the phrase "you send me"
daniel gerard mcgrath
"you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we have
not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase for
Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he can spend
many days being miserable just because he can't understand.
Thanks.
Catherine McGrath
(Dan's Mom)
--------------------------------------------------
daniel g. mcgrath
a subscriber to _word ways: the journal of recreational linguistics_
http://www.wordways.com/
John Fisher
<dmcg...@yahoo.com> writes
> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble with
>"you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
>where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we have
>not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase for
>Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he can spend
>many days being miserable just because he can't understand.
> Thanks.
I think the implication is that you send me from my usual mental or
emotional state into an extraordinary one, such as wild excitement or
extreme sexual arousal. Does that make sense?
--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Richard Fontana
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, daniel gerard mcgrath wrote:
> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble with
> "you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
> where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we have
> not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase for
> Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he can spend
> many days being miserable just because he can't understand.
I don't think it's ambiguous. If there's no "where" indication, and
there's no noun object (making "me" an indirect object) you know
it's the Sam Cooke usage.
I know Daniel can't really control what makes him upset (who can?) but
this one seems particularly not worth worrying about. The usage "you send
me" is dead as a doornail, and knowledge of it has been kept alive only
because the Sam Cooke song (rec. 1957) continues to get a lot of airplay
and the occasional bad cover. One possibility is to just avoid listening
to this song; don't listen to "oldies" stations, for example.
GrapeApe
>this one seems particularly not worth worrying about. The usage "you send
>me" is dead as a doornail, and knowledge of it has been kept alive only
>because the Sam Cooke song (rec. 1957) continues to get a lot of airplay
>and the occasional bad cover. One possibility is to just avoid listening
>to this song; don't listen to "oldies" stations, for example.
I'm surprised some courier service such as UPS, USPS, FTD, or FedEx hasn't used
it in a commercial.
Donna Richoux
> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble with
> "you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
> where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we have
> not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase for
> Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he can spend
> many days being miserable just because he can't understand.
> Thanks.
I think I suggested last year that you look into the 18th/19th century
expression, "to be sent into transports of delight." Also, "to be cast
into transports."
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
Harvey V
mcgrath) said:
> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble
> with
> "you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
> where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we
> have not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase
> for Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he
> can spend many days being miserable just because he can't
> understand.
> Thanks.
>
> Catherine McGrath
> (Dan's Mom)
I would have said that it could be explained as meaning "you send me
[to heaven/a state of bliss]". "To heaven" is implied rather than
explicit.
Harvey
jan sand
This is only speculation on my part, but there was a popular phrase to
indicate that something extraordinary was "out of this world".
Perhaps the "you send me" was derived from that to indicate somebody
was sent "out of this world".
Jan Sand
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented daniel gerard mcgrath
broadcast on alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
dgm> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble
dgm> with "you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You
dgm> send me where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times
dgm> ,but we have not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this
dgm> phrase for Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this
dgm> that he can spend many days being miserable just because he can't
dgm> understand. Thanks.
I suppose that it is useless to point out that one of the definitions
in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, which is
substantially the same as the online edition at m-w.com, is "delight,
thrill."
Now we could make up some stuff about "send me to the moon," which
might have more or less truth to it, but that would still leave the
question why people would generally suppose a trip to the moon - which
is a long journey in cramped quarters - would be a pleasurable experience.
The truth of the matter is that words often develop unrelated senses
and words often do not have meanings which are exactly the same or
nearly the same as their origins. We often do not know the origins of
words or their meanings, and sometimes when we do know, that knowledge
is not very helpful in understanding or in using the words. Now that
is the truth and if Daniel refuses to accept it, then he will go through
life receiving made-up answers which may or may not have any truth to them.
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Break out of the faceless masses: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/ftp/faq.html
Think like a man of action. Act like a man of thought. --Henri Bergson
Peter T. Daniels
Isn't it archaic (1950s) slang? "You send me into orbit"?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
jan sand
In our latest instalment of the bizarre Lars Eighner saga the
surrealistic and logically menacing protagonist attempts to undermine
the logical configuration of this newsgroup by attempting to foist
weird concepts of serendipity as the total architecture of language.
Admittedly there are seemingly disconnected elements in linguistics,
but still some sensible structures are apparent and if someone can be
informed as to some of the mechanics of linguistic transmogrification,
it should do no harm to his psyche.
Jan Sand
Harlan Messinger
that you could procure your own an e-mail address (perhaps a web-based
one like Hotmail or NamePlanet that you could use over your existing
Internet connection) for private comments and questions.
dmcg...@yahoo.com (daniel gerard mcgrath) wrote:
--
Harlan Messinger
There are no Zs in my actual e-mail address.
Sam Hinton
>It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble with
>"you send me" because of its ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
>where?)
************************
Tell Daniel not to worry: phrases like that don't have to mak grammatical
sense. This one is slang from the late '30s and early '40s, probably
originating among the practitioners of the then-new "swing" music. Like much
of the slang heard then and later, it can be regarded as derived in a fashion
similar to some older and accepted metaphorical expression -- in this case
"moved" pr "transported." Dan is probably quite familiar with such phrases as
"I was deeply moved [or transported] by the music", and probably wouldn't
feel it necessary to ask "moved or transported from or to where?"
Henry Steig wrote a fine novel in 1941 about swing musicians: it was called
"Send Me Down." (I've never been clear about where the "down" came from,
although the whole phrase, as an exhortation signifying approval, was fully
understood.)
In much the same way, the Hippies would say "Let it all hang out," to mean "Be
honest and open about it;" and the word "honest" has been said to have come
from the name of a plant with transparent seed pods, so that its seeds were not
concealed, but openly visible. To ask if they were being understood, the
Hippies said "Are you running with me?" where someone more steeped in
classical phrases might have said "are you _au courant?_" from the French for
"running with." They said "Man, that really burns me up!" where a more
literary person would have said "I am incensed" -- the same metaphor.
As John Ciardi wrote: "Language does what it does because it does!"
Sam
La Jplla CA USA
Fabian
<address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
in message news:English-102...@news.mantra.com...
> In article <3aeb5ddb...@news.liii.com>,
> dmcg...@yahoo.com (daniel gerard mcgrath) posted:
> > ... It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble with
> can't -- please read the lyrics to "You Send Me" by Sam Cooke here:
Jai, referring a person known to have mental problems to song lyrics without
any specific guidance is not a good way to enhance their knowledge of
English.
But not being a good teacher, you wouldn't know that.
--
--
Fabian
The human didn't notice. Did other cats have this problem with their pets?
Greg Lee
While I can't claim to understand the subtleties of the two (or perhaps
more) positions in this debate, I can associate them with two positions
within linguistics on the principle of compositionality. That principle
requires that the meaning of the whole must be the sum of the meanings
of its parts. When an expression appears to pose a difficulty for
this principle, what one side in the debate does is seek for some
special account of that particular locution which preserves the principle,
and what the other side does is to abandon the principle. Daniel
and Jon are on the first side, Lars on the second. Personally, I'm
on Lars' side.
--
Greg Lee <l...@hawaii.edu>
Murray Arnow
>Jai, referring a person known to have mental problems to song lyrics without
>any specific guidance is not a good way to enhance their knowledge of
>English.
Fabian, I would have hoped that you'd be more careful on this topic. The use
of "mental problems" demeans Daniel. Daniel is bright, courteous, and has
never done anything malicious to us--qualities I find enviable. I think using
Daniel as a ploy to attack our resident fuck-wit is beyond all rules-of
engagement.
My apologies to Daniel and Mrs McGrath,
Murray
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
But until evidence to that effect is adduced, this remains a
fairytale. Lars Eighner gave a much more useful answer.
Brian M. Scott
GrapeApe
>Isn't it archaic (1950s) slang? "You send me into orbit"?
I don't think romantic phrases ever become totally archaic, especially when
immortalized in song, poetic license having the broad jurisdiction that it
does. You could might throw someone for a loop if you said they were the cats
pyjamas, or some more obscure phrase. Slang can become practically meaningless
in many instances.
Fabian
"Murray Arnow" <ar...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:9chbbf$kif$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
It wasn't meant as an attack, merely a request for our invading fuckwit to
show some restraint. But this does raise teh issue of what is the correct PC
term to use without specifying exactly what teh nature of the problem is. I
believe my words would have raised no eyebrows in England. I suspect there
is no single term that would be innocuous worldwide.
My apologies if I caused any offence to Daniel.
R J Valentine
} [sci.lang cut]
[Cut sci dunk.]
} On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, daniel gerard mcgrath wrote:
}
}> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble with
}> "you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
}> where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we have
}> not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase for
}> Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he can spend
}> many days being miserable just because he can't understand.
}
} I don't think it's ambiguous. If there's no "where" indication, and
} there's no noun object (making "me" an indirect object) you know
} it's the Sam Cooke usage.
...
It could be the original from Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene. The world
would be a different place sans apostles.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net?subject=%3Cnews:alt.usage.english%3E%20>
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>In our latest instalment of the bizarre Lars Eighner saga the
>surrealistic and logically menacing protagonist attempts to undermine
>the logical configuration of this newsgroup by attempting to foist
>weird concepts of serendipity as the total architecture of language.
>Admittedly there are seemingly disconnected elements in linguistics,
>but still some sensible structures are apparent and if someone can be
>informed as to some of the mechanics of linguistic transmogrification,
>it should do no harm to his psyche.
A translation of the above would be appreciated.
Charles Riggs
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented Greg Lee
broadcast on alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
GL> In sci.lang jan sand <jan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> In our latest instalment of the bizarre Lars Eighner saga the
>> surrealistic and logically menacing protagonist attempts to
>> undermine the logical configuration of this newsgroup by attempting
>> to foist weird concepts of serendipity as the total architecture of
>> language. Admittedly there are seemingly disconnected elements in
>> linguistics, but still some sensible structures are apparent and if
>> someone can be informed as to some of the mechanics of linguistic
>> transmogrification, it should do no harm to his psyche.
GL> While I can't claim to understand the subtleties of the two (or
GL> perhaps more) positions in this debate, I can associate them with
GL> two positions within linguistics on the principle of
GL> compositionality. That principle requires that the meaning of the
GL> whole must be the sum of the meanings of its parts. When an
GL> expression appears to pose a difficulty for this principle, what
GL> one side in the debate does is seek for some special account of
GL> that particular locution which preserves the principle, and what
GL> the other side does is to abandon the principle. Daniel and Jon
GL> are on the first side, Lars on the second. Personally, I'm on
GL> Lars' side.
I'm pretty sure Jan is kidding. I hope no one could write anything
so silly without meaning to be silly.
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Break out of the faceless masses: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/ftp/faq.html
"Books and marriage go ill together." --Moliere
Mark Brader
>> In our latest instalment of the bizarre Lars Eighner saga the
>> surrealistic and logically menacing protagonist attempts to undermine
>> the logical configuration of this newsgroup by attempting to foist
>> weird concepts of serendipity as the total architecture of language.
>> Admittedly there are seemingly disconnected elements in linguistics,
>> but still some sensible structures are apparent and if someone can be
>> informed as to some of the mechanics of linguistic transmogrification,
>> it should do no harm to his psyche.
> A translation of the above would be appreciated.
Okay. Babelfish gives:
| In unserer neuesten Ratenzahlung des seltsamen saga Lars Eighner
| versucht der surrealistische und logisch bedrohliche Protagonist,
| die logische Konfiguration dieses newsgroup zu untergraben, indem er
| versucht, sonderbare Konzepte von serendipity als die Gesamtarchitektur
| der Sprache unterzuschieben. Zugegebenermaßen es gibt scheinbar
| getrennte Elemente in der Linguistik, aber noch sind einige vernünftige
| Strukturen offensichtlich und wenn jemand hinsichtlich einiger der
| Mechaniker des linguistischen Transmogrification informiert sein
| kann, sollte es keinen Schaden zu seinem psyche tun.
HTH.
--
Mark Brader "Elaborative, polysyllabic multipartite agglu-
Toronto tinations can obfuscate and become obstructive
m...@vex.net to comprehensibility." -- Chris Torek
GrapeApe
>>surrealistic and logically menacing protagonist attempts to undermine
>>the logical configuration of this newsgroup by attempting to foist
>>weird concepts of serendipity as the total architecture of language.
>>Admittedly there are seemingly disconnected elements in linguistics,
>>but still some sensible structures are apparent and if someone can be
>>informed as to some of the mechanics of linguistic transmogrification,
>>it should do no harm to his psyche.
>
>A translation of the above would be appreciated.
"shit happens"
jan sand
In our last instalment, Lars again displays his Daliesque bent by
attempting to distort reality into grotesque arabesques. Silliness
perceived is frequently the result of a preset configuration of the
receptor.
Jan Sand
jan sand
OK. Language may behave illogically at times. but each outage in that
direction can usually be traced to some form of rationality in the
laws of linguistic change which relate current forms to some history
of the older forms.
Jan Sand
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented jan sand
broadcast on alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
js> In our last instalment, Lars again displays his Daliesque bent by
js> attempting to distort reality into grotesque arabesques.
js> Silliness perceived is frequently the result of a preset
js> configuration of the receptor.
Is there anyone on sci.lang who is *just normal?*
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Break out of the faceless masses: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/ftp/faq.html
People say I'm extravagant because I want to be surrounded by beauty.
But tell me, who wants to be surrounded by garbage? --Imelda Marcos
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>In our last episode, <3aed508d...@news.mindspring.com>,
>the lovely and talented jan sand
>broadcast on alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>
>js> In our last instalment, Lars again displays his Daliesque bent by
>js> attempting to distort reality into grotesque arabesques.
>js> Silliness perceived is frequently the result of a preset
>js> configuration of the receptor.
>
>Is there anyone on sci.lang who is *just normal?*
He's one of ours? I thought he was one of yours!
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
GrapeApe
>direction can usually be traced to some form of rationality in the
>laws of linguistic change which relate current forms to some history
>of the older forms.
>
>Jan Sand
Jan, I almost feel compelled to compose a ditty on quoting entire messages,
signatures and all, and how it isn't really necessary for most discourse.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <86n18yh7e...@dumpster.io.com>,
> Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
> >In our last episode, <3aed508d...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >the lovely and talented jan sand
> >broadcast on alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
> >
> >js> In our last instalment, Lars again displays his Daliesque bent by
> >js> attempting to distort reality into grotesque arabesques.
> >js> Silliness perceived is frequently the result of a preset
> >js> configuration of the receptor.
> >
> >Is there anyone on sci.lang who is *just normal?*
>
> He's one of ours? I thought he was one of yours!
A Google search shows that he seems to be one of ours (aue), although
only recently. Previously he hung out in alt.philosophy and
alt.arts.poetry.comments.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The misinformation that passes for
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |gospel wisdom about English usage
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is sometimes astounding.
| Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | of English Usage
(650)857-7572
jan sand
Why would anybody of any capability want to be normal?
Jan Sand
jan sand
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
Since there seems to be some curiosity about my alignments, I am also
lately involved with alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum and alt.cooking-chat
where I picked up a six year old coterie that insists I am a poohead.
Perhaps they have something there.
Jan Sand
jan sand
Well, my point was that shit has antecedents.
Jan Sand
Skitt
"jan sand" <jan...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3aeda926...@news.mindspring.com...
> On 30 Apr 2001 07:57:51 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >In our last episode, <3aed508d...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >the lovely and talented jan sand
> >broadcast on alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
> >
> >js> In our last instalment, Lars again displays his Daliesque bent by
> >js> attempting to distort reality into grotesque arabesques.
> >js> Silliness perceived is frequently the result of a preset
> >js> configuration of the receptor.
> >
> >Is there anyone on sci.lang who is *just normal?*
> Why would anybody of any capability want to be normal?
Being abnormal is just fine, if you enjoy it.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
jan sand
Since "abnormality" covers a wide spectrum of both human triumphs and
tragedies, it is not a suitable term to describe a quality of life.
Sometimes it is fantastically wonderful and sometimes frightfully
awful. But normality, which I assume describes a quality of life
devoted to the bulk of humanities amusements is not attractive to me.
I do not sneer at the bulk of humanity which, to a large degree is
composed of decent people merely trying to have a decent life. Perhaps
I would like something a bit different. Is that so awful?
Jan Sand
Skitt
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:35:51 GMT, "Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"jan sand" <jan...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3aeda926...@news.mindspring.com...
> >> On 30 Apr 2001 07:57:51 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In our last episode, <3aed508d...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >> >the lovely and talented jan sand
> >> >broadcast on alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
> >> >
> >> >js> In our last instalment, Lars again displays his Daliesque bent by
> >> >js> attempting to distort reality into grotesque arabesques.
> >> >js> Silliness perceived is frequently the result of a preset
> >> >js> configuration of the receptor.
> >> >
> >> >Is there anyone on sci.lang who is *just normal?*
> >
> >> Why would anybody of any capability want to be normal?
> >
> >Being abnormal is just fine, if you enjoy it.
> >
> Since "abnormality" covers a wide spectrum of both human triumphs and
> tragedies, it is not a suitable term to describe a quality of life.
> Sometimes it is fantastically wonderful and sometimes frightfully
> awful. But normality, which I assume describes a quality of life
> devoted to the bulk of humanities amusements is not attractive to me.
> I do not sneer at the bulk of humanity which, to a large degree is
> composed of decent people merely trying to have a decent life. Perhaps
> I would like something a bit different. Is that so awful?
Ah, the power of an omitted smiley ...
GrapeApe
>lately involved with alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum and alt.cooking-chat
>where I picked up a six year old coterie that insists I am a poohead.
>Perhaps they have something there.
You are a poohead for not trimming quotes to add something relatively
unrelated. Turn off that damn autoquoting in your newsreader. Your responses
have nothing to do with Kirshenbaums multiline signature.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:53:36 +0100, Charles Riggs
><chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:34:39 GMT, jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In our latest instalment of the bizarre Lars Eighner saga the
>>>surrealistic and logically menacing protagonist attempts to undermine
>>>the logical configuration of this newsgroup by attempting to foist
>>>weird concepts of serendipity as the total architecture of language.
>>>Admittedly there are seemingly disconnected elements in linguistics,
>>>but still some sensible structures are apparent and if someone can be
>>>informed as to some of the mechanics of linguistic transmogrification,
>>>it should do no harm to his psyche.
>>
>>A translation of the above would be appreciated.
>>
>>Charles Riggs
>OK. Language may behave illogically at times. but each outage in that
>direction can usually be traced to some form of rationality in the
>laws of linguistic change which relate current forms to some history
>of the older forms.
Better. Do you, or did you, per chance work for the US government?
Charles Riggs
jan sand
Sorry. I'll try to be more civilized.
Jan Sand
jan sand
<chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
I had a temporary position with the UN back in 1968 and I did some
freelance jobs for USIS in 1978. Do I qualify?
Jan Sand
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Tue, 01 May 2001 09:10:13 +0100, Charles Riggs
><chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:55:46 GMT, jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:53:36 +0100, Charles Riggs
>>><chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:34:39 GMT, jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand)
>>>>wrote:
>>>OK. Language may behave illogically at times. but each outage in that
>>>direction can usually be traced to some form of rationality in the
>>>laws of linguistic change which relate current forms to some history
>>>of the older forms.
>>
>>Better. Do you, or did you, per chance work for the US government?
>I had a temporary position with the UN back in 1968 and I did some
>freelance jobs for USIS in 1978. Do I qualify?
As a former writer of bureaucratize myself, I'd say yes. A bureaucrat
is a bureaucrat.
Charles Riggs
jan sand
<chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 May 2001 13:54:33 GMT, jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 May 2001 09:10:13 +0100, Charles Riggs
>><chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:55:46 GMT, jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:53:36 +0100, Charles Riggs
>>>><chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:34:39 GMT, jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand)
>>>>>wrote:
>
>>>>OK. Language may behave illogically at times. but each outage in that
>>>>direction can usually be traced to some form of rationality in the
>>>>laws of linguistic change which relate current forms to some history
>>>>of the older forms.
>>>
>>>Better. Do you, or did you, per chance work for the US government?
>
>>I had a temporary position with the UN back in 1968 and I did some
>>freelance jobs for USIS in 1978. Do I qualify?
>
>As a former writer of bureaucratize myself, I'd say yes. A bureaucrat
>is a bureaucrat.
>
>Charles Riggs
>
I wish I could qualify as a bureacrat. It is at least a source of
income. My short term with the UN famaliarized me the bulk literature
they put out. I received a trunkfull on my initiation to the job and
found it was totally incomprehensible, so I dumped it. I am an
industrial designer and my work involves exhibitions and products that
have a real presence in the world. But it is fun to indulge in
linguistic arabesques at times.
Jan Sand
Mike Lyle
<mjcvet0creqcj2pci...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs quoted from jansand:
>
>>>>[...]Language may behave illogically at times. but each
outage
>>>>in that
>>>>direction
[...]
This is an outrage.
Mike
jan sand
wrote:
Suppress your hormones. No offense intended.
Jan Sand
Mike Lyle
sand wrote:
>
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 11:25:28 GMT, Mike Lyle <nos...@newsranger.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 May 2001 08:24:29 +0100, in
>><mjcvet0creqcj2pci...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs quoted from jansand:
>>>
>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>[...]
>>
>>This is an outrage.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>Suppress your hormones. No offense intended.
>
Hormones? In my state of decrepitude? I wish!
Mike.
daniel gerard mcgrath
was an e-mail, but Patrick gave me permission to quote the entire
e-mail:
<<
daniel gerard mcgrath wrote:
> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble
with
> "you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
> where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we
have
> not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase for
> Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he can
spend
> many days being miserable just because he can't understand.
> Thanks.
This is an issue of valence (similar to chemistry's valences)
-
certain
verbs require certain types of 'thematic arguments.' That is, the
semantics of a verb may require an agent, a patient, a theme, a
recipient, a goal, a location, a source, a path, etc... 'Send'
_requires_ an AGENT (someone who sends), a PATIENT (someone/-thing
being
sent), and usually a GOAL (whither x is being sent).. all else is
extra
fluff.. when one or more of the arguments is missing, the arguments
are
either supplied by context or allow for ambiguity.
'give' requires AGT, PAT, REC(ipient)..
I give you something to think upon
AGT REC PAT
Some verbs (usually what are known as intrasitive verbs) do
not have
much other than an AGENT, e.g. to sleep... only thing needed is the
person who is sleeping, the AGT...
Ray Jackendoff's Semantic Structure goes into this in
detail... enjoy.
=)
cheers,
-Patrick
>>
--------------------------------------------------
daniel g. mcgrath
a subscriber to _word ways: the journal of recreational linguistics_
http://www.wordways.com/
Stanley Friesen
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:34:58 GMT, jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:29:01 GMT, dmcg...@yahoo.com (daniel gerard
>>mcgrath) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble with
>>>"you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
>>>where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we have
>>>not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase for
>>>Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he can spend
>>>many days being miserable just because he can't understand.
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>Catherine McGrath
>>>(Dan's Mom)
>>>
>>>--------------------------------------------------
>>>daniel g. mcgrath
>>>a subscriber to _word ways: the journal of recreational linguistics_
>>>http://www.wordways.com/
>>This is only speculation on my part, but there was a popular phrase to
>>indicate that something extraordinary was "out of this world".
>>Perhaps the "you send me" was derived from that to indicate somebody
>>was sent "out of this world".
>
>But until evidence to that effect is adduced, this remains a
>fairytale. Lars Eighner gave a much more useful answer.
>
There is evidence - when the phrases originated. They both were
invented at about the same time. Neither predates the 1960's.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
According to <http://www.jimbowieband.com/Lyrics/you_send_me.htm>, a
song called 'You Send Me' was a Nr. 1 hit for three weeks in 1957.
The phrase is used in the relevant sense.
Brian M. Scott
Wolf Kirchmeir
>According to <http://www.jimbowieband.com/Lyrics/you_send_me.htm>, a
>song called 'You Send Me' was a Nr. 1 hit for three weeks in 1957.
>The phrase is used in the relevant sense.
>
>Brian M. Scott
Which was the time I was young and randy - and lots of girls had that effect
on me.. :-)
Now that I'm an old goat I have more mature tastes. :-)
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir
Blind River, Ontario
..................................................................
You can see a lot by just looking.
(Yogi Berrs, Phil. Em.)
..................................................................
Brian M. Scott
<wwol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 May 2001 17:37:06 GMT, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>According to <http://www.jimbowieband.com/Lyrics/you_send_me.htm>, a
>>song called 'You Send Me' was a Nr. 1 hit for three weeks in 1957.
>>The phrase is used in the relevant sense.
>Which was the time I was young and randy - and lots of girls had that effect
>on me.. :-)
Living up to your name, were you? <g> I hadn't yet reached that
stage, but I did have a distinct preference for girls as companions:
they were more likely than boys to share my interest in reading and
ideas. Understandable, I suppose: I was all of nine at the time.
>Now that I'm an old goat I have more mature tastes. :-)
Brian
daniel gerard mcgrath
mcgrath) wrote:
> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble with
>"you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
>where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we have
>not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase for
>Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he can spend
>many days being miserable just because he can't understand.
> Thanks.
>
I am continuing to analyze the expression "you send me". I am
wondering -- if something (as music) sent you into a sad emotional
state (i.e. if it didn't delight you, but it still "sent" you into an
emotional state), would you respond to the question "Does this send
you?" with "yes", or would it be "no"? My speech therapist Corinne
would respond with "yes". She found that the definition of "you send
me" was more flexible than she thought at first.
I really appreciate the responses that I have gotten on this topic.
Thank you for your help.
Harvey V
mcgrath) said:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:29:01 GMT, dmcg...@yahoo.com (daniel gerard
> mcgrath) wrote:
>
>> Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble
>> with "you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send
>> me where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but
>> we have not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this
>> phrase for Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this
>> that he can spend many days being miserable just because he can't
>> understand. Thanks.
>>
> I am continuing to analyze the expression "you send me". I am
> wondering -- if something (as music) sent you into a sad emotional
> state (i.e. if it didn't delight you, but it still "sent" you into
> an emotional state), would you respond to the question "Does this
> send you?" with "yes", or would it be "no"? My speech therapist
> Corinne would respond with "yes". She found that the definition of
> "you send me" was more flexible than she thought at first.
I think she's right, but usually "you send me" has a positive rather
than a negative connotation.
If the music had made me sad, my response to the question "Does this
send you" would probably be qualified -- something along the lines of
"Yes, but not to somewhere I wish to go".
If I was to describe the feeling without any prompting, however, I
would probably say "this music depresses (or saddens) me" rather than
"this music sends me".
Harvey
Richard Fontana
On Wed, 16 May 2001, daniel gerard mcgrath wrote:
> I am continuing to analyze the expression "you send me". I am
> wondering -- if something (as music) sent you into a sad emotional
> state (i.e. if it didn't delight you, but it still "sent" you into an
> emotional state), would you respond to the question "Does this send
> you?" with "yes", or would it be "no"?
I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't ever use "send" in this way, other than in
quoting someone else's usage. But also I wouldn't expect to hear this
broader usage; I think of it as purely being positive in nature. Unless,
of course, you qualify it ("this music sends me into a sad emotional
state" is possible, but a bit unidiomatic -- at the very least I'd expect
to hear "put" rather than "send").
Avi Jacobson
"daniel gerard mcgrath" <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b02ef6b...@news.liii.com...
[Catherine's introductory posting, snipped]
> I am continuing to analyze the expression "you send me". I am
> wondering -- if something (as music) sent you into a sad emotional
> state (i.e. if it didn't delight you, but it still "sent" you into an
> emotional state), would you respond to the question "Does this send
> you?" with "yes", or would it be "no"? My speech therapist Corinne
> would respond with "yes". She found that the definition of "you send
> me" was more flexible than she thought at first.
Hello, Daniel.
I think there are two elements to this expression: (1) the metaphor of being
in a particular "place", which means being a particular _state of mind_, (2)
an expression which could thoeretically be interpreted in many ways, but
which by convention is usually interpreted in only one way.
1. "Being in a place"
-----------------------
People talk about being "in a _place_" as a metaphor for being in a _state
of mind_. So, for example, someone might say "I'm not in a very good place
in my marriage right now" or, more optimistically, "I'm exactly where I want
to be right now". The same metaphor might apply to "you send me" -- it
means "you place me in a particular state of mind".
But what state of mind? Do you "send" me to a good "place" or to a bad one?
How does the listener know? This is where the second element comes in.
2. A single conventional interpretation for an ambiguous phrase
-------------------------------------------------------
I have always interpreted "you send me" as one of those expressions which
theoretically _could_ mean a number of things (depending on how one
completed the ellipsis), but in practice is usually interpreted to mean only
one. These expressions may have come into usage with a particular meaning,
and people only used and interpreted them in that specific sense -- never
stopping to think that they could equally mean something else. Here are a
few more:
* "Oh my God!" (often pronounced "Oh... my... God.") is used elliptically to
mean "Oh my, God, yes!" For example:
"Do you think he's handsome?"
"Oh... my... God." (In fact, this expression _could_ theoretically be used
to mean "Oh my God, no[; I think he's ugly]." But in practice, it never
is.)
* "That drives me up a wall!" is used to mean "That annoys me." The image,
I suppose, is that someone is so _annoyed_ that they feel like climbing up a
wall. Theoretically, one could imagine someone feeling like he wanted to
climb a wall for other reasons, not necessarily because he was annoyed. (For
example, I can imagine someone jumping for joy, or pacing with impatience,
and wanting to climb a wall.) But in practice, the expression is never used
that way.
So when someone says "You send me", he or she means "you put me in an
enjoyable state of mind".
That is my interpretation. Does it help?
Best regards,
Avi
P.S. Didn't you once write that you were interested in Hebrew or Yiddish?
You never followed up on that.
--
Avi Jacobson, Manager, Language Localization, Gallery Systems
A...@GallerySystems.com - (510) 652 8950, ext. 246
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:29:01 GMT, dmcg...@yahoo.com (daniel gerard
> mcgrath) wrote:
>
> > Hi. It's Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom again. Dan has trouble with
> >"you send me" because of it's ambiguous nature (i.e. You send me
> >where?) We have tried to clarify this for him many times ,but we have
> >not been too successful yet. Can anyone explain this phrase for
> >Daniel? (Daniel gets so upset over things like this that he can spend
> >many days being miserable just because he can't understand.
> > Thanks.
> >
> I am continuing to analyze the expression "you send me". I am
> wondering -- if something (as music) sent you into a sad emotional
> state (i.e. if it didn't delight you, but it still "sent" you into an
> emotional state), would you respond to the question "Does this send
> you?" with "yes", or would it be "no"? My speech therapist Corinne
> would respond with "yes". She found that the definition of "you send
> me" was more flexible than she thought at first.
I don't think anyone would use the expression. It belongs to the 1950s.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Barbera Wallace
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B03C7...@worldnet.att.net...
Ja. Get more up to date: 'You put me in the groove'.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://funny.as/anything
____________________________________________
daniel gerard mcgrath
I'd like to explain why I seem to be stuck on the phrase "you send
me". Even though (as you mentioned in a previous post) it is almost
never used anymore and remains familiar only because of the Sam Cooke
song, it is still hard to stop thinking about the phrase. The reason
is that I really like the word "send". When I was once reading about
Sam Cooke, the song title "You Send Me" caught my attention (because
of my attraction to the word "send"). The phrase "you send me" all by
itself didn't seem to make much sense. I thought that it may have
been some special usage of the word "send", so then I looked in
various dictionaries but did not find a definition that fit. That
really bothered me. I did, later, find definitions along the lines of
"delight", "thrill", "excite" in dictionaries, but this did not change
my original feeling. Perhaps if I hadn't been so attracted to the
word in question, it wouldn't have mattered that much.
Mark Raymond
<3b16b0ae...@news.liii.com>:
You might be interested in a "related" word: "transport", as in
"transport of delight" and "to be transported".
daniel gerard mcgrath
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
I'd like to explain why I seem to be stuck on the phrase "you send
me". Even though (as you mentioned in a previous post) it is almost
never used anymore and remains familiar only because of the Sam Cooke
song, it is still hard to stop thinking about the phrase. The reason
is that I really like the word "send". When I was once reading about
Sam Cooke, the song title "You Send Me" caught my attention (because
of my attraction to the word "send"). The phrase "you send me" all by
itself didn't seem to make much sense. I thought that it may have
been some special usage of the word "send", so then I looked in
various dictionaries but did not find a definition that fit. That
really bothered me. I did, later, find definitions along the lines of
"delight", "thrill", "excite" in dictionaries, but this did not change
my original feeling. Perhaps if I hadn't been so attracted to the
word in question, it wouldn't have mattered that much.
--------------------------------------------------
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Did you see the discussion of this phrase in the thread on "The history of
cool"?
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
John Lawler
>Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>>daniel gerard mcgrath writes:
It's not surprising it wouldn't be in most dictionaries, because it's a
metaphor. Metaphor themes can enlist most of the words in a particular
semantic field and apply them in different ones by virtue of the 'thematic
mapping', which in this case would be something like "Emotional Life is a
Journey", a subspecies of "Life is a Journey".
This theme provides a way to refer to emotions (which are not exactly
clearly-determined or easily-referenced) by speaking as if the experiencer
were moving in some landscape and encountering various phenomena
characteristic of emotions. Many of the ordinary verbs of personal motion
are thus available, and "send to some place" means "cause to go to some
place", which entails "come to be in some place", so if some experience
sends you into depression, or sends you into a reverie, or sends your
spirits soaring, this entails that you (or your spirits) are "in" those
metaphorical places or states as a result of the experience.
There are lots of other ways to refer to emotions, or life, or love, or
anger, or time, or any other mysterious but undeniably real aspect of
experience, and there are many more metaphors to do it.
Take a look at Lakoff & Johnson's "Metaphors We Live By" (University of
Chicago Press, 1980) for further details.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because in our brief lives, we catch so little of the vastness of
history, we tend too much to think of language as being solid as a
dictionary, with granite-like permanence, rather than as the rampant
restless sea of metaphor that it is." -- Julian Jaynes
daniel gerard mcgrath
John, I'm afraid you have misunderstood what my problem is. I have no
problem with definition 7a at
<URL:http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/S0261300.html>, but the usage in 7b
bothers me so much that I can't even stand listening to Sam Cooke's
song anymore. You should probably be able to spot the difference.
"Metaphor", no way. I think there would have to be quite a lot of
people who wouldn't be able to figure out what "Darling, you send me"
means even if they know all *other* meanings of the word "send".
Skitt
> John, I'm afraid you have misunderstood what my problem is. I have no
> problem with definition 7a at
> <URL:http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/S0261300.html>, but the usage in 7b
> bothers me so much that I can't even stand listening to Sam Cooke's
> song anymore. You should probably be able to spot the difference.
> "Metaphor", no way. I think there would have to be quite a lot of
> people who wouldn't be able to figure out what "Darling, you send me"
> means even if they know all *other* meanings of the word "send".
I just heard on my radio that Sam Cooke's song, performed by Al Jarreau.
Nice. I have no problem with the meaning of "you send me", but then, I'm an
old fart. I met Al Jarreau when he was a discouraged and struggling
small-club singer, circa 1960. I told him that one day he would be famous,
and I was right.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
daniel gerard mcgrath
Lawler) wrote:
John, I'm afraid you have misunderstood what my problem is. I have no
problem with definition 7a at
<URL:http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/S0261300.html>, but the usage in 7b
bothers me so much that I can't even stand listening to Sam Cooke's
song anymore. You should probably be able to spot the difference.
"Metaphor", no way. I think there would have to be quite a lot of
people who wouldn't be able to figure out what "Darling, you send me"
means even if they know all *other* meanings of the word "send".
--------------------------------------------------
Harvey V
mcgrath) said:
<snip>
>>
> John, I'm afraid you have misunderstood what my problem is. I have
> no problem with definition 7a at
> <URL:http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/S0261300.html>, but the usage in
> 7b bothers me so much that I can't even stand listening to Sam
> Cooke's song anymore. You should probably be able to spot the
> difference. "Metaphor", no way. I think there would have to be
> quite a lot of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what
> "Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings
> of the word "send".
I don't really understand where the dilemma in 7a and 7b lies, though,
Daniel, as the usage recorded at 7b -- to me, at least -- seems
entirely idiomatic and part of a straightforward transference from 7a.
My reaction would be almost exactly opposite to yours: I think there
would be very *few* people who wouldn't be able to figure out what it
meant.
This could, of course, be solipsistic for both of us: one tends to
define majority reaction in terms of one's own reactions.
Cheers,
Harvey
daniel gerard mcgrath
Do you know what the difference is between 7a and 7b? Please tell me
about it, and how they relate, and maybe I'll have an easier time
explaining it to you.
I would really like for John Lawler to see what I wrote above and
respond to it, and realize that it's specifically 7b (the "b" is
crucial) that I have a hard time with.
Harvey V
mcgrath) said:
[...]
>>
>> I don't really understand where the dilemma in 7a and 7b lies,
>> though, Daniel, as the usage recorded at 7b -- to me, at least --
>> seems entirely idiomatic and part of a straightforward
>> transference from 7a. My reaction would be almost exactly
>> opposite to yours: I think there would be very *few* people who
>> wouldn't be able to figure out what it meant.
>>
> Do you know what the difference is between 7a and 7b? Please tell
> me about it, and how they relate, and maybe I'll have an easier
> time explaining it to you.
The way I see it, 7a is a straightforward use of "send" to mean the
directing of something or someone to a different place or state of
mind. (To send a satellite into orbit; to send someone into a panic.)
7b is a specific but logical transference of that meaning which is
restricted to a positive state of mind. (To direct some*one* -- rather
than some*thing* -- to a different emotional state, specifically to a
state of rapture.)
Harvey
R J Valentine
I don't think it's particularly logical. It's just what's usually meant,
and you can't really get there from here. It's only vaguely metaphorical,
so I can see why Prof. Lawler's contribution didn't help much.
To jerk it around a little, when you are sent to the principal's office,
it means you're in trouble. By convention. Not because it's logical.
What if Sam Cooke had sung a different word. "Move"? "Thrill"? "Lift"?
"Mend"? Would there be scholarly treatments on the logicality and
metaphoricality of the choice?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
John Lawler
>"Harvey V" <whhvs@*removethis*operamail.com> wrote:
>>(daniel gerard mcgrath) said:
>>> John, I'm afraid you have misunderstood what my problem is. I have
>>> no problem with definition 7a at
>>> <URL:http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/S0261300.html>, but the usage in
>>> 7b bothers me so much that I can't even stand listening to Sam
>>> Cooke's song anymore. You should probably be able to spot the
>>> difference. "Metaphor", no way. I think there would have to be
>>> quite a lot of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what
>>> "Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings
>>> of the word "send".
>>I don't really understand where the dilemma in 7a and 7b lies, though,
>>Daniel, as the usage recorded at 7b -- to me, at least -- seems
>>entirely idiomatic and part of a straightforward transference from 7a.
>>My reaction would be almost exactly opposite to yours: I think there
>>would be very *few* people who wouldn't be able to figure out what it
>>meant.
>>This could, of course, be solipsistic for both of us: one tends to
>>define majority reaction in terms of one's own reactions.
>Do you know what the difference is between 7a and 7b? Please tell me
>about it, and how they relate, and maybe I'll have an easier time
>explaining it to you.
>I would really like for John Lawler to see what I wrote above and
>respond to it, and realize that it's specifically 7b (the "b" is
>crucial) that I have a hard time with.
Dear daniel,
I don't do counselling; so, while I'm sorry you're having a hard time,
it's sort of outside my area and I'm afraid I can't help you with your
problem as stated.
Meanings of words are social constructs, and we are more or less stuck
with them. If we object to a particular meaning, we can refrain from
using it and thereby set a good example, but of course no one ever notices
good examples. Getting upset about some people's use of the phrase "send
me" is ultimately frustrating and fruitless, like obsessing about some
people wearing white shoes after Labor Day.
Now thne, down to cases. Just to get the definitions on this record...
7a. To put or drive into a given state or condition: horrifying news that
sent them into a panic.
b. Slang To transport with delight; carry away: That music really sends
me.
The relation between the A sense and the B sense above seem pretty
straightforward to me. A has a structure like this:
Experience.X Metaphorically.SEND Person.Y TO Emotional.State.Z
It's metaphorical because no physical travel is actually involved; just
change of emotional state. Person Y "moves" from some unspecified source
state to the goal State Z, under the impetus of the "sending" provided by
Experience X. If you don't have a problem with that, let's try the next
one. B has a structure like this:
Experience.X Metaphorically.SEND Person.Y TO Emotional.State.Rapture
In other words, it's exactly the same, except the goal state is a constant
instead of a variable, as in A, and since it's a constant and therefore
presupposed, it's unspecified. I.e, you're supposed to know, so why
bother mentioning it? It *does* seem a bit odd to me that it's a
*desirable* state; ordinarily things that aren't spoken in situations like
this tend to be undesirable, or pejorative: "It smells in here" means it
smells *bad*, not good. But idioms will be idioms.
Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. You don't like it,
that's your privilege. But others apparently do, and they'll use it.
If you want a ray of hope, consider that the phrase is a bit archaic,
hearkening back to the Bebop age. After the boomers all die, it'll
be as common as 23 Skidoo, and you can rest easier.
Hope this helps.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U of Michigan Linguistics Dept
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
daniel gerard mcgrath
I might have not gotten so upset over this usage of "send" if I had
found it in a dictionary sooner. Most dictionaries have the AHD's 7a,
but many are missing 7b.
John, do you agree with what I said above, that there might be a lot
of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what Sam Cooke's
"Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings of
the word "send"? What about R J Valentine? Is there *anyone* else
here that agrees with me?
R J Valentine
In alt.usage.english daniel gerard mcgrath <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
} John, do you agree with what I said above, that there might be a lot
} of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what Sam Cooke's
} "Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings of
} the word "send"? What about R J Valentine? Is there *anyone* else
} here that agrees with me?
I agree with you that it's an arbitrary direction to be sent, and I think
that Prof. Lawler (once you filter out all the dozoing) goes a notch
beyond that in pointing out that some similar words go off in a negative
direction. So I suspect that a lot of people would agree with that part
of it. But in the Sam Cooke song, you've got a big clue to the direction
with the "darling", which narrows the scope from "you send me in an
arbitrary direction" to "you send me in a positive direction", and he
continues to reassure you that it's true. To pick a particular
destination like "rapture" might be overstating the case a little. I
disagree that it's impossible to get the gist of a word if it's not in
the dictionary, in case anyone is suggesting that.
I disagree with what appears to me to be the implication of Prof. Lawler
that the song will soon fade away, because the whole _A Man and His Music_
album, if I recall it right, is chock full of songs that reinforce one
another. The Beatles may fade away, but Sam Cooke will outlive Muhammad
Ali.
K1912
[...]
>John, do you agree with what I said above, that there might be a lot
>of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what Sam Cooke's
>"Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings of
>the word "send"? What about R J Valentine? Is there *anyone* else
>here that agrees with me?
>
I agree with you. It doesn't follow that just because you know all the *other*
meanings of the word "send," you would necessarily know the slang meaning. It
is quite possible "that there might be a lot of people," who, for whatever
reason, have never encountered the slang meaning. Not knowing it, they
"wouldn't be able to figure out what Sam Cooke's 'Darling, you send me'" means.
George
Don Aitken
mcgrath) wrote:
[giant snip]
>I might have not gotten so upset over this usage of "send" if I had
>found it in a dictionary sooner. Most dictionaries have the AHD's 7a,
>but many are missing 7b.
>
>John, do you agree with what I said above, that there might be a lot
>of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what Sam Cooke's
>"Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings of
>the word "send"? What about R J Valentine? Is there *anyone* else
>here that agrees with me?
>
Certainly there is. We all know that idiom is not logical. If I had
never heard this particular use of the word before I might be able to
*guess* what was meant, but not with any great confidence. The only
thing which tells you that it is intended as a metaphor for something
positive, rather than negative, is that the song itself falls within a
category we are familiar with, namely love songs. Without this it
would be completely obscure. Song lyrics, like poems, are often like
this. We have to contribute something from *outside* the words
themselves to work out what is meant. Some of us are better at this
than others (I'm not very good at it myself, in most cases).
--
Don Aitken
Harvey V
[...]
> } 7b is a specific but logical transference of that meaning which
> is } restricted to a positive state of mind. (To direct some*one*
> -- rather } than some*thing* -- to a different emotional state,
> specifically to a } state of rapture.)
>
> I don't think it's particularly logical. It's just what's usually
> meant, and you can't really get there from here.
I may have phrased my response poorly. What I meant was that the
*transfer* of meaning from 7a to 7b was one which proceeded along
logical lines.
I didn't mean to imply that the meaning of 7b was in *itself* a logical
meaning, merely that the progression from 7a to 7b was not
discontinuous.
Harvey
daniel gerard mcgrath
wrote:
>
>In alt.usage.english daniel gerard mcgrath <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...
>
>I agree with you that it's an arbitrary direction to be sent, and I think
>that Prof. Lawler (once you filter out all the dozoing) goes a notch
>beyond that in pointing out that some similar words go off in a negative
>direction. So I suspect that a lot of people would agree with that part
>of it. But in the Sam Cooke song, you've got a big clue to the direction
>with the "darling", which narrows the scope from "you send me in an
>arbitrary direction" to "you send me in a positive direction", and he
>continues to reassure you that it's true. To pick a particular
>destination like "rapture" might be overstating the case a little. I
>disagree that it's impossible to get the gist of a word if it's not in
>the dictionary, in case anyone is suggesting that.
>
I think my real problem lay in the absence of any indication of
"where". I was used to a destination being mentioned when the word
"send" was being used. Thus, I did not know what "you send me" meant
all by itself. The best I could come up with was something along the
lines of "I will follow you, wherever you go". I knew that the
"darling" was there, and it didn't help.
Brion L. VIBBER
> I might have not gotten so upset over this usage of "send" if I had
> found it in a dictionary sooner. Most dictionaries have the AHD's 7a,
> but many are missing 7b.
>
> John, do you agree with what I said above, that there might be a lot
> of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what Sam Cooke's
> "Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings of
> the word "send"? What about R J Valentine? Is there *anyone* else
> here that agrees with me?
Perhaps that's why it's listed as a *slang* usage, rather than a standard
definition? Plenty of slang is incomprehensible without particular
knowledge of the phrase, and often not listed in all dictionaries.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox,com)
daniel gerard mcgrath
Do you also agree with my wish that it should be listed in most
dictionaries?
Avi Jacobson
news:3b27f7c3...@news.liii.com...
[of "send" as in "You send me":]
> Do you also agree with my wish that it should be listed in most
> dictionaries?
Hi, Daniel!
It's in my Random House College Dictionary Revised Edition, published in
1975: "7. _Slang._ to delight or excite."
Best wishes,
Avi
K1912
[...]
>On 11 Jun 2001 19:11:54 GMT, k1...@aol.com (K1912) wrote:
>
>>daniel gerard mcgrath wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>John, do you agree with what I said above, that there might be a lot
>>>of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what Sam Cooke's
>>>"Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings of
>>>the word "send"? What about R J Valentine? Is there *anyone* else
>>>here that agrees with me?
>>>
>>I agree with you. It doesn't follow that just because you know all the
>*other*
>>meanings of the word "send," you would necessarily know the slang meaning.
>It
>>is quite possible "that there might be a lot of people," who, for whatever
>>reason, have never encountered the slang meaning. Not knowing it, they
>>"wouldn't be able to figure out what Sam Cooke's 'Darling, you send me'"
>means.
>>
>Do you also agree with my wish that it should be listed in most
>dictionaries?
>
Yes, I do. I see no reason why the slang meaning shouldn't be included with all
the other meanings.
George
Alan Jones
"Avi Jacobson" <a...@gallerysystems.com> wrote in message
news:9g9g4b$7q1d7$1...@ID-74958.news.dfncis.de...
> "daniel gerard mcgrath" <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b27f7c3...@news.liii.com...
> > On 11 Jun 2001 19:11:54 GMT, k1...@aol.com (K1912) wrote:
> >
> > >daniel gerard mcgrath wrote:
>
> [of "send" as in "You send me":]
>
> > Do you also agree with my wish that it should be listed in most
> > dictionaries?
>
> Hi, Daniel!
>
> It's in my Random House College Dictionary Revised Edition,
published in
> 1975: "7. _Slang._ to delight or excite."
>
with delight, affect or transport emotionally. Slang (orig. US).
mid-20th century".
Alan Jones
daniel gerard mcgrath
Hi. This is Catherine McGrath, Daniel's Mom. I do not agree with
Daniel (and consequently, with you) on being able to figure out the
meaning of "you send me" from the song.
I told Daniel that I think I would be able to glean the meaning of
this phrase from it's context in the song. (I told Dan that when I
was a child, I learned most of my vocabulary from the context of
books. If "you send me" was surrounded by expressions of hatred and
disgust ,I think,it would lead you to believe that "you send me" had a
very negative connotation.. Hower this phrase is
surrounded by numerous expressions of love, so it leads me to believe
that the phrase is a profound expression of love too.
Daniel would like to know why you would disagree with me on this point
Catherine McGrath
(Dan's Mom)
K1912
Hello, Catherine. I understood Daniel to be saying that because "a lot of
people wouldn't be able to figure out" the slang usage of the word "send,"
"even if they know all *other* meanings of the word," it would be a good idea
to include it in most dictionaries. Those who can't, for whatever reason,
"glean the meaning of the phrase from it's context in the song" could turn to
the dictionary to learn its slang meaning. Daniel thinks that including the
slang meaning in most dictionaries would be beneficial to such people, and I
agree with him. When we can't understand the meaning of a word from its
context, we naturally turn to the dictionary for help. And a dictionary with
more words is more helpful.
George
Donna Richoux
One reason that dictionaries do not include many slang meanings is that
there are just so many of them. I use two fat volumes of the Random
House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, and that just covers A-O.
Of course, a lot of the space is taken up by the historical citations,
and those wouldn't be needed in a general purpose dictionary. So they
could take out all the illustrative citations, yet what's left would
fill maybe most of one big volume. That much would be a lot to add to a
regular dictionary.
What's interesting about this is that most of the entries are not
unusual words, but everyday words (like "send") that have been used for
slang purposes. Bird, bug, cat, dog, horse -- just about any ordinary
word has been employed as slang, and often more with more than one
meaning.
I don't know how dictionary makers decide what words to include and what
to leave out. I wonder if anyone has written on that question, in terms
simple enough for us non-professionals to understand.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
Murray Arnow
>
>I don't know how dictionary makers decide what words to include and what
>to leave out. I wonder if anyone has written on that question, in terms
>simple enough for us non-professionals to understand.
>
Donna, we did discuss this about two years ago. My understanding was
that no scientific or objective criteria were used to decide dictionary
entries. Is this answer too simple?
Donna Richoux
Yeah, I guess it is. It's sort of negative, don't you think? "No this or
that were used" -- well, then, what was?
I'd like to read what some experienced dictionary maker actually went
through, some examples of difficult decisions and how he made them, what
entire categories (like slang) were eliminated and how he and his
collegues decided that what they were looking at fell into one of those
categories. I've read the book that was titled "The Professor and the
Madman" in the US edition ("The Surgeon of Crowe" or something, in the
UK) and that explains a little of the procedures that went into the OED.
I also have a vague memory of reading about Dr. Johnson's Dictionary.
But I'd like more, especially into the 20th century and today.
I understand what you're saying about scientific or objective. It could
be more like an experience lawyer or judge reminiscing about how she or
he saw the legal system. Some fields involve judgement, not
cut-and-dried procedures.
We rely on dictionaries so much, I think we are entitled to know more
about the process of how words are chosen and definitions are written.
I've read various works about language, but I can't remember much on
this topic.
However, I can live without it. Someone just might happen to know of a
good book or article on it, though...
Murray Arnow
>Murray Arnow <ar...@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>> >
>> >I don't know how dictionary makers decide what words to include and what
>> >to leave out. I wonder if anyone has written on that question, in terms
>> >simple enough for us non-professionals to understand.
>> >
>>
>> Donna, we did discuss this about two years ago. My understanding was
>> that no scientific or objective criteria were used to decide dictionary
>> entries. Is this answer too simple?
>
>Yeah, I guess it is. It's sort of negative, don't you think? "No this or
>that were used" -- well, then, what was?
>
It is indeed negative. The criteria described by Jesse Sheidlower
(the respected editor late of Random House Dictionary and currently
of the OED) were based on the frequency of usage in certain
publications. The weight given the usage was arbitrarily based on the
publication: the weightiest being the New York Times. The impression
left with me was the process of inclusion in a dictionary was very
unscientific (I'm very biased in this regard).
>I'd like to read what some experienced dictionary maker actually went
>through, some examples of difficult decisions and how he made them, what
>entire categories (like slang) were eliminated and how he and his
>collegues decided that what they were looking at fell into one of those
>categories. I've read the book that was titled "The Professor and the
>Madman" in the US edition ("The Surgeon of Crowe" or something, in the
>UK) and that explains a little of the procedures that went into the OED.
>I also have a vague memory of reading about Dr. Johnson's Dictionary.
>But I'd like more, especially into the 20th century and today.
>
Yes, this would be interesting.
>I understand what you're saying about scientific or objective. It could
>be more like an experience lawyer or judge reminiscing about how she or
>he saw the legal system. Some fields involve judgement, not
>cut-and-dried procedures.
>
Judgement or shoot-from-the-hip? Standards and rules of application need
to be defined for "judgements" to be useful. Jesse's description was a
pseudo-science using frequency of citations weighted by the source as a
measure of worth. If you choose to use a mathematical description of
data, then it is best you analyze the data scientifically. I don't think
this is done.
>We rely on dictionaries so much, I think we are entitled to know more
>about the process of how words are chosen and definitions are written.
>I've read various works about language, but I can't remember much on
>this topic.
>
>However, I can live without it. Someone just might happen to know of a
>good book or article on it, though...
>
I'd also be interested.
Peter Corey
You may want to read "The Story of Webster's Third" by Herbert C.
Morton (Cambridge University Press, 1994). In addition to telling the
story of Philip Gove's struggles in compiling and editing MW3,
Morton's book has a lot to say about the genesis of the AHD, beginning
with an attempted hostile takeover of G.&C. Merriam by the American
Heritage Publishing Company.
Peter
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented Harvey V
broadcast on alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
HV> opposite to yours: I think there would be very *few* people who
HV> wouldn't be able to figure out what it meant.
HV> This could, of course, be solipsistic for both of us: one tends to
HV> define majority reaction in terms of one's own reactions.
I and the song that gave this phrase its greatest currency were young
together (Sam Cooke's original - original performance, the song was
written by his brother Charles "L.C." Cooke - and Teresa Brewer's
cover both charted in 1957 when I was nine years old). I never heard
anyone ask what it meant. No one told me, and I knew what it meant.
Somehow people managed to have language before there were dictionaries.
And people have slang before it gets into slang dictionaries. Indeed,
by the time a usage gets into a slang dictionary, it almost certainly
is no longer slang. It may live in the language as an informal usage
or it may be dead, but once it is a book for anyone to read, it doesn't
have the subterranean quality of a patois.
I'm not even sure that "You send me" is slang. Perhaps it is a metaphor
once removed. "Carry away" in this sense dates to 1570, and "transport"
has long been used in a similar sense. Obviously the metaphor of
causing removal to a far away place for an intense emotional experience
is one that is very deeply embedded in the language. Perhaps the
association is one that exists at a level deeper than language.
However that may be, at nine years old, I knew what it meant the
first time I heard it. I didn't hear any of my fellows ask what
it meant. My companions, especially female ones, used the expression
in a manner that completely agreed with my understanding of it.
How did we do that without a dictionary to tell us what it meant?
How did we do that without long discussions of what it should mean?
How did we know without asking?
How did we know what a beatnik was, what a pad was, what bread was?
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
The world is made of people who never quite get into the first team
and who just miss the prizes at the flower show. --Jacob Bronowski
GrapeApe
>once removed. "Carry away" in this sense dates to 1570, and "transport"
>has long been used in a similar sense.
"Fly Me to the Moon" was written before the Sam Cooke song, and has yet to be
proven possible (flight demands an atmosphere)
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented grapeape
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>> I'm not even sure that "You send me" is slang. Perhaps it is a
>> metaphor once removed. "Carry away" in this sense dates to 1570,
>> and "transport" has long been used in a similar sense.
g> "Fly Me to the Moon" was written before the Sam Cooke song, and has
g> yet to be proven possible (flight demands an atmosphere)
If missiles don't fly, then what do they do?
--
Lars Eighner eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
You've got to take the bitter with the sour. --Samuel Goldwyn
Skitt
"GrapeApe" <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
news:20010615000152...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
I knew it! The making a golf shot on the moon with a seven iron was a hoax!
Done on a Hollywood set, huh? Glad you set me straight.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Steve Hayes
>> It's in my Random House College Dictionary Revised Edition,
>published in
>> 1975: "7. _Slang._ to delight or excite."
>>
>Also in current New Shorter Oxford: "Bring (a person) to ecstasy, fill
>with delight, affect or transport emotionally. Slang (orig. US).
>mid-20th century".
And in Collins: (Slang), to move to excitement or rapture: _this music really
sends me_.
--
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
Roger Whitehead
> And in Collins: (Slang), to move to excitement or rapture: _this music really
> sends me_.
I don't know if it did, but Sam Cooke recorded a song of that name.
Regards,
Roger
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Roger Whitehead,
Oxted, Surrey, England
Bob Cunningham
that "Harvey V" <whhvs@*removethis*operamail.com> wrote that (daniel
gerard mcgrath) said:
>>>> John, I'm afraid you have misunderstood what my problem is. I have
>>>> no problem with definition 7a at
>>>> <URL:http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/S0261300.html>, but the usage in
>>>> 7b bothers me so much that I can't even stand listening to Sam
>>>> Cooke's song anymore. You should probably be able to spot the
>>>> difference. "Metaphor", no way. I think there would have to be
>>>> quite a lot of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what
>>>> "Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings
>>>> of the word "send".
There's another definition of "send" that may help to ease the
transition from 7a to 7b at Bartleby. It's definition 6b in _The New
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_. Here is the full definition 6:
6 v.t.
a. Drive, force, impel; cause to move or go, propel.
Freq. foll. by up, down, ppl a. OE.
b. Drive or bring (a person) into a specified state or
condition, cause to be or become. Foll. by into, to,
adj. compl. M19.
c. Bring (a person) to ecstasy, fill with delight, affect
or transport emotionally. slang (orig. US). M20.
They give the following illustration for sense 6b:
W. GOLDING Lack of sleep was what sent people crazy.
Note that "M19" is "Mid 19th century" and "M20" is "Mid 20th century".
Peter T. Daniels
> There's another definition of "send" that may help to ease the
> transition from 7a to 7b at Bartleby. It's definition 6b in _The New
> Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_. Here is the full definition 6:
>
> 6 v.t.
> a. Drive, force, impel; cause to move or go, propel.
> Freq. foll. by up, down, ppl a. OE.
> b. Drive or bring (a person) into a specified state or
> condition, cause to be or become. Foll. by into, to,
> adj. compl. M19.
> c. Bring (a person) to ecstasy, fill with delight, affect
> or transport emotionally. slang (orig. US). M20.
>
> They give the following illustration for sense 6b:
>
> W. GOLDING Lack of sleep was what sent people crazy.
Can anyone reading these messages say that? Surely it must be "drove
people crazy." Having just seen Peter Brook's film of *Lord of the
Flies*, I can't imagine even the most "posh" of those characters using
that phrase.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
daniel gerard mcgrath
But wouldn't this be the same as definition 7a at AHD/Bartleby?
Bob Cunningham
(Newsgroups trimmed to AUE)
Yes, it would. Sorry. I somehow had the idea that AHD's 7a was the
same as NSOED's 6a. I don't know where my mind was.
daniel gerard mcgrath
>daniel gerard mcgrath <dmcg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Harvey V" <whhvs@*removethis*operamail.com> wrote:
>>>(daniel gerard mcgrath) said:
>
>>>> John, I'm afraid you have misunderstood what my problem is. I have
>>>> no problem with definition 7a at
>>>> <URL:http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/S0261300.html>, but the usage in
>>>> 7b bothers me so much that I can't even stand listening to Sam
>>>> Cooke's song anymore. You should probably be able to spot the
>>>> difference. "Metaphor", no way. I think there would have to be
>>>> quite a lot of people who wouldn't be able to figure out what
>>>> "Darling, you send me" means even if they know all *other* meanings
>>>> of the word "send".
>
>>>I don't really understand where the dilemma in 7a and 7b lies, though,
>>>Daniel, as the usage recorded at 7b -- to me, at least -- seems
>>>entirely idiomatic and part of a straightforward transference from 7a.
>>>My reaction would be almost exactly opposite to yours: I think there
>>>would be very *few* people who wouldn't be able to figure out what it
>>>meant.
>
>>>This could, of course, be solipsistic for both of us: one tends to
>>>define majority reaction in terms of one's own reactions.
>
>>Do you know what the difference is between 7a and 7b? Please tell me
>>about it, and how they relate, and maybe I'll have an easier time
>>explaining it to you.
>
>>I would really like for John Lawler to see what I wrote above and
>>respond to it, and realize that it's specifically 7b (the "b" is
>>crucial) that I have a hard time with.
>
[...]
>7a. To put or drive into a given state or condition: horrifying news that
> sent them into a panic.
>
> b. Slang To transport with delight; carry away: That music really sends
> me.
[...]
>Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. You don't like it,
>that's your privilege. But others apparently do, and they'll use it.
>If you want a ray of hope, consider that the phrase is a bit archaic,
>hearkening back to the Bebop age. After the boomers all die, it'll
>be as common as 23 Skidoo, and you can rest easier.
Does anyone see "send" 7b (*not* 7a!) as a sort of metaphor rather
than being an independent definition? Can 7b be *analyzed* at all in
this way?! I hope so, because it seems that most people are familiar
with it, and it is nevertheless not listed in many small dictionaries.
daniel gerard mcgrath
Harvey V
mcgrath) said:
[...]
> [...]
>> 7a. To put or drive into a given state or condition: horrifying
>> news that sent them into a panic.
>>
>> b. Slang To transport with delight; carry away: That music really
>> sends me.
> [...]
>> Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. You don't like
>> it, that's your privilege. But others apparently do, and they'll
>> use it. If you want a ray of hope, consider that the phrase is a
>> bit archaic, hearkening back to the Bebop age. After the boomers
>> all die, it'll be as common as 23 Skidoo, and you can rest easier.
>
> Does anyone see "send" 7b (*not* 7a!) as a sort of metaphor rather
> than being an independent definition? Can 7b be *analyzed* at all
> in this way?! I hope so, because it seems that most people are
> familiar with it, and it is nevertheless not listed in many small
> dictionaries.
I think 7b is definitely metaphorical and can be analysed that way, but
I'm not sure whether that disqualifies it as a separate definition.
(As implied by the "b" of 7b, it's not an independent definition: it
is dependent on the sense of the word as defined in 7a.)
Harvey
daniel gerard mcgrath
OK. How then, Harvey, would you analyze "send" in the statement "This
music doesn't send me" spoken by someone listening to music that does
"send" them into an emotional state, only not into a delightful state?
How is this a metaphor?