What does "cack" or "cack handed" mean?
The Usual Suspect
tinwhistler
wrote:
> I hope it's nothing nasty, but I heard this on BBC America.
Excerpt from OED2:
cack-handed, a.
. [perh. f. cack n.]
Left-handed; ham-handed, clumsy, awkward. Hence %cack-"handedness.
1854 A. E. Baker Gloss. Northants. I. 365 Keck-handed, awkward,
left-handed. 1859 N. & Q. VIII. 483 If a man, at hay time or harvest,
holds his fork with his left hand lowest, they say, ‘Ah! he's no good!
he's keck-handed!..’ 1893 Dartnell & Goddard Gloss. Wiltshire 21 Cack-
handed, cag-handed. 1955 M. Allingham Beckoning Lady vi. 91, I never
met such a kack-handed jackass in all my born days. 1959 P. McCutchan
Storm South iv. 52 He would+moan about the cack-handedness of Bacon
(which was nonsense, for Bacon was a first-rate steward). 1961
Spectator 22 Sept. 384 An insanely slothful or cack-handed publican.
1964 S. Jepson Fear in Wind i. 17 A series of kack-handed
manœuvres..designed to keep one end of a stick on the ground. 1967 J.
Potter Foul Play x. 125 When he saw the ball going the wrong side of
him, he lunged his [hockey] stick out behind him.+..‘Just thought I'd
try a bit of your cack-handed stuff.’
jinhyun
wrote:
> I hope it's nothing nasty, but I heard this on BBC America.
'Cack' according to the O.E.D seems to mean excrement or to defecate,
each usage being dialecti. 'Cack-handed' means left-handed or clumsy.
But I vaguely remember seeing it used to mean back-handed as in 'back-
handed compliment' probably in imitation of 'left-handed compliment.'
the Omrud
> I hope it's nothing nasty, but I heard this on BBC America.
"cack" on its own means "shit", but I've never connected this with
the term "cack-handed" which means clumsy.
--
David
=====
John Kane
wrote:
> On Feb 23, 8:14 pm, "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I hope it's nothing nasty, but I heard this on BBC America.
>
> Excerpt from OED2:
>
> cack-handed, a.
> . [perh. f. cack n.]
>
> Left-handed; ham-handed, clumsy, awkward. Hence %cack-"handedness.
>
> holds his fork with his left hand lowest, they say, 'Ah! he's no good!
I don't like this one. I always hold my pitch fork that way.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
HVS
> fOn Feb 24, 12:05 am, "tinwhistler"
Ditto; I certainly hold shovels and garden forks that way.
Holding it with my right hand lowest feels deeply left/cack-handed to
this right-hander.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
jinhyun
> ludmillia...@hotmail.com had it:
I think that has to do with the practice of cleaning oneself with
one's left hand after releiving oneself followed in countries like
India, the middle-east and possibly others. Google seems to bear me
out. Don't know why we need either word though. Both sound horrid.
Jonathan Morton
news:1172320743.1...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 1:38 pm, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ludmillia...@hotmail.com had it:
>>
>> > I hope it's nothing nasty, but I heard this on BBC America.
>>
>> "cack" on its own means "shit", but I've never connected this with
>> the term "cack-handed" which means clumsy.
>>
>> --
>> David
>> =====
>
> I think that has to do with the practice of cleaning oneself with
I suspect the chances of this having any influence on (one of the many)
English nicknames for left-handed are negligible.
Regards
Jonathan
HVS
> On Feb 24, 1:38 pm, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ludmillia...@hotmail.com had it:
>>
>>> I hope it's nothing nasty, but I heard this on BBC America.
>>
>> "cack" on its own means "shit", but I've never connected this
with
>> the term "cack-handed" which means clumsy.
>>
>> --
>> David
>> =====
>
> I think that has to do with the practice of cleaning oneself with
> one's left hand after releiving oneself followed in countries
like
> India, the middle-east and possibly others.
The cultural link strikes me as unlikely: the first OED citation
is from a mid 19th-century dialect glossary, and there wasn't a
huge interaction with foreign cultural practices in rural England
where the term appears to have first been spotted.
It seems much more likely that it's a simple case of applying an
established noun, "cack", to something considered useless or bad.
>Google seems to bear me out.
Sounds like a folk etymology to me.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
"jinhyun" <jinhyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>'Cack' according to the O.E.D seems to mean excrement or to defecate,
>each usage being dialecti. 'Cack-handed' means left-handed or clumsy.
>But I vaguely remember seeing it used to mean back-handed as in 'back-
>handed compliment' probably in imitation of 'left-handed compliment.'
There is a parallel with the Arabic (now Islamic?) world where the
right hand is reserved for clean tasks and the left for dirty tasks,
particularly wiping excrement from one's backside.
I wonder whether this was also the case in British and European
countries prior to ready access to clean water and toilet
paper/tissue?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
jinhyun
<jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
> "jinhyun" <jinhyunsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Not necessarily. Many words of Indian or middle-eastern origin have
found their way into the language, probably during the days of the
British empire. Words like 'loot' and 'pundit' for instance.
'Jodhpurs' is another example. This practise of cleansing oneself
with the left hand was well known to Englishmen who might have
invented the term, perhaps to mock the natives of the colonies in
which this practice was followed. Words often have strange
etymologies, and the one I suggest is less strange than most. At any
rate, I doubt that either 'cack' or 'cack-handed' should ever be
necessary, since we have perfectly good words for what each signifies,
which sound much better.
HVS
><jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
>> "jinhyun" <jinhyunsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1172320743.1...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>> I think that has to do with the practice of cleaning oneself
>>> with one's left hand after relieving oneself...
>>
>> I suspect the chances of this having any influence on (one of
>> the many) English nicknames for left-handed are negligible.
> Not necessarily. Many words of Indian or middle-eastern origin
> have found their way into the language, probably during the days
> of the British empire. Words like 'loot' and 'pundit' for
> instance. 'Jodhpurs' is another example. This practise of
> cleansing oneself with the left hand was well known to
> Englishmen who might have invented the term, perhaps to mock the
> natives of the colonies in which this practice was followed.
> Words often have strange etymologies, and the one I suggest is
> less strange than most.
I think it's more strange than the obvious (to me) case of rural
people applying a plain-spoken term for excrement to something
considered bad.
It wasn't what the hand was used *for* which was "bad": it was the
use of the hand *itself* that was seen as bad.
Left = bad; cack = bad; left-handed = cack-handed.
Trying to layer in foreign cultural references strikes me as
ignoring Occam and shaving kit.
> At any rate, I doubt that either 'cack'
> or 'cack-handed' should ever be necessary, since we have
> perfectly good words for what each signifies, which sound much
> better.
Necessity and usage are seldom neatly aligned.
John Dean
Me too. Although I suppose it depends which way you're looking at it. A
right-hander will hold a shovel with right hand on the handle and left on
the shaft. The shovel will be pointing downwards most of the time so the
left hand is lowest. Ditto we righties hold a pitchfork with the right hand
nearest the end of the handle (and nearest our body) and the left nearer the
tines. But at hay time and harvest, the pitchfork is most frequently seen in
the "tines up" position as the hay or wheatsheaf or whatever is forked
upwards onto the wagon. The tines are down just for the brief period of
spearing the target before hoisting it upwards.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Jonathan Morton
news:Xns98E189B1...@85.214.50.93...
>
> I think it's more strange than the obvious (to me) case of rural
> people applying a plain-spoken term for excrement to something
> considered bad.
>
> It wasn't what the hand was used *for* which was "bad": it was the
> use of the hand *itself* that was seen as bad.
>
> Left = bad; cack = bad; left-handed = cack-handed.
Yes, but none of that explains the other old English nicknames for
left-handedness - "keggy-" and so on. There were apparently numberous
regional differences.
Regards
Jonathan
jinhyun
Yeah, but you're asssuming that use of the the left hand was seen as
bad for some reason.I don't see why people should think this -- at any
rate, why they should see it as so bad as to use a word for excrement
to describe it,except with the cultural reference I offer. You must
also remember that using a word for excrement in every even mildly
disagreeable connection or even in affectionate mockery is a post
modern habit and hadn't yet caught on when the term first appears.
> Trying to layer in foreign cultural references strikes me as
> ignoring Occam and shaving kit.
Plausibility in etymology doesn't depend merely on geographical
proximity. If you tried to discover the etymology of 'loot' in
England, determined that such a widely-used word must have originated
within the mother country, you'd probably come up with a far-fetched
and tangled tale with as little credibility as connection to fact. The
explanation must make sense. And then there are words whose etymology
doesn't make sense
>
> > At any rate, I doubt that either 'cack'
> > or 'cack-handed' should ever be necessary, since we have
> > perfectly good words for what each signifies, which sound much
> > better.
>
> Necessity and usage are seldom neatly aligned.
>
True. But why would any discerning person say 'cack' when 'shit' or
the rhetorically milder 'crap' will do? And why say 'cack-handed'
when you can go with 'left-handed' or 'clumsy' or 'lubberly' or
'unhandy' or 'bungling' among others?
-
> Cheers, Harvey
>
> Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
HVS
Oh, indeed; and there were probably as many reasons for adopting the
various terms as there are terms.
My point was that since "cack-handed" was originally just one of many
regional expressions for the same thing, any similarity with Middle
Eastern or other exotic cultural taboos strikes me as coincidental
rather than causative.
John Dean
Uh huh. L-o-o-o-ng tradition of associated the left hand with badness and
evil and the right with goodness and mercy - sinister / dextrous frinstance
and, indeed, the adjective "right" with its "opposite to left / correct and
proper" duality. Not to mention "gauche" and "maladroit".
I recollect "caggy" and "caggy- or cag-handed" from my Mancunian youth [1].
I see OED defines "caggy" as dialect or vulgar for 'decaying' or
'ill-natured'. I suspect "caggy" and "cack" may have related origins.
Partridge points out that Orton's "Word Geography" has maps showing the
distribution of terms for left-handedness around the UK. I'd bet they show
spellings and pronunciations eliding into each other from one place to
another. Even "cuddy-wifter" might have a link to cack and caggy.
This stuff has even been debated in that building on the HP Sauce bottle:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980722/debtext/80722-15.htm
http://tinyurl.com/2wjofc
"Again according to The Economist, researchers preparing a survey of English
dialects found 88 different words for left-handed in local use in the 1950s.
Such words include buck-fisted, cack-handed, caggy, clicky, corrie-pawed,
cow-pawed, cuddy-wifter, dolly-pawed, gar-pawed, gibble-fisted,
golly-handed, keck-fisted, keggy-handed, left-plug, left-kelly, scoochy,
scrammy-handed, skiffle-handed, south-pawed, spuddy- handed and plain
squiffy."
Note the presence of cack, caggy, cuddy, keck and keggy.
[1] No, I do not keep his body in the fridge
--
John Dean
Oxford
HVS
> On Feb 24, 6:32 pm, HVS <usenetREMOVET...@whhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>> I think it's more strange than the obvious (to me) case of
>> rural people applying a plain-spoken term for excrement to
>> something considered bad.
>>
>> It wasn't what the hand was used *for* which was "bad": it was
>> the use of the hand *itself* that was seen as bad.
>>
>> Left = bad; cack = bad; left-handed = cack-handed.
>
> Yeah, but you're asssuming that use of the the left hand was
> seen as bad for some reason. I don't see why people should think
> this -- at any rate, why they should see it as so bad as to use
> a word for excrement to describe it,except with the cultural
> reference I offer.
I'm not "assuming" that the use of the left hand was seen as bad:
it clearly *was* seen as bad -- regardless of whether or not we now
understand why people may have considered it so.
Left-handedness was long seen as an indicator of things which were
inept, dysfunctional, deceitful, or even evil: OED has these
figurative meanings for "left-handed":
2. a. Crippled, defective. b. Awkward; clumsy, inapt. c.
Characterized by underhand dealings.
3. Ambiguous, doubtful, questionable. In medical language:
Spurious.
4. Ill-omened, inauspicious, sinister. Of a deity: Unpropitious.
Any of those could easily attract comparison with excrement and
other unpleasant waste.
--
Tony Cooper
<john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>
>"Again according to The Economist, researchers preparing a survey of English
>dialects found 88 different words for left-handed in local use in the 1950s.
>Such words include buck-fisted, cack-handed, caggy, clicky, corrie-pawed,
>cow-pawed, cuddy-wifter, dolly-pawed, gar-pawed, gibble-fisted,
>golly-handed, keck-fisted, keggy-handed, left-plug, left-kelly, scoochy,
>scrammy-handed, skiffle-handed, south-pawed, spuddy- handed and plain
>squiffy."
> Note the presence of cack, caggy, cuddy, keck and keggy.
>
>[1] No, I do not keep his body in the fridge
The Irish use "kaks" for pants. A sound-alike close enough to make me
wonder about the association with "cack". Anyone know how "kaks" came
to be?
The usual explanation is that it's short for "khakis", but that's so
easy that it's automatically suspect.
A sample of the usage from an old SCI post where the writer is using
it to mean "underwear" under the title "New kaks at last".
"Went inta Roche's in Henry Street ta get some new underwear fer me
upcoming trip as these fuckin' things I have are hangin' off me and
what would I do if i was taken ta the hospital?..... So I asked the
girl if they had the activated charcoal ones ta filter the gases and
Jaysus didn't she look puzzled and said "dunno, I'll find out" .. too
late fer me... Then she picks up the tannoy yoke and this greasy
haired gobshite dressed in polyester 8 sizes too big and a quare tie
not knotted right comes over and asks what manufacturer came out wit
dem. Fer once in me life I was momentarily speechlessly gobsmacked and
me eldest gossoon not missing a beat says "Chocolate Soup". (Fer you
lot over 18, Chocolate Soup is a hip clothes line for teenagers she
says)."
If you don't like the example, you can always key in on "tannoy yoke".
I know what a "tannoy" is, but I'd not come across "tannoy yoke"
before. From context it's the microphone part, but "yoke"?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I don't know which definition above the Catholic nuns of the 40s and
50s used, but they certainly thought that writing with the left hand
was sinister.
HVS
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:21:55 -0000, "John Dean"
><john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Again according to The Economist, researchers preparing a
>> survey of English dialects found 88 different words for
>> left-handed in local use in the 1950s. Such words include
>> buck-fisted, cack-handed, caggy, clicky, corrie-pawed,
>> cow-pawed, cuddy-wifter, dolly-pawed, gar-pawed, gibble-fisted,
>> golly-handed, keck-fisted, keggy-handed, left-plug, left-kelly,
>> scoochy, scrammy-handed, skiffle-handed, south-pawed, spuddy-
>> handed and plain squiffy."
>> Note the presence of cack, caggy, cuddy, keck and keggy.
>>
>> [1] No, I do not keep his body in the fridge
>
> The Irish use "kaks" for pants. A sound-alike close enough to
> make me wonder about the association with "cack". Anyone know
> how "kaks" came to be?
Northern England has "kecks" -- from "kicks", an obsolete word for
breeches (according to Collins). Seems suspiciously similar.
> The usual explanation is that it's short for "khakis", but
> that's so easy that it's automatically suspect.
Indeed; and kicks>kecks/kaks seems more likely.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> I don't like this one. I always hold my pitch fork that way.
OneLook has no listing for "pitch fork." Instead it recommends
"pitchfork," for which it offers twenty listings.
<http://www.onelook.com/?w=pitch+fork&ls=a> Is there some obscure
Canadian-border thing (comparable to a Pondian difference) of which I
am unaware, or did some gremlin sneak in a space when you weren't
looking?
--
Bob Lieb lich
the Omrud
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:21:55 -0000, "John Dean"
> <john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Again according to The Economist, researchers preparing a survey of English
> >dialects found 88 different words for left-handed in local use in the 1950s.
> >Such words include buck-fisted, cack-handed, caggy, clicky, corrie-pawed,
> >cow-pawed, cuddy-wifter, dolly-pawed, gar-pawed, gibble-fisted,
> >golly-handed, keck-fisted, keggy-handed, left-plug, left-kelly, scoochy,
> >scrammy-handed, skiffle-handed, south-pawed, spuddy- handed and plain
> >squiffy."
> > Note the presence of cack, caggy, cuddy, keck and keggy.
> >
> >[1] No, I do not keep his body in the fridge
>
> The Irish use "kaks" for pants. A sound-alike close enough to make me
> wonder about the association with "cack". Anyone know how "kaks" came
> to be?
The English English equivalent is "kecks" although I've never seen it
written down.
--
David
=====
HVS
Collins links this to 'kicks', as an obsolete word for 'breeches';
'kecks' and 'kaks' are sufficiently similar that one would imagine
they come from the same root.
the Omrud
> On 24 Feb 2007, the Omrud wrote
>
> > tony_co...@earthlink.net had it:
> >
> >> The Irish use "kaks" for pants. A sound-alike close enough to
> >> make me wonder about the association with "cack". Anyone know
> >> how "kaks" came to be?
> >
> > The English English equivalent is "kecks" although I've never
> > seen it written down.
>
> Collins links this to 'kicks', as an obsolete word for 'breeches';
> 'kecks' and 'kaks' are sufficiently similar that one would imagine
> they come from the same root.
And "cack" is also a verb. Hence the sentence, "He's cacked his
kecks".
--
David
=====
HVS
And made everyone cackle.
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:49:43 -0500:
Yoke is used in Ireland as a general descriptor for some tool, gadget or
device.
--
Nick Spalding
tinwhistler
[snip]
> Such words include buck-fisted, cack-handed, caggy, clicky, corrie-pawed,
> cow-pawed, cuddy-wifter, dolly-pawed, gar-pawed, gibble-fisted,
> golly-handed, keck-fisted, keggy-handed, left-plug, left-kelly, scoochy,
> scrammy-handed, skiffle-handed, south-pawed, spuddy- handed and plain
> squiffy."
> Note the presence of cack, caggy, cuddy, keck and keggy.
The term "southpaw," another left-handed sort of word, seems to have
infected the right side of the pond after, of course, starting on that
accursed "left-bad" side - if these cites in OED are an indication:
1891 Cricket 29 Oct. 463/1 The Germantown man returned the ball like a
flash to the wicket, and the 'south-paw' batsman was run out. ...1951
Sport 6-12 Apr. 8/2 On the same bill, Joe Lucy, the young southpaw,
meets South African lightweight Gerald Dreyer. 1955 Sci. News Let. 14
May 310/2 The family cat may have a preferred paw.., and pussy is most
often a southpaw when she is not ambidextrous. ...1957 R. Watson-Watt
Three Steps to Victory xliii. 245 This was, however, a south-paw kind
of compliment. 1969 New Scientist 6 Nov. 277/2 Jack Bodell has just
become the first south~paw heavyweight champion in British boxing
history. ...1970 H. McLeave Question of Negligence (1973) vi. 48
'Nobody told me he was a southpaw.' Even the psychiatrist
had..forgotten that the surgeon cut with his left hand. ...1976 'A.
Burgess' Beard's Roman Women (1977) v. 110 Donatella, a south~paw,
animated this [sc. her left shoulder-blade] while lifting the one
remaining chair from the front room. 1978 M. Kenyon Deep Pocket ix.
103 He wore shorts and boxing gloves. ''E's a southpaw,' Peckover
said.
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Mike Lyle
[...]
> The term "southpaw," another left-handed sort of word, seems to have
> infected the right side of the pond after, of course, starting on that
> accursed "left-bad" side - if these cites in OED are an indication:
Gosh! I've never _really_ thought of the map in cheiral terms: it's just
an agreeable little AUE trope. I don't suppose the ancients ever thought
of the Islands of the Blest or Tir n'an Og* as on their left; but it's a
nice coincidence that the presumed derivative "going West" has a
finality altogether lacking from an eastward journey.
*Dare I confess that that absolutely appalling bit of kitsch at the end
of that utterly contemptible film _Titanic_ really did make me cry?
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
tinwhistler
wrote:
> tinwhistler wrote:
>
> [...]> The term "southpaw," another left-handed sort of word, seems to have
> > infected the right side of the pond after, of course, starting on that
> > accursed "left-bad" side - if these cites in OED are an indication:
>
> [...]
>
> Gosh! I've never _really_ thought of the map in cheiral terms: it's just
Not many googlits [Google-hits] for "cheiral" -- I think this one may
be your sense:
...Coxeter certainly used it. I thought it was strictly a math. word,
chemists favoring chiral (cheiral), or handedness. --Jim Buddenhagen
sci.math newsgroup Dec 4 1999 by James Buddenhagen - 18 messages ...
I don't invest much emotionally in the fact that the Titannic was
headed west when it went south. Celine has gone on and on utterly
enough, no?
Mike Lyle
> On Feb 24, 10:45 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[...]
>> Gosh! I've never _really_ thought of the map in cheiral terms: it's
>> just an agreeable little AUE trope. I don't suppose the ancients
>> ever [snip]
>
>
> Not many googlits [Google-hits] for "cheiral" -- I think this one may
> be your sense:
>
> ...Coxeter certainly used it. I thought it was strictly a math. word,
> chemists favoring chiral (cheiral), or handedness. --Jim Buddenhagen
> sci.math newsgroup Dec 4 1999 by James Buddenhagen - 18 messages ...
Ignore me as convenient: I know "chiral" is more common, but I like to
stay close to the Greek when I can get away with it. I'm quite happy
with "encyclopedia", though.
Narelle
> On Feb 24, 9:14 am, "The Usual Suspect" <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I hope it's nothing nasty, but I heard this on BBC America.
>
>
> each usage being dialecti. 'Cack-handed' means left-handed or clumsy.
> But I vaguely remember seeing it used to mean back-handed as in 'back-
> handed compliment' probably in imitation of 'left-handed compliment.'
>
In Aus it is often extended to "cacky", but would probably not be used
by anyone under 50. My mother still refers to me as a cacky hander.
Here, cack also means to laugh, or that something is funny: "It was such
a cack" "We were all cacking ourselves".
Surfers who lead with their right foot, and have the left back are
called goofy footers. They are usually left-handed as well.
John Kane
If I recall correctly, no. A pitch fork is usually held tines down.
The up motion is a very small amount of the time that one actually
carries the pitchfork, even when one is has something on it
( possible exceptions being if one is feeding the trashing machince or
building a hay stack). I suspect with sheaves, you are not allowing
for travel time between stooks either when at best the folk is likely
to be held parallel to the ground.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
John Kane
I cannot spell. Pitch fork and pitchfork both look fine to me. I
seldom use either in my written work.
Mike Lyle
I sympathise. But a pitch fork would probably melt under the haymaking
sun.
Robert Bannister
> I cannot spell. Pitch fork and pitchfork both look fine to me. I
> seldom use either in my written work.
What about when you're tuning the piano?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> The English English equivalent is "kecks" although I've never seen it
> written down.
>
I had never seen "cockeyed" written until I was about 20. I assumed the
"cock" was much the same as "cack" and pictured the word as something
like "coccide".
--
Rob Bannister
Mike Page
wrote:
>On Feb 24, 8:53 am, "John Dean" <john-d...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
...>>
>> Me too. Although I suppose it depends which way you're looking at it. A
>> right-hander will hold a shovel with right hand on the handle and left on
>> the shaft. The shovel will be pointing downwards most of the time so the
>> left hand is lowest. Ditto we righties hold a pitchfork with the right hand
>> nearest the end of the handle (and nearest our body) and the left nearer the
>> tines. But at hay time and harvest, the pitchfork is most frequently seen in
>> the "tines up" position as the hay or wheatsheaf or whatever is forked
>> upwards onto the wagon. The tines are down just for the brief period of
>> spearing the target before hoisting it upwards.
>> --
>> John Dean
>> Oxford
>
>If I recall correctly, no. A pitch fork is usually held tines down.
>The up motion is a very small amount of the time that one actually
>carries the pitchfork, even when one is has something on it
>( possible exceptions being if one is feeding the trashing machince or
>building a hay stack). I suspect with sheaves, you are not allowing
>for travel time between stooks either when at best the folk is likely
>to be held parallel to the ground.
>
When one is working as part of a team it can be quite disruptive
and, occasionally dangerous, if someone is using a tool in a
different direction to everyone else. Which might explain why
left-handers were made to feel uncomfortable. (I've never seen a
left handed scythe, for instance.)
Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in each
hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
remember to orient it North South.)
--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Robert Lieblich
AmE "tuning fork."
I happen to own a timepiece with a tuning fork in place of the
mainspring. Perhaps I'll post about it when I find the time.
--
Bob Lieblich
It's a Bulova Accutron -- clock, not watch
Skitt
That is what I thought of when I saw "pitch fork", although that would be a
tuning fork.
--
Skitt,
always in tune and on key
John Dean
OED has "kickseys" as slang for breeches or trousers from C19. Partridge
says "kecks" is the Liverpool shape of "kicks".
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
> tinwhistler wrote:
> [...]
>> The term "southpaw," another left-handed sort of word, seems to have
>> infected the right side of the pond after, of course, starting on
>> that accursed "left-bad" side - if these cites in OED are an
>> indication: [...]
>
> Gosh! I've never _really_ thought of the map in cheiral terms: it's
> just an agreeable little AUE trope.
I was reminded recently, when reading a couple of works which made reference
to the battle of Isandhlwana, that an early message to Chelmsford that
things were kicking off was phrased "Heavy firing to the left of camp".
--
John Dean
Oxford
Peter Moylan
> The Irish use "kaks" for pants. A sound-alike close enough to make
> me wonder about the association with "cack". Anyone know how "kaks"
> came to be?
>
> The usual explanation is that it's short for "khakis", but that's so
> easy that it's automatically suspect.
AusE still has "daks" or "dacks" for pants. (And the associated
expression "He kacked his daks.") I used to know what it was derived
from. It was either a brand name or something like "dacrylene", which
makes the Irish "khakis" theory plausible to me.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Tony Cooper
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> The Irish use "kaks" for pants. A sound-alike close enough to make
>> me wonder about the association with "cack". Anyone know how "kaks"
>> came to be?
>>
>> The usual explanation is that it's short for "khakis", but that's so
>> easy that it's automatically suspect.
>
>AusE still has "daks" or "dacks" for pants. (And the associated
>expression "He kacked his daks.") I used to know what it was derived
>from. It was either a brand name or something like "dacrylene", which
>makes the Irish "khakis" theory plausible to me.
I have owned Daks. They were beltless pants with an adjustable thingy
in the waistline that allowed for slight variations in circumference.
I've never owned a pair, but there's also a brand called Sansabelt. I
see by Googling that both brands are still available.
JNugent
Liverpool term: "kecks", sometimes written/printed
as "kegs". One step further removed from "khaki".
The Usual Suspect
Thanks, all! This was a great discussion, and mystery solved. But
now, out of politeness, I won't be able to use that fabulous term. I
would like to! But I won't. Really. Fer Shure.
Leslie Danks
[...]
> I've never seen a left handed scythe, for instance.
[...]
<http://tinyurl.com/2pzvgc>
"Sense für Linkshänder
schmale Form, poliert, mähfertig, mit Schneidenschutz 85 cm breit"
(narow shape, polished, ready for mowing, with blade protector, 85 cm wide)
It will cost you EUR 55.75. There's also a sickel for EUR 20.30.
[...]
--
Les
Leslie Danks
That should be "narrow" and "sickle" - sorry!
--
Les
Mike Lyle
> MikeLylewrote:
[...]
> > Gosh! I've never _really_ thought of the map in cheiral terms: it's
> > just an agreeable little AUE trope.
>
> I was reminded recently, when reading a couple of works which made reference
> to the battle of Isandhlwana, that an early message to Chelmsford that
> things were kicking off was phrased "Heavy firing to the left of camp".
The degree of precision indispensable to a nation which acquired an
empire in a fit of absence of mind. It does occur to me, though, that
it could have worked on port-and-starboard principles, since an army
in the field does have a nominal front and rear and left and right of
the line; but I'd have been disinclined to stake my neck on somebody's
ability to agree with me on it at a moment of some excitement.
"Marching toward the sound of the guns" might not have been much
navigational help, either: my father claimed that when the Jap midget
subs got into Sydney Harbour all sorts of stuff let fly all over the
place -- whether he was exaggerating a trifle in stating that anti-
aircraft ordnance joined in, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
--
Mike.
John Kane
> On 24 Feb 2007 13:01:23 -0800, "John Kane" <jrkrid...@gmail.com>
I hadn't thought of that. We did not use forks that much and even
when loading sheaves would usually only have one person on each side
of the wagon. It could have been a problem feeding the thrashing
machine.
I cannot see that it would be much of a problem building a load or a
haystack but it might be.
>
> Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in each
> hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
> the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
> remember to orient it North South.)
No no, from stook to wagon. We usually stooked long after the binder
(reaper in UK terms?) was gone. And horrible work it was though it
beat doing the same with hay bales.
Four or 6 sheaves, even 8 at times, to a stook. Orientation didn't
matter that I ever knew of. Of course, we probably have a dryer
climate in August.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in each
> hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
> the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
> remember to orient it North South.)
Shocking, or stooking, was an earlier operation. John K mentioned
feeding the threshing machine, the final phase: that involved forks, as
did the intermediate carting and ricking. Eyes full of bits, throat dry
as a dry thing, itchy under the shirt. . .
John Kane
wrote:
> Mike Page wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in each
> > hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
> > the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
> > remember to orient it North South.)
>
> Shocking, or stooking, was an earlier operation. John K mentioned
> feeding the threshing machine, the final phase: that involved forks, as
> did the intermediate carting and ricking. Eyes full of bits, throat dry
> as a dry thing, itchy under the shirt. . .
And don't forget mowing away the straw in the straw barn! " Eyes full
of bits, throat dry as a dry thing, itchy under the shirt. . ." Ah
yes, as I look out at the ice and snow I am almost nostaglic. I am
sure 2 minutes in a grain field would cure it.
Pat Durkin
"John Kane" <jrkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172419254....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Ah, nostalgia. That's what I've been missing.
Robin Bignall
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>*Dare I confess that that absolutely appalling bit of kitsch at the end
>of that utterly contemptible film _Titanic_ really did make me cry?
They say, those psychologists, that men who cry too easily are
cold-hearted bastards. I have to confess to the countless times
during the past 50 years when I've watched what I consider to be
moving bits of films in the cinema or on TV and sobbed until my hanky
was soaked. To the utter astonishment of whatever female companion
was present. I'm probably also a cold-hearted bastard.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
Mike Lyle
My pale blue eyes return your gaze unblinking. . . Then swim with tears:
"You're so unkind, Robin!"
Robert Bannister
> Mike Page wrote:
> [...]
>
>>Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in each
>>hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
>>the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
>>remember to orient it North South.)
>
>
> Shocking, or stooking, was an earlier operation. John K mentioned
> feeding the threshing machine, the final phase: that involved forks, as
> did the intermediate carting and ricking. Eyes full of bits, throat dry
> as a dry thing, itchy under the shirt. . .
>
I've only done it after the stuff had been through a harvester and left
it in the now old-fashioned oblong bales. We used baling hooks or bare
hands to throw them up onto a truck and take them to the farmer's hay
barn. It was stacking inside the barn that finally caused the hay fever
I now suffer every summer.
Note: this was to raise money for the footy club. The idea was that all
these fit young players would turn out, but it was always left to the
over-40s.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>John Kane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I cannot spell. Pitch fork and pitchfork both look fine to me. I
>>>seldom use either in my written work.
>>
>>What about when you're tuning the piano?
>
>
> AmE "tuning fork."
That was meant to be a joke.
>
> I happen to own a timepiece with a tuning fork in place of the
> mainspring. Perhaps I'll post about it when I find the time.
>
I'm guessing that this must be a fairly large clock. Do tell more; I
don't quite see how it works.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> The Irish use "kaks" for pants. A sound-alike close enough to make
>> me wonder about the association with "cack". Anyone know how "kaks"
>> came to be?
>>
>> The usual explanation is that it's short for "khakis", but that's so
>> easy that it's automatically suspect.
>
>
> AusE still has "daks" or "dacks" for pants. (And the associated
> expression "He kacked his daks.") I used to know what it was derived
> from. It was either a brand name or something like "dacrylene", which
> makes the Irish "khakis" theory plausible to me.
>
Daks was a brand name. I have an idea they still exist, although I
haven't seen them advertised for a long time. BTW, the polite version
used by girls, is "I nearly packed my daks".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> > Robert Bannister wrote:
> >
> >>John Kane wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I cannot spell. Pitch fork and pitchfork both look fine to me. I
> >>>seldom use either in my written work.
> >>
> >>What about when you're tuning the piano?
> >
> > AmE "tuning fork."
>
> That was meant to be a joke.
Mumble, mumble ... possible Pondian differences .. mumble
Oh! Hehehe.
> >
> > I happen to own a timepiece with a tuning fork in place of the
> > mainspring. Perhaps I'll post about it when I find the time.
> >
> I'm guessing that this must be a fairly large clock. Do tell more; I
> don't quite see how it works.
It's actually a clock with a watch mechanism in it. The watch was
battery-powered and used a tiny tuning fork to generate the vibrations
that drove the hands. Hold one up to your ear and you'll hear a tiny
high-pitched whine. It was more accurate than all but the very best
mainspring watches, but the quartz watch, with a quartz crystal
generating the vibrations, drove it off the market in the Seventies.
Bulova invented the thing and marketed it as the Accutron. (Later
Bulova assigned the name Accutron to some of its early quartz watches
and confused watch eollectors everywhere.)
Actually, I have a watch as well, but it suffered a systemic failure a
few years ago (not merely a dead battery). Both the watch and the
clock are Spaceviews. See
<http://www.accutron214.com/AccutronSpaceviewHistory.htm>. Mine is
the one pictured third from left in the top row. The clock used the
same movement, but embedded in a small clock frame (about 5 inches
square) and with longer hands. It's not very well-known, but you can
find pictures of it at
<http://www.accutron214.com/Clocks/Accutron214Clocks.htm>. Mine is
the one illustrated at the top -- the "Director E."
Because they're electronic and date from the Sixties, they do need
periodic repair, and replacement parts are becoming rare. I do know a
couple of people who can fix them, but as of now it would cost more to
repair the watch than I paid for it originally (though of course
that's primarily due to inflation). The clock was running quite well
until recently, but then it stopped dead. I think it's only the
battery, but I'm a bit nervous about taking it in and finding out that
it needs major surgery.
Meanwhile, I have a sturdy Seiko Kinetic on my wrist, keeping time to
within 10 seconds a week. Sentiment is fine, but knowing the exact
time has its own virtues.
--
Bob Lieblich
Almost an antique himself
Tony Cooper
Mike Page
Well, now I have seen a left handed scythe, but it didn't look
much good for reaping, or for mowing a hayfield, come to that. I
can't imagine the carnage that would be caused by having a left
hander in among a gang reaping a field of wheat, where people
proceeded in a staggered line down the field.
Quite a lot of the gang would be grim by the end of the day.
Mike Page
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Mike Page wrote:
>[...]
>> Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in each
>> hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
>> the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
>> remember to orient it North South.)
>
>Shocking, or stooking, was an earlier operation. John K mentioned
>feeding the threshing machine, the final phase: that involved forks, as
>did the intermediate carting and ricking. Eyes full of bits, throat dry
>as a dry thing, itchy under the shirt. . .
I took them as unrelated comments. When loading a nearly fully
stacked cart the pitchfork spent quite a portion of its time
vertical, points up, as it was used to hoist the sheaf or loose
straw up to a considerable height.
Mike Page
wrote:
>On Feb 24, 6:36 pm, mikeorang.p...@ntlworld.com (Mike Page) wrote:
...>> Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in
each
>> hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
>> the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
>> remember to orient it North South.)
>
>No no, from stook to wagon. We usually stooked long after the binder
>(reaper in UK terms?) was gone. And horrible work it was though it
>beat doing the same with hay bales.
In rural Lincolnshire it seemed to be the rule to stook
immediately because of the danger of the crop getting wet if it
lay on the ground.
>
>Four or 6 sheaves, even 8 at times, to a stook. Orientation didn't
>matter that I ever knew of. Of course, we probably have a dryer
>climate in August.
North South stooking was the rule so that the sheaves on each
side of the stook got an equal amount of sun. My employer told me
a story of a neighbour who mistakenly stooked E-W and became such
an object of comment and derision that he restooked his field by
moonlight. I think it was more important to keep barley dry than
wheat, which has a higher tolerance of being wet. (And, again
IIRC, barley is even scratchier than wheat.)
Oleg Lego
Are you suggesting that they'd finish work shortly?
Leslie Danks
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:42:16 +0100, Leslie Danks
> <Leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
>
>>Leslie Danks wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Page wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I've never seen a left handed scythe, for instance.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/2pzvgc>
>>> "Sense für Linkshänder
>>> schmale Form, poliert, mähfertig, mit Schneidenschutz 85 cm breit"
>>> (narow shape, polished, ready for mowing, with blade protector, 85 cm
>>> wide)
>>>
>>> It will cost you EUR 55.75. There's also a sickel for EUR 20.30.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>That should be "narrow" and "sickle" - sorry!
>
> Well, now I have seen a left handed scythe, but it didn't look
> much good for reaping, or for mowing a hayfield, come to that.
It's a small one, admittedly, and intended for gardening (the stinging
nettles you "forgot" last year, for example), but it serves as "proof of
concept". I didn't search further for a man-sized version.
> I
> can't imagine the carnage that would be caused by having a left
> hander in among a gang reaping a field of wheat, where people
> proceeded in a staggered line down the field.
I can't see a real problem there. The following reaper is responsible for
not cutting off the feet of the person diagonally in front and is expected
to maintain a safe distance. Which way the scythe is swung shouldn't
matter.
> Quite a lot of the gang would be grim by the end of the day.
I once knew someone (no names to protect the innocent) who was said to have
marched up and down with shouldered scythe past the window of the bedroom
in which an aunt he hated lay dying.
--
Les
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>
>>>AmE "tuning fork."
>>
>>That was meant to be a joke.
>
>
> Mumble, mumble ... possible Pondian differences .. mumble
>
> Oh! Hehehe.
The odd thing is that "pitch" is used for things like pitch pipes.
>
>
> It's actually a clock with a watch mechanism in it. The watch was
> battery-powered and used a tiny tuning fork to generate the vibrations
> that drove the hands. Hold one up to your ear and you'll hear a tiny
> high-pitched whine. It was more accurate than all but the very best
> mainspring watches,
Sounds like a great piece of technology. Pity that clever things like
that were superseded almost before they got off the ground.
--
Rob Bannister
John Kane
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:13:09 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
>
> >Mike Page wrote:
> >[...]
> >> Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in each
> >> hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
> >> the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
> >> remember to orient it North South.)
>
> >Shocking, or stooking, was an earlier operation. John K mentioned
> >feeding the threshing machine, the final phase: that involved forks, as
> >did the intermediate carting and ricking. Eyes full of bits, throat dry
> >as a dry thing, itchy under the shirt. . .
>
> I took them as unrelated comments. When loading a nearly fully
> stacked cart the pitchfork spent quite a portion of its time
> vertical, points up, as it was used to hoist the sheaf or loose
> straw up to a considerable height.
Ah, you built loads differently than we did. Typically a sheaf would
be almost flicked up onto the wagon often with the tines of the fork
not much more than a foot and a half or two feet above one's head.
The idea was to drop it near the loadbuilder's feet. ( dropping it on
his or her head was not appreciated).
>From those old 19th Century engravings that I've seen I get the
feeling you in the UK went for a much taller load than we would.
John Dean
> On Feb 26, 4:01 pm, mikeorang.p...@ntlworld.com (Mike Page) wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:13:09 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
>>
>> <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Mike Page wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in each
>>>> hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
>>>> the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
>>>> remember to orient it North South.)
>>
>>> Shocking, or stooking, was an earlier operation. John K mentioned
>>> feeding the threshing machine, the final phase: that involved
>>> forks, as did the intermediate carting and ricking. Eyes full of
>>> bits, throat dry as a dry thing, itchy under the shirt. . .
>>
>> I took them as unrelated comments. When loading a nearly fully
>> stacked cart the pitchfork spent quite a portion of its time
>> vertical, points up, as it was used to hoist the sheaf or loose
>> straw up to a considerable height.
>
> Ah, you built loads differently than we did. Typically a sheaf would
> be almost flicked up onto the wagon often with the tines of the fork
> not much more than a foot and a half or two feet above one's head.
> The idea was to drop it near the loadbuilder's feet. ( dropping it on
> his or her head was not appreciated).
>
So. Returning to our moutons ...
In the original post, the cite from OED via Notes and Queries was:
>> 1859 N. & Q. VIII. 483 If a man, at hay time or harvest,
>> holds his fork with his left hand lowest, they say, 'Ah! he's
>> no good! he's keck-handed!..'
Upon which a goodly number of usageistas chimed in to say that we are
right-handed and, when wielding a spade or fork with business end pointing
to the ground, our left hands would be lowest. I suggested that this could
be explained by the judgement being made when the business end was pointing
up, the situation in which a left handers left hand would indeed be lower
than his right.
This has met with less than universal approval. Nearer to no approval at
all.
So how do we explain the quote? Have OED got it wrong? Did N & Q get it
wrong?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Amethyst Deceiver
OldBloke cries more than I do. He's definitely not a cold-hearted
bastard. I might be, though.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Roland Hutchinson
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>>>John Kane wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I cannot spell. Pitch fork and pitchfork both look fine to me. I
>>>>seldom use either in my written work.
>>>
>>>What about when you're tuning the piano?
>>
>>
>> AmE "tuning fork."
BrE also "tuning fork."
> That was meant to be a joke.
And a very old joke it is, first attested in the 18th century when the
tuning fork was a new bit of high-tech gear for musicians.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Me too. Although I suppose it depends which way you're looking at
> it. A right-hander will hold a shovel with right hand on the handle
> and left on the shaft. The shovel will be pointing downwards most of
> the time so the left hand is lowest. Ditto we righties hold a
> pitchfork with the right hand nearest the end of the handle (and
> nearest our body) and the left nearer the tines.
Really? I'm right-handed, and I do both the other way. I always
presumed that that was the normal right-handed position. With
baseball and golf, the left hand is the one nearest the end.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |barbarian and thinks that the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |customs of his tribe and island are
|the laws of nature.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |
(650)857-7572 | George Bernard Shaw
HVS
> "John Dean" <john...@fraglineone.net> writes:
>
>> Me too. Although I suppose it depends which way you're looking
>> at it. A right-hander will hold a shovel with right hand on the
>> handle and left on the shaft. The shovel will be pointing
>> downwards most of the time so the left hand is lowest. Ditto we
>> righties hold a pitchfork with the right hand nearest the end
>> of the handle (and nearest our body) and the left nearer the
>> tines.
>
> Really? I'm right-handed, and I do both the other way. I
> always presumed that that was the normal right-handed position.
I think you're an undercover lefty, I do...
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On 27 Feb 2007, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
>
>> "John Dean" <john...@fraglineone.net> writes:
>>
>>> Me too. Although I suppose it depends which way you're looking
>>> at it. A right-hander will hold a shovel with right hand on the
>>> handle and left on the shaft. The shovel will be pointing
>>> downwards most of the time so the left hand is lowest. Ditto we
>>> righties hold a pitchfork with the right hand nearest the end
>>> of the handle (and nearest our body) and the left nearer the
>>> tines.
>>
>> Really? I'm right-handed, and I do both the other way. I
>> always presumed that that was the normal right-handed position.
>
> I think you're an undercover lefty, I do...
It's possible, but unlikely. It does occur in my family, but the only
thing I know I do left handed is shoot pool. I certainly throw, shoot
a basketball, swing a bat, golf club, and racquet, and draw a bow
right handed. But it's possible I picked up left-handed shoveling
from my left-handed father. (I almost certainly picked up left-handed
pool from him.)
When I play hockey, I hold my stick with the head to the right and my
left hand closer to the butt. I've always presumed that to be the
right handed position. Looking at pictures of field hockey, this is
the way all players seem to do it, and the Wikipedia article says that
"there are no 'left-handed' hockey sticks".
It seems reasonable to me that whether for swinging or lifting, you'd
want to put your stronger hand nearer to the head.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Pat Durkin
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:4pp7h4...@hpl.hp.com...
> "John Dean" <john...@fraglineone.net> writes:
>
>> Me too. Although I suppose it depends which way you're looking at
>> it. A right-hander will hold a shovel with right hand on the handle
>> and left on the shaft. The shovel will be pointing downwards most of
>> the time so the left hand is lowest. Ditto we righties hold a
>> pitchfork with the right hand nearest the end of the handle (and
>> nearest our body) and the left nearer the tines.
>
> Really? I'm right-handed, and I do both the other way. I always
> presumed that that was the normal right-handed position. With
> baseball and golf, the left hand is the one nearest the end.
>
dexterity of the load, while the right is near the business end, for
strength and rigidity. I am more familiar with snow-shoveling, and not
pitching forks, however. I have spent the last three days, three or
four times daily, pitching snow. When I pitch it to the right, I have
my hand down near the shovel blade. When I pitch the snow to the left,
I have the right hand on the handle, and the left near the blade.
>
>
Wood Avens
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>"John Dean" <john...@fraglineone.net> writes:
>
>> Me too. Although I suppose it depends which way you're looking at
>> it. A right-hander will hold a shovel with right hand on the handle
>> and left on the shaft. The shovel will be pointing downwards most of
>> the time so the left hand is lowest. Ditto we righties hold a
>> pitchfork with the right hand nearest the end of the handle (and
>> nearest our body) and the left nearer the tines.
>
>Really? I'm right-handed, and I do both the other way. I always
>presumed that that was the normal right-handed position. With
>baseball and golf, the left hand is the one nearest the end.
I've never used a pitchfork, but when using almost any long-handled
tool (such as a leaf rake) over a longish period I tend to shift hands
after half an hour or so, and continue to alternate in order to use
each arm equally and therefore exhaust them at a slower rate.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Tony Cooper
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>When I play hockey, I hold my stick with the head to the right and my
>left hand closer to the butt. I've always presumed that to be the
>right handed position. Looking at pictures of field hockey, this is
>the way all players seem to do it, and the Wikipedia article says that
>"there are no 'left-handed' hockey sticks".
>
>It seems reasonable to me that whether for swinging or lifting, you'd
>want to put your stronger hand nearer to the head.
A teaching golf pro once told me that I should take advantage of my
left-handedness and swing right-handed. The power hand pulls instead
of pushes. It works, but it only allowed me to drive further into the
rough so I went back to a left-handed swing.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Sure. But which way to you start? If I'm using a shovel, rake, hoe,
edger, broom, mop, axe, whatever, I'm pretty sure that I'll start with
the left hand closer to the butt/handle end.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Your claim might have more
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |credibility if you hadn't mispelled
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"inteligent"
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Peter Moylan
> Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian and thinks that the customs
> of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. -- George Bernard
> Shaw
Thanks for the reminder. I was dredging my mind for that quotation just
recently where it was exactly what was needed in a debate here. I shall
save it for the next time an argument spills over from sci.lang.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Wood Avens
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Wood Avens <wood...@askjennison.com> writes:
>> I've never used a pitchfork, but when using almost any long-handled
>> tool (such as a leaf rake) over a longish period I tend to shift
>> hands after half an hour or so, and continue to alternate in order
>> to use each arm equally and therefore exhaust them at a slower rate.
>
>Sure. But which way to you start? If I'm using a shovel, rake, hoe,
>edger, broom, mop, axe, whatever, I'm pretty sure that I'll start with
>the left hand closer to the butt/handle end.
Thinking of the lawn rake, it depends on whether I want to rake from
left to right or from right to left. If I'm raking from right to
left, my right hand will be the lower.
But in general, sure, if someone handed me a rake in the middle of a
blank field and said "demonstrate how you hold this", my left hand
would be the lower. I'm right-handed.
the Omrud
I agree with this - my right hand is at the top of a spade or rake,
given the option.
I've always been interested in my use of a beer engine (not a lager
tap), which requires quite considerable force to operate.
For those who are not familiar, this is a beer engine:
http://www.cask-ale.co.uk/us/1938engs.jpg
You pull the top of the black handle towards you - it move out and
back in a sort of arc which works a curved brass lever, lifting beer
from the cellar through the tap.
For reasons I don't understand, I pull the handle with my weaker hand
(the left) and hold the glass with my right. Am I strange?
--
David
=====
Mike Lyle
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.204f72de1...@news.ntlworld.com...
[...]
> I've always been interested in my use of a beer engine (not a lager
> tap), which requires quite considerable force to operate.
>
> For those who are not familiar, this is a beer engine:
> http://www.cask-ale.co.uk/us/1938engs.jpg
> You pull the top of the black handle towards you - it move out and
> back in a sort of arc which works a curved brass lever, lifting beer
> from the cellar through the tap.
>
> For reasons I don't understand, I pull the handle with my weaker hand
> (the left) and hold the glass with my right. Am I strange?
I've never manned a bar, and I merely speculate, of course. Two
possibilitites occur to me, though. One: does it originate in the layout
of the first bar in which you used one? Two: you're holding the more
fragile object, somebody else's property at that, in the hand which you
can control better -- could this at some level have been a reasoned
choice?
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
dcw
the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>For reasons I don't understand, I pull the handle with my weaker hand
>(the left) and hold the glass with my right. Am I strange?
I do the equivalent when filling anything at a tap. So at least
you're not uniquely strange.
David
Peter Moylan
I have, for a short time, worked in a bar, and looking back on it I can
recall two different kinds of operation. With a beer gun, the gun went
in my right hand and the glass went in my left. With a tap, and most
especially with the sort of tap that is lever-operated, I held the glass
in my dominant (right) hand and operated the tap with my left.
For me it's not a matter of strength but dexterity. The dexter hand is
used for the job that requires the greatest precision.
An even better example is my use of a wood-splitter (a sort of
heavy-duty axe). I can do the chopping action equally well with either
hand, because the hard work is really done by the momentum of the heavy
head. In practice, though, I always hold the end of the handle with the
left hand and the middle of the handle with the right hand. If I do it
the other way around, I can deliver as heavy a blow but I'm more likely
to miss the wood.
Bob Cunningham
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> said:
> Mike Lyle wrote:
> > "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.204f72de1...@news.ntlworld.com... [...]
> >> I've always been interested in my use of a beer engine (not a lager
> >> tap), which requires quite considerable force to operate.
> >>
> >> For those who are not familiar, this is a beer engine:
> >> http://www.cask-ale.co.uk/us/1938engs.jpg You pull the top of the
> >> black handle towards you - it move out and back in a sort of arc
> >> which works a curved brass lever, lifting beer from the cellar
> >> through the tap.
> >>
> >> For reasons I don't understand, I pull the handle with my weaker
> >> hand (the left) and hold the glass with my right. Am I strange?
> >
> > I've never manned a bar, and I merely speculate, of course. Two
> > [*]possibilitites[*] occur to me, though. One: does it originate in the
> > layout of the first bar in which you used one? Two: you're holding
> > the more fragile object, somebody else's property at that, in the
> > hand which you can control better -- could this at some level have
> > been a reasoned choice?
>
> I have, for a short time, worked in a bar, and looking back on it I can
> recall two different kinds of operation. With a beer gun, the gun went
> in my right hand and the glass went in my left. With a tap, and most
> especially with the sort of tap that is lever-operated, I held the glass
> in my dominant (right) hand and operated the tap with my left.
>
> For me it's not a matter of strength but dexterity. The dexter hand is
> used for the job that requires the greatest precision.
>
> An even better example is my use of a wood-splitter (a sort of
> heavy-duty axe). I can do the chopping action equally well with either
> hand, because the hard work is really done by the momentum of the heavy
> head. In practice, though, I always hold the end of the handle with the
> left hand and the middle of the handle with the right hand. If I do it
> the other way around, I can deliver as heavy a blow but I'm more likely
> to miss the wood.
This discussion brings to mind the foolproof way to keep
from hitting your finger with the hammer when driving a
nail: Hold onto the hammer with both hands.
* I'm intrigued by the word "possibilitite". Would that be
a spot on the roof of a cave where the rock formation is
such that a stalactite could develop but hasn't yet done so?
Pat Durkin
"Peter Moylan" <pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote in message
news:45e5804f$0$5749$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
As a student I first noticed that I used the left hand/arm for strength,
and kept the right hand free for many different manipulations. I still
do that. Carrying books, grocery bags, laptop etc, while having the
right hand ready to open doors, hold and turn keys, put keys in pocket,
take wallet out, hold railing in stairwells and walkways. I am very
right-handed.
And yet, two of my most vital actions, holding a cigarette, holding a
cup of coffee, I have always reserved for my left hand. (Keeps me from
dousing the fag in the drink, you know.) That enables shaking hands,
turning pages and other intermittent actions to be performed by the
right hand. (Sorry, I probably violate all Muslim cleanliness rules.)
Bread in left hand, fork in right (USage, of course).
Mike Lyle
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4v2bu29tadp891125...@4ax.com...
> [On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:14:54 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> said:]
>
> > Mike Lyle wrote:
> > > I've never manned a bar, and I merely speculate, of course. Two
> > > [*]possibilitites[*] occur to me, though.
>
> * I'm intrigued by the word "possibilitite". Would that be
> a spot on the roof of a cave where the rock formation is
> such that a stalactite could develop but hasn't yet done so?
I'm glad you spotted that: it's a sentimental attachment of mine. When I
were a lad, I used to work during uni vacations as a tourist guide in
the famous Jenolan Caves, so I inevitably use these terms rather often.
You're not far wrong, in fact: a possibilitite actually corresponds to a
stalagmite. The "stalactite" one on the roof is a _potentialitite_. Many
cave systems, as you know, exhibit probabilitites -- these are always
visible to the naked eye; but the Jenolan Caves are so special to
geologists, of course, because they are one of only two sites in the
world known to have not only the familiar five actual and conceivable
formations, but also a number of clearly-defined improbabilitites and,
most exciting of all to the specialist, several hundred
impossibilitites. The only other examples, of course, are in the Cheddar
Caves in England: but the student needs special permission to visit
these, as they're concentrated in the cheese-storage areas, which are,
for obvious reasons, closed to the general public.
the Omrud
> Mike Lyle wrote:
> > "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.204f72de1...@news.ntlworld.com... [...]
> >> I've always been interested in my use of a beer engine (not a lager
> >> tap), which requires quite considerable force to operate.
> >>
> >> For those who are not familiar, this is a beer engine:
> >> http://www.cask-ale.co.uk/us/1938engs.jpg You pull the top of the
> >> black handle towards you - it move out and back in a sort of arc
> >> which works a curved brass lever, lifting beer from the cellar
> >> through the tap.
> >>
> >> For reasons I don't understand, I pull the handle with my weaker
> >> hand (the left) and hold the glass with my right. Am I strange?
> >
> > I've never manned a bar, and I merely speculate, of course. Two
> > possibilitites occur to me, though. One: does it originate in the
> > layout of the first bar in which you used one? Two: you're holding
> > the more fragile object, somebody else's property at that, in the
> > hand which you can control better -- could this at some level have
> > been a reasoned choice?
I don't think that can be the reason - it's some years since I did it
but I remember noticing and trying the other way around to find that
it was less comfortable.
> I have, for a short time, worked in a bar, and looking back on it I can
> recall two different kinds of operation. With a beer gun, the gun went
> in my right hand and the glass went in my left. With a tap, and most
> especially with the sort of tap that is lever-operated, I held the glass
> in my dominant (right) hand and operated the tap with my left.
>
> For me it's not a matter of strength but dexterity. The dexter hand is
> used for the job that requires the greatest precision.
>
> An even better example is my use of a wood-splitter (a sort of
> heavy-duty axe). I can do the chopping action equally well with either
> hand, because the hard work is really done by the momentum of the heavy
> head. In practice, though, I always hold the end of the handle with the
> left hand and the middle of the handle with the right hand. If I do it
> the other way around, I can deliver as heavy a blow but I'm more likely
> to miss the wood.
I use an axe like that, but the major part of the work is done by the
right hand, in lifting the head, so I didn't consider it odd.
--
David
=====
John Dean
> "John Dean" <john...@fraglineone.net> writes:
>
>> Me too. Although I suppose it depends which way you're looking at
>> it. A right-hander will hold a shovel with right hand on the handle
>> and left on the shaft. The shovel will be pointing downwards most of
>> the time so the left hand is lowest. Ditto we righties hold a
>> pitchfork with the right hand nearest the end of the handle (and
>> nearest our body) and the left nearer the tines.
>
> Really? I'm right-handed, and I do both the other way. I always
> presumed that that was the normal right-handed position. With
> baseball and golf, the left hand is the one nearest the end.
Being a righty is no barrier to doing some things left-handed. I only
realised after many years that I deal playing cards left-handed and shoot a
bow left-handed despite doing everything else right-handed. I've no idea why
those two aberrations but they are both so natural to me that it never
occurred to me that I was deviating from what I regarded as my natural
righty behaviour until someone oyed me.
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
I recollect reading somewhere that Paul McCartney's piano style benefits
from his being a lefty - the right hand is adequate for melody lines but the
left hand is a real powerhouse for the rhythm. Opposite of the old song that
said something like "It's the right hand that gives the kicks".
--
John Dean
Oxford
Nick Atty
<john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>Being a righty is no barrier to doing some things left-handed. I only
>realised after many years that I deal playing cards left-handed and shoot a
>bow left-handed despite doing everything else right-handed. I've no idea why
>those two aberrations but they are both so natural to me that it never
>occurred to me that I was deviating from what I regarded as my natural
>righty behaviour until someone oyed me.
I, too, am a right-hander who deals cards left-handedly. I've never
shot a bow.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Nick Spalding
on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:50:21 -0000:
> Being a righty is no barrier to doing some things left-handed. I only
> realised after many years that I deal playing cards left-handed and shoot a
> bow left-handed despite doing everything else right-handed. I've no idea why
> those two aberrations but they are both so natural to me that it never
> occurred to me that I was deviating from what I regarded as my natural
> righty behaviour until someone oyed me.
I would have to hold my bow upside down to shoot it left-handed, it isn't
symmetrical. Not that that would matter I suppose.
--
Nick Spalding
Peter Moylan
That's all very well for a hammer. With a log splitter your hands are
safe, but you can lose a foot with a badly-aimed stroke. Interesting
things also happen when bits of log fly through the air.
For me, the main hazard is severe and persistent headache. When the
heavy metal hits the wood, a shock wave travels up your arm and (at
least in my case) rattles the skull in such a way as to produce a form
of shaken-baby syndrome. The only way to avoid this, as far as I know,
is a slight loosening of my grip at precisely the right time.
John Dean
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:50:21 -0000, "John Dean"
> <john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>
>> Being a righty is no barrier to doing some things left-handed. I only
>> realised after many years that I deal playing cards left-handed and
>> shoot a bow left-handed despite doing everything else right-handed.
>> I've no idea why those two aberrations but they are both so natural
>> to me that it never occurred to me that I was deviating from what I
>> regarded as my natural righty behaviour until someone oyed me.
>
> I, too, am a right-hander who deals cards left-handedly. I've never
> shot a bow.
Close your eyes ... (not yet) ... and imagine a traditional British longbow
lies before you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Longbow.jpg
You have to take up the wooden part in one hand and draw back the bowstring
with the other,
What seems natural?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Frank ess
"John Dean" <john...@fraglineone.net> wrote in message
news:54m18jF...@mid.individual.net...
My only aberration from traditional 'righty' practice is, I mouse
left-handed, but trackball right.
--
Frank ess
Pat Durkin
"Peter Moylan" <pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote in message
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:14:54 +1100, Peter Moylan
>> <pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> said:
>
>>> For me it's not a matter of strength but dexterity. The dexter hand
>>> is used for the job that requires the greatest precision.
>>>
>>> An even better example is my use of a wood-splitter (a sort of
>>> heavy-duty axe). I can do the chopping action equally well with
>>> either hand, because the hard work is really done by the momentum
>>> of the heavy head. In practice, though, I always hold the end of
>>> the handle with the left hand and the middle of the handle with the
>>> right hand. If I do it the other way around, I can deliver as heavy
>>> a blow but I'm more likely to miss the wood.
>>
>> This discussion brings to mind the foolproof way to keep from hitting
>> your finger with the hammer when driving a nail: Hold onto the
>> hammer with both hands.
>
> That's all very well for a hammer. With a log splitter your hands are
> safe, but you can lose a foot with a badly-aimed stroke. Interesting
> things also happen when bits of log fly through the air.
>
> For me, the main hazard is severe and persistent headache. When the
> heavy metal hits the wood, a shock wave travels up your arm and (at
> least in my case) rattles the skull in such a way as to produce a form
> of shaken-baby syndrome. The only way to avoid this, as far as I know,
> is a slight loosening of my grip at precisely the right time.
>
That is a familiar sensation. It usually happened to me when I tried
hitting the log straight on. Then, the axe would almost bounce off.
Only when I did the alternating oblique cuts did the blade bite into the
wood without a rebound. But I remember holding the right hand up near
the axe-head, and then letting the handle slip through my right hand on
the backstroke, and both hands holding the axe over my head before
beginning the downstroke. I don't think I ever cut a tree down. I only
remember trimming and cutting the logs into sections, and splitting
firewood. Never lost a toe, though.
Tony Cooper
I'm left-handed. Left on the string, right on the bow. I couldn't
even fire an arrow with one of the modern bows. Note on some bows at
http://archery.wowshopper.com/bows-bow-sets.htm they say "right hand
only".
However, the single-most difficult thing for a left-hander to use is a
punch bowl ladle. We can master scissors, bolt-action rifles, bows,
and a number of other objects, but not punch bowl ladles.
I own, by the way, a left-handed circular saw. It allows me to see
the cut as I make it. My son, who is right-handed, thought there was
something wrong with the first circular saw he used that wasn't mine.
He now owns a left-handed circular saw because that's the style that
he grew up used to.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>My only aberration from traditional 'righty' practice is, I mouse
>left-handed, but trackball right.
I mouse and trackball right-handed since it allows me to write without
interference when I have to take notes.
Mike Page
<john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>John Kane wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 4:01 pm, mikeorang.p...@ntlworld.com (Mike Page) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:13:09 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
>>>
>>> <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Mike Page wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Forks for sheaves? When I were a lad, one picked one up in each
>>>>> hand and ran like buggery to the stook in order to keep up with
>>>>> the reaping machine. (Five pairs of sheaves to a stook and
>>>>> remember to orient it North South.)
>>>
>>>> Shocking, or stooking, was an earlier operation. John K mentioned
>>>> feeding the threshing machine, the final phase: that involved
>>>> forks, as did the intermediate carting and ricking. Eyes full of
>>>> bits, throat dry as a dry thing, itchy under the shirt. . .
>>>
>>> I took them as unrelated comments. When loading a nearly fully
>>> stacked cart the pitchfork spent quite a portion of its time
>>> vertical, points up, as it was used to hoist the sheaf or loose
>>> straw up to a considerable height.
>>
>> Ah, you built loads differently than we did. Typically a sheaf would
>> be almost flicked up onto the wagon often with the tines of the fork
>> not much more than a foot and a half or two feet above one's head.
>> The idea was to drop it near the loadbuilder's feet. ( dropping it on
>> his or her head was not appreciated).
>>
>
>So. Returning to our moutons ...
>In the original post, the cite from OED via Notes and Queries was:
>
>>> 1859 N. & Q. VIII. 483 If a man, at hay time or harvest,
>>> holds his fork with his left hand lowest, they say, 'Ah! he's
>>> no good! he's keck-handed!..'
>
>Upon which a goodly number of usageistas chimed in to say that we are
>right-handed and, when wielding a spade or fork with business end pointing
>to the ground, our left hands would be lowest. I suggested that this could
>be explained by the judgement being made when the business end was pointing
>up, the situation in which a left handers left hand would indeed be lower
>than his right.
>This has met with less than universal approval. Nearer to no approval at
>all.
>So how do we explain the quote? Have OED got it wrong? Did N & Q get it
>wrong?
It depends on how the pitchfork is being used. If was merely
turning hay over in a field so it dries thoroughly then I'd
probably have left hand lower. OTOH (literally) if I was sticking
it into a pile of straw, picking it up and inverting it over my
head in order to carry it over to the cart, I'd have the fork
going up over my left shoulder and right hand lower. Van Gogh has
a picture of French peasant women doing this, AIR.
(As Pratchett remarks more than once, rural economies seem to run
on little old lady power. Tests on women in rural Kenya show
women there can, pound for pound, carry heavier weights for
longer than the fittest of US paratroops.)
--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
the Omrud
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 01:08:09 -0000, "John Dean"
> <john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>
> >> I, too, am a right-hander who deals cards left-handedly. I've never
> >> shot a bow.
> >
> >Close your eyes ... (not yet) ... and imagine a traditional British longbow
> >lies before you
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Longbow.jpg
> >
> >You have to take up the wooden part in one hand and draw back the bowstring
> >with the other,
> >What seems natural?
>
> I'm left-handed. Left on the string, right on the bow. I couldn't
> even fire an arrow with one of the modern bows. Note on some bows at
> http://archery.wowshopper.com/bows-bow-sets.htm they say "right hand
> only".
Dad's bows were set for left-handed use (what with him being left
handed). As a child I occasionally shot them without realising that
the arrow rest was on the wrong side for a right hander - I pull with
my right hand but it took me a while to adjust to the rest being on
the other side.
--
David
=====
John Dean
You've reminded me. In my rock group days, one of the groups dwindled until
only the drummer and I (guitarist) turned up for rehearsals. To pass the
time, I taught him a little guitar and he taught me a little drumming. Since
he was a lefty, he had the drum kit set up widdershins and there was no
reason to change it round just for my tutorial (after we'd exhausted our
Sandy Nelson repertoire). So if I ever sat behind a drum kit again
(unlikely) I'd shift it round to a left-handed configuration.
--
John Dean
Oxford