
Antwerpen (C,V)
Anvers (C,V)
Antwerp (C,O)
Amberes (C,O)
Antwerpium (H,O)
Antwerpia (H,O)
Antwerpis (H,O)
Antwerpo (H,O)
Antwerpha (H,O)
Antwarpia (H,O)
Handowerpia (H,O)
Andevorpum (H,O)
Anderpus (H,O)
Ambivaritum (H,O)
Atuatuca (H,O)
The first two are marked with a V, the Dutch/Flemish name and the
French/Walloon name. So that's an example of more than one vernacular
name. The next two are Current names in Other languages, and then there
are Historic names in Other languages.
I don't know why Getty thinks that "Arnheim" is a current vernacular
name, but I figure they know more about it than I do.
John Dean
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > According to Donna, according to the Getty Thesaurus, whatever that
> > > is,
>
> A very good database of place-names, found at
> http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/tgn/index.html
>
> >>Arnheim is an alternative spelling.
> >
> > It is not an alternative spelling,
> > it is another language, German.
>
> Well, Getty labels it V for vernacular name. By "vernacular" they mean
> M-W's first meaning:
>
> 1 a : using a language or dialect native to a
> region or country rather than a literary, cultured,
> or foreign language
>
> that would mean they think that it was, or is, called this *in Dutch*.
> No, I have that wrong -- they mean it is called "Arnheim" by (some)
> people native to the region. That would suggest a dialectal variant, or
> a linguistic minority, such as a substantial number of German-speaking
> residents in the area.
>
''city ... Netherlands ... Roman name of Arenacum. This represents Latin
'arena', 'sand' to which has been added Germanic 'heim', 'homestead'
denoting the location of the original settlement on the banks of the
Rhine.''
I note that Arnhem is medieval times was a member of the Hanseatic League so
the German connection is clearly strong. Was there ever a time when the
border ran differently & included Arnhem in a Germanic state?
BTW, is it just me? I can't hear a reference to Gelderland without going
into the Football chants from A Knight's Tale.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Google showed that Arnhem far outnumbers Arnheim on English
> > > pages, although I lost the note of the exact figures.
> >
> > Did you notice that Magritte has an 'Domaine d'Arnheim' painting?
> > Any idea why?
>
> Yes. A little searching that the (American) writer Edgar Allan Poe wrote
> a short story called "The Domain of Arnheim." You'll find it at:
Thanks very much. This was one of those snippets of information
on my wanted list. Magritte is a disaster of course,
most of his paintings have absurd titles,
with intent to set the viewer wondering.
But you knew that.
> http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/poe/works/arnheim.html
I have the 'Complete Tales".
> A quick reading suggests no connection between this Arnheim (a sort of
> mystical mountain hideout) and the Dutch city of Arnhem. But perhaps it
> promoted confusion.
I read it long ago, but had completely forgotten about it.
It may be where I got the idea that 'Arnheim'
was the standard English form from.
BTW The comprehensive Times Atlas doesn't list any Arnheim at all,
not in Germany either.
> I haven't looked up anything about Arnhem's history. Was it perhaps
> slower at joining the confederation of Dutch city-states, and had more
> of an independent identity?
No. It was the main town of the Duchy of Gelre,
present day Gelderland,
which is one of the original seven united provinces.
> "battle of Arnhem" 1220
> "battle of Arnheim" 41 Ratio 30:1
>
> As a spelling mistake/variant it exists, but it's not remarkably common.
OK that puts that one to rest as well,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > According to Donna, according to the Getty Thesaurus, whatever that
> > > is,
>
> A very good database of place-names, found at
> http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/tgn/index.html
>
> >>Arnheim is an alternative spelling.
> >
> > It is not an alternative spelling,
> > it is another language, German.
>
> Well, Getty labels it V for vernacular name. By "vernacular" they mean
> M-W's first meaning:
>
> 1 a : using a language or dialect native to a
> region or country rather than a literary, cultured,
> or foreign language
>
> that would mean they think that it was, or is, called this *in Dutch*.
> No, I have that wrong -- they mean it is called "Arnheim" by (some)
> people native to the region. That would suggest a dialectal variant, or
> a linguistic minority, such as a substantial number of German-speaking
> residents in the area.
I wouldn't know about that.
Actually the language changed gradually,
with the Rhineland speaking something closer to Dutch than to Prussian.
It is only in the last century or so that the language has become
somewhat standardized on both sides of the border.
If some of the locals still said Arnheim by 1940
WW II must have changed that.
> I don't know why Getty thinks that "Arnheim" is a current vernacular
> name, but I figure they know more about it than I do.
I'll see if I can ask a local sometime.
The fact that the phonebooks I have list only Van Arnhem -s,
and no Van Arnheim -s suggests that already by 1810,
when these names were taken,
Arnhem was the preferred and perhaps only spelling.
And of course the Australian Arnhem names
go back to the 17th century.
Best,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> Brewer's Dictionary of Names says of Arnhem :-
>
> ''city ... Netherlands ... Roman name of Arenacum. This represents Latin
> 'arena', 'sand' to which has been added Germanic 'heim', 'homestead'
> denoting the location of the original settlement on the banks of the
> Rhine.''
German -heim, Dutch -hem, also in many other placenames.
Pronunciation is also different. Some Dutch still have unpleasant
associations with 'heim', like in 'Heim ins Reich.'
> I note that Arnhem is medieval times was a member of the Hanseatic League so
> the German connection is clearly strong. Was there ever a time when the
> border ran differently & included Arnhem in a Germanic state?
Actually -all- of the northern Netherlands fell under the German
Emperor. The southern Netherlands fell under the French king.
It is one of those accidents that happen
when empires (Carolingian in this case) are divided.
In practice the local potentates, Duke of Gelre, Count of Holland,
Bishop of Utrecht, had independent states. The Count of Flanders was
less lucky usually, the French kings being more powerful.
> BTW, is it just me? I can't hear a reference to Gelderland without going
> into the Football chants from A Knight's Tale.
Sorry, no,
Jan
Dr Robin Bignall
I guess that England has as many terrorists per square foot of the
population as France, and some equally bad habits. I would nuke
everyone who drives four-wheel drive vehicles in London (a fairly flat
city) and who wears green wellies. If they also park in disabled
parking spaces, I'd hang, draw and quarter them publicly in
traditional style first. The Dome has to be useful for something.
Anyway, with France gone, who then would the English loath? Don't be a
spoilsport!
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Odysseus
>
> No, I have that wrong -- they mean it is called "Arnheim" by (some)
> people native to the region. That would suggest a dialectal variant, or
> a linguistic minority, such as a substantial number of German-speaking
> residents in the area.
>
>
> I don't know why Getty thinks that "Arnheim" is a current vernacular
> name, but I figure they know more about it than I do.
>
Netherlands? I doubt there are many as far west as the Rhine, but
perhaps "Arnheim" is what *they* call the place and Getty places them in
the "vernacular" category instead of the foreign "other".
--Odysseus
Donna Richoux
Thanks for the suggestion, it gave me the courage to hunt for some sites
on European linguistic minorities that I knew I'd seen. It took a while
to answer the precise question, because (a) many of the links related to
this language were outdated and broken, and (b) this language has so
many names, if you count the various languages it is named in (German,
Dutch, English, and itself) and the historical variations and the
reformed spellings. I made a note of these, and I think there were more:
Nedersaksisch
Nedersaxisch
Neddersassisch (what the speakers call it themselves)
Nederduits
Niederdeutsche
Platduits
Plattdüütsch
Low Saxon
Low German
Laagduits
The first group, the "Nedersaksisch" and variants, seems to be the most
official name.
An article in the Google cache had some estimated figures:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Y3lFE0jpvVkC:www.geocities.com/~sas
sisch/rhahn/low-saxon/lowsax-nl-nl.htm&hl=en&lr=lang_nl&ie=ISO-8859-1
Nedersaksisch in Nederland
door Henk Bloemhoff
Drenthe heeft 457.347 inwoners, Groningen 557.951, Overijssel
1.057.186, de Nedersaksische delen van Gelderland samen 873.414 en
de gemeenten Oost- en West-Stellingwerf samen 50.000. Het totaal
aantal inwoners is 2.995.898. Een onderzoek dat enkele jaren
geleden werd uitgevoerd door de regionale radio van Groningen
leverde op dat zo'n 65% van de inwoners in die provincie
Nedersaksisch spreekt, d.w.z. de variant Gronings. Leest men
voorzichtigheidshalve 60% en extrapoleert men dat percentage naar
het hele gebied, dan komt dat neer op een aantal sprekers van
1.797.539.
So, they say that there are 870,000 residents in the German-speaking
part of Gelderland (the Dutch province where Arnhem is), and they think
60% is a cautious estimate for those who speak Nedersaksisch. That would
be about 500,000 speakers in that area. That's a lot.
And that large a group would surely account for Getty calling "Arnheim"
a vernacular name. Mystery solved.
Don Aitken
wrote:
> Nedersaksisch in Nederland
>
> door Henk Bloemhoff
>
> Drenthe heeft 457.347 inwoners, Groningen 557.951, Overijssel
> 1.057.186, de Nedersaksische delen van Gelderland samen 873.414 en
> de gemeenten Oost- en West-Stellingwerf samen 50.000. Het totaal
> aantal inwoners is 2.995.898. Een onderzoek dat enkele jaren
> geleden werd uitgevoerd door de regionale radio van Groningen
> leverde op dat zo'n 65% van de inwoners in die provincie
> Nedersaksisch spreekt, d.w.z. de variant Gronings. Leest men
> voorzichtigheidshalve 60% en extrapoleert men dat percentage naar
> het hele gebied, dan komt dat neer op een aantal sprekers van
> 1.797.539.
>
>So, they say that there are 870,000 residents in the German-speaking
>part of Gelderland (the Dutch province where Arnhem is), and they think
>60% is a cautious estimate for those who speak Nedersaksisch. That would
>be about 500,000 speakers in that area. That's a lot.
>
>And that large a group would surely account for Getty calling "Arnheim"
>a vernacular name. Mystery solved.
>
Ethnologue, which I find a good source on minority languages, divides
this one into no less than thirteen different languages - see:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=768
Apparently three of them (Drents, Gronings and Westerwolds) are
official languages of the Netherlands:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Netherlands
--
Don Aitken
J. J. Lodder
> Ethnologue, which I find a good source on minority languages, divides
> this one into no less than thirteen different languages - see:
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=768
>
> Apparently three of them (Drents, Gronings and Westerwolds) are
> official languages of the Netherlands:
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Netherlands
Depends on what you call an 'official language'.
If that means local placenames in the language,
or official documents in the language,
the language obligatory in schools,
or something like that the answer is no.
Only Frisian has that status in the Netherlands.
Jan