America is a Gun

[Mack A. Damia]

"America is a Gun,” - Brian Bilston

England is a cup of tea.
France, a wheel of ripened brie.
Greece, a short, squat olive tree.
America is a gun.

Brazil is football on the sand.
Argentina, Maradona’s hand.
Germany, an oompah band.
America is a gun.

Holland is a wooden shoe.
Hungary, a goulash stew.
Australia, a kangaroo.
America is a gun.

Japan is a thermal spring.
Scotland is a highland fling.
Oh, better to be anything
than America as a gun.

[S K]

School shootings are the inward reflection of the sickening violence the US exports to the rest of the world.

[Arindam Banerjee]

What does "son of a gun" mean, and why?

[Hibou]

Le 25/05/2022 à 04:38, Arindam Banerjee a écrit :
> On Wednesday, 25 May 2022 at 09:44:20 UTC+10, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> "America is a Gun,” - Brian Bilston
>>

>> [...]

>>
>> Japan is a thermal spring.
>> Scotland is a highland fling.
>> Oh, better to be anything
>> than America as a gun.
>
> What does "son of a gun" mean, and why?

That I don't know, but wasn't he the one called Bullitt?

[J. J. Lodder]

It is the natural result of kissing the gunner's daugther,

Jan

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

There is a useful site named "The Phrase Finder".
For eample:

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/son-of-a-gun.html

What's the meaning of the phrase 'Son of a gun'?

A 'son of a gun' is a rogue or scamp - "you are naughty, you old son
of a gun". The phrase is also used, although this is uncommon
outside the USA, as a euphemism for 'son of a bitch'.

Some say that the origin is 'son of a military man' but, whether
this is the correct origin or not, the phrase is no longer used to
convey that meaning.

What's the origin of the phrase 'Son of a gun'?

There is dispute amongst etymologists about the origin of this
phrase. As always, disputes only occur where there is no definitive
evidence so I'll put the sources here and let you decide for
yourself. The two points of view are primarily these:

1. The phrase originated as 'son of a military man' (that is, a
gun).
<big snip of interesting material>

2. The term is euphemistic and derived as a conveniently rhyming
alternative to 'son of a bitch/whore'.
<snip>

The military version has some circumstantial evidence to support it,
the rhyming euphemism origin appears to be no more than conjecture.

Copyright © Gary Martin

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

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:40:05 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2022 20:38:59 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >What does "son of a gun" mean, and why?
>
> There is a useful site named "The Phrase Finder".
> For eample:
>
> https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/son-of-a-gun.html
>
> What's the meaning of the phrase 'Son of a gun'?
>
> A 'son of a gun' is a rogue or scamp - "you are naughty, you old son
> of a gun". The phrase is also used, although this is uncommon
> outside the USA, as a euphemism for 'son of a bitch'.

It's associated primarily with Frank Sinatra and his "Rat Pack"
cohort Joey Bishop.

Thus it's firmly fixed in the early 1960s.

[CDB]

An earlier shotgun wedding?

[lar3ryca]

"I regret to inform you that your marriage is not legal. Your wife's
father did not have a license for his shotgun."

--
What 5-letter word becomes shorter when you add two letters to it?
"Short".

[Ross Clark]

The end of it, maybe. Beginnings go back to the early 1800s.

Wentworth & Flexner (1960) describe it as "a once common euphemism, now
rarely used by young people".

Sinatra et al, who were middle-aged by that time, may have been the last
generation of celebrities who used it naturally.

[Sam Plusnet]

Who might have used it as a media-friendly version of "son of a bitch"?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Hibou]

Le 25/05/2022 à 16:49, CDB a écrit :
> On 5/24/2022 11:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>

> An earlier shotgun wedding?

Could well be. And we know what comes before that...

"Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"

[Peter Moylan]

On 26/05/22 00:39, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> What's the origin of the phrase 'Son of a gun'?
>
> There is dispute amongst etymologists about the origin of this
> phrase. As always, disputes only occur where there is no definitive
> evidence so I'll put the sources here and let you decide for
> yourself. The two points of view are primarily these:
>
> 1. The phrase originated as 'son of a military man' (that is, a
> gun).
> <big snip of interesting material>
>
> 2. The term is euphemistic and derived as a conveniently rhyming
> alternative to 'son of a bitch/whore'.
> <snip>
>
> The military version has some circumstantial evidence to support it,
> the rhyming euphemism origin appears to be no more than conjecture.
>
> Copyright © Gary Martin

That omits an explanation I've seen elsewhere. He's a son of a gun
because he was conceived behind or beside the cannon.

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

[Ross Clark]

Yes, and as the 60s rolled on, saying "bitch" in public became a little
less taboo, and there was less need for it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

That can be dated very precisely. Newt Gingrich's mother called Hillary
Clinton a bitch on national TV "in January 1995," and ever thereafter, you
didn't have to say "rhymes with witch."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vecw539MjWM

https://jezebel.com/remember-when-newt-gingrichs-mama-said-he-thought-hilla-1783546525

[Peter Moylan]

On 26/05/22 22:35, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> writes:

>> Yes, and as the 60s rolled on, saying "bitch" in public became a little
>> less taboo, and there was less need for it.
>

> Some of the finest writers did not hesitate to use the word
> when appropriate.
>
> |wn-and-tan-coloured bitch, of that wise-looking breed w - Eliot
> |uge, liver-coloured bitch pointer surrounded by a swarm - Bronte
> |Dog with your white Bitch for a hundred, play or pay.« - Fielding
> |can ail the mastiff bitch? Never till now she uttered y - Coleridge
> |a toothless mastiff bitch; From her kennel beneath the - Coleridge
> |nicest little black bitch of a pointer I ever saw. Was - Austen
> |e Yorkshire terrier bitch tomorrow,« he said jubilantly - Lawrence
> | white bull-terrier bitch that stood uneasily near her. - Lawrence
> |t it is no Dog, nor Bitch, That stands behind him at hi - Butler
> |à-vis the ruffianly bitch, and a pair of grim, shaggy s - Bronte

I once had a Post Office job handling mailed-in telegrams. One of my
regular customers was a dog breeder, and she sometimes dictated messages
including the words "lady dog". I tried to tell her she could save money
by having one less word, but she didn't want to listen.

[Ross Clark]

What are you suggesting is dated very precisely by this??

I was talking about a trend in the 1960s, and you're saying it didn't
really happen until 1995?

A few minutes searching IMDB found "bitch" and/or "son of a bitch" in
dialogue from mainstream movies of the 1970s including Patton, Alien,
Smokey and the Bandit, Network, MASH, and The Poseidon Adventure -- as
well as a number of blaxploitation and other low-concept flicks. MASH
(1970) was the earliest. I found nothing from the 1960s. Are you
suggesting that TV took 25 years to catch up?

The one TV series that turned up in this brief search was the Australian
series "Prisoner" (1979-86). Maybe only US TV held out until Mrs
Gingrich broke the barrier?

[Peter T. Daniels]

That "bitch" could be said on broadcast TV. What are _you_ talking about?

> A few minutes searching IMDB found "bitch" and/or "son of a bitch" in
> dialogue from mainstream movies of the 1970s including Patton, Alien,
> Smokey and the Bandit, Network, MASH, and The Poseidon Adventure -- as
> well as a number of blaxploitation and other low-concept flicks. MASH
> (1970) was the earliest. I found nothing from the 1960s. Are you
> suggesting that TV took 25 years to catch up?

Have you ever heard of the FCC? of "Decency"? of George Carlin?

If those movies were shown on TV, that word would have been bleeped
out. ("Silencing" unsayable words seems to have come later.)

> The one TV series that turned up in this brief search was the Australian
> series "Prisoner" (1979-86). Maybe only US TV held out until Mrs
> Gingrich broke the barrier?

What on earth?????

If that series were ever broadcast in the US, the word would have
been bleeped.

Note that the FCC does not have jurisdiction over non-broadcast TV.

[Jerry Friedman]

Certainly American TV (which any child could turn on) accepted profanity
much later than American movies (for which you had to go to a theater
and pay). However, if the members of the Rat Pack were the last people
to use "son of a gun" in PTD's world--and I heard it very seldom if ever--the
lack of "bitch" on network TV till 1995 wouldn't explain the disappearance
of "son of a gun".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

Sinatra was passé perhaps the moment the Beatles appeared on Ed
Sullivan. The last actual Rat Pack movie was *Robin and the 7 Hoods*
in 1965.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Pack#1960s

Already by then the voice was going, and his later career was a lot
like Pavarotti's -- he had never engaged in introspection and did not
know how he accomplished what he did in singing. (Would _never_
talk about vocal technique in interviews.) Supposedly neither of
them "could read music," but I don't know how to interpret that claim.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

Why not the normal way - that they couldn't sound out a melody (with
confidence) from a score without having heard it.

It would be unusual for a classically trained singer, of course. Even a
bunch of people in our amateur choir can do it reasonably well.

--
CW: Historical misogyny
Jbzna vf n cnve bs binevrf jvgu n uhzna orvat nggnpurq, jurernf
zna vf n uhzna orvat sheavfurq jvgu n cnve bs grfgrf.
-- Rudolf Virchow

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:08:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:

> > Sinatra was passé perhaps the moment the Beatles appeared on Ed
> > Sullivan. The last actual Rat Pack movie was *Robin and the 7 Hoods*
> > in 1965.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Pack#1960s
> >
> > Already by then the voice was going, and his later career was a lot
> > like Pavarotti's -- he had never engaged in introspection and did not
> > know how he accomplished what he did in singing. (Would _never_
> > talk about vocal technique in interviews.) Supposedly neither of
> > them "could read music," but I don't know how to interpret that claim.
>
> Why not the normal way - that they couldn't sound out a melody (with
> confidence) from a score without having heard it.

"Normal"? It seems like it would mean they don't know to go up and down
when the notehead is higher or lower on the staff, that a hollow note lasts
twice as long as a solid note, that the little tails mean cut the time in half,
that the note one leger line below the staff is a "Middle C" on the piano, ....

What you describe is called "sight-reading" in English. Or maybe in AmE.
That's a learned skill, but it can be learned -- in the first few weeks of
Music Theory 101 (which was 5 days a week at 8 am, so I didn't take it).

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:08:38 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:

[Sinatra in '65]

> > Already by then the voice was going, and his later career was a lot
> > like Pavarotti's -- he had never engaged in introspection and did not
> > know how he accomplished what he did in singing. (Would _never_
> > talk about vocal technique in interviews.) Supposedly neither of
> > them "could read music," but I don't know how to interpret that claim.

> Why not the normal way - that they couldn't sound out a melody (with
> confidence) from a score without having heard it.

I'd say that's a bit too restrictive. I can't sound out a melody from a
score, even to getting the intervals right, but I can play it on a piano or
guitar.

> It would be unusual for a classically trained singer, of course. Even a
> bunch of people in our amateur choir can do it reasonably well.

According to Wikip, "In an interview in 2005 with Jeremy Paxman on the
BBC, Pavarotti rejected the allegation that he could not read music,
although he acknowledged he did not read orchestral scores."

--
Jerry Friedman

[Ross Clark]

A general trend.

>> A few minutes searching IMDB found "bitch" and/or "son of a bitch" in
>> dialogue from mainstream movies of the 1970s including Patton, Alien,
>> Smokey and the Bandit, Network, MASH, and The Poseidon Adventure -- as
>> well as a number of blaxploitation and other low-concept flicks. MASH
>> (1970) was the earliest. I found nothing from the 1960s. Are you
>> suggesting that TV took 25 years to catch up?
>
> Have you ever heard of the FCC? of "Decency"? of George Carlin?

So TV did take many years to catch up.

> If those movies were shown on TV, that word would have been bleeped
> out. ("Silencing" unsayable words seems to have come later.)
>
>> The one TV series that turned up in this brief search was the Australian
>> series "Prisoner" (1979-86). Maybe only US TV held out until Mrs
>> Gingrich broke the barrier?
>
> What on earth?????
>
> If that series were ever broadcast in the US, the word would have
> been bleeped.

Who actually did the bleeping, and on what legal basis? And why did this
particular utterance go unbleeped?

(Strictly speaking, it seems Mrs G was not _calling_ Hillary a bitch,
but reporting what she had been told about H by her son. The aftermath
of this historic incident is amusing: the FLOTUS invited mother and son
to the White House, and according to Mrs G they got along fine.)

>
> Note that the FCC does not have jurisdiction over non-broadcast TV.
>

What is non-broadcast TV?

[bruce bowser]

A closed-circuit or an off TV?

[Peter T. Daniels]

What "catch up"? At least once a week Colbert makes a joke about what
the CBS censors won't let them show a picture of ("community standards"),
and George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words routine could _still_ not be put on
broadcast TV.

> > If those movies were shown on TV, that word would have been bleeped
> > out. ("Silencing" unsayable words seems to have come later.)
> >> The one TV series that turned up in this brief search was the Australian
> >> series "Prisoner" (1979-86). Maybe only US TV held out until Mrs
> >> Gingrich broke the barrier?

No matter how much Australia loved the US, it's highly unlikely that
they felt a need to follow FCC directives.

> > What on earth?????
> > If that series were ever broadcast in the US, the word would have
> > been bleeped.
>
> Who actually did the bleeping, and on what legal basis? And why did this
> particular utterance go unbleeped?

I would guess it would be the syndicator. If they sold the show to 50
stations around the country, they wouldn't want each of them to do
their own vetting; nor would a station have the time and personnel
to do it.

Why? So the stations didn't lose their broadcast license for violating
the FCC regulations. That seems a pretty powerful motivation.

> (Strictly speaking, it seems Mrs G was not _calling_ Hillary a bitch,
> but reporting what she had been told about H by her son. The aftermath
> of this historic incident is amusing: the FLOTUS invited mother and son
> to the White House, and according to Mrs G they got along fine.)

"Use" vs. "mention" could have been introduced into American
jurisprudence by George Carlin's legal team in 1965, but apparently
no one told them about it.

> > Note that the FCC does not have jurisdiction over non-broadcast TV.
>
> What is non-broadcast TV?

TV that doesn't reach your house through the atmosphere using an
antenna attached to your TV.

[Ross Clark]

Pursuing this quest a little further -- I've searched maybe 10% of
IMDB's 6,000+ hits for "bitch" in Quotes. I don't plan to go further,
but the pattern becomes clearer:

More big 1970s movies using the word: Blazing Saddles, The Taking of
Pelham 123, Missouri Breaks, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Myra
Breckenridge, Super Fly.

And into the 60s! The Arrangement (1969), Repulsion (1965), Cool Hand
Luke (1967), The Wild Bunch (1969).

It's in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), but only the verb (=
'complain'). Perhaps that was never as taboo as the noun?

In the 50s - only two, and they're both French.
And God Created Woman (1956), a Brigitte Bardot vehicle.
"Was condemned by the Catholic Church's Legion of Decency...and caused a
huge uproar in the United States for its sexual content." (IMDB Trivia)
So I guess the b-word was unnoticed in the furore.
And an obscure thriller called "Retour de Manivelle" (1957). It doesn't
seem to have an English title, so I don't know where it got English
dialogue, though it is based on a novel by James Hadley Chase.

So much for movies. On TV -- nothing, in those decades, apart from the
Australian series already mentioned. TV was, it seems, a vast
bleep-land. Of course the bleeps were there, so there must have been
words behind them. The history of those lost words would be interesting,
but...

[Jerry Friedman]

The legal basis was that the "airwaves" were considered a public resource,
and the government took charge of allocation and regulation. (Our
constitution mentions freedom of the press but doesn't say a word about
the electromagnetic spectrum.) Broadcast TV and radio stations still have
to demonstrate some kind of action in the public interest, and as PTD said,
they also still have limits on visual and verbal obscenity.

I don't know the history of that decision, and in fact had forgotten about
the whole incident.

> (Strictly speaking, it seems Mrs G was not _calling_ Hillary a bitch,
> but reporting what she had been told about H by her son. The aftermath
> of this historic incident is amusing: the FLOTUS invited mother and son
> to the White House, and according to Mrs G they got along fine.)
> >
> > Note that the FCC does not have jurisdiction over non-broadcast TV.
> >
> What is non-broadcast TV?

Cable.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Quinn C]

* Jerry Friedman:

> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:08:38 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
> [Sinatra in '65]
>
>>> Already by then the voice was going, and his later career was a lot
>>> like Pavarotti's -- he had never engaged in introspection and did not
>>> know how he accomplished what he did in singing. (Would _never_
>>> talk about vocal technique in interviews.) Supposedly neither of
>>> them "could read music," but I don't know how to interpret that claim.
>
>> Why not the normal way - that they couldn't sound out a melody (with
>> confidence) from a score without having heard it.
>
> I'd say that's a bit too restrictive. I can't sound out a melody from a
> score, even to getting the intervals right, but I can play it on a piano or
> guitar.

OK, it's vague that way. I'd say it means reproducing a score on one's
instrument, and in context, that instrument was the voice.

But you're right that it's possible by my definition for the same person
to "be able to read music" wrt one instrument, and "not be able to read
music" wrt to another.

It could also mean being able to name the notes, regardless of being
able to reproduce the music. But in choir, we conventionally use "X
reads music" (without "can") to mean what I said.

>> It would be unusual for a classically trained singer, of course. Even a
>> bunch of people in our amateur choir can do it reasonably well.
>
> According to Wikip, "In an interview in 2005 with Jeremy Paxman on the
> BBC, Pavarotti rejected the allegation that he could not read music,
> although he acknowledged he did not read orchestral scores."

Reading orchestral scores requires a number of additional skills, like
translating notes written in various clefs. Many singers only know to
read the one usually used for their voice - treble or bass - well and
struggle with the other of those two most common ones. People who
learned piano normally can do those two, but not alto and tenor clefs.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Ross Clark]

OK, so at least in respect of this one word, movie scripts began to
include it in the mid-60s, though it would be bleeped if those movies
were shown on TV. And presumably, when screened unbleeped, those movies
would be given ratings designed to protect children's tender ears.

But for (US broadcast) TV, there is still a taboo on certain words. The
authority is the FCC; the network censors you refer to are there to
avoid trouble from the FCC (and from viewers).

Scripted TV would, I guess, have simply avoided the word from the
beginning, which is why it doesn't show up on IMDB. So the bleeping
would be mainly on news, chat shows and various "reality" things. And in
1995, the "news" value of Mrs G's whispered word was so great that the
network just decided to let it go. What I'm not clear about is whether
"bitch" thereupon became acceptable ever after (which is what I took
from your original remark), or whether this was an isolated incident.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:35:12 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Jerry Friedman:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:08:38 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:

> > [Sinatra in '65]
> >>> Already by then the voice was going, and his later career was a lot
> >>> like Pavarotti's -- he had never engaged in introspection and did not
> >>> know how he accomplished what he did in singing. (Would _never_
> >>> talk about vocal technique in interviews.) Supposedly neither of
> >>> them "could read music," but I don't know how to interpret that claim.
> >> Why not the normal way - that they couldn't sound out a melody (with
> >> confidence) from a score without having heard it.
> > I'd say that's a bit too restrictive. I can't sound out a melody from a
> > score, even to getting the intervals right, but I can play it on a piano or
> > guitar.
>
> OK, it's vague that way. I'd say it means reproducing a score on one's
> instrument, and in context, that instrument was the voice.
>
> But you're right that it's possible by my definition for the same person
> to "be able to read music" wrt one instrument, and "not be able to read
> music" wrt to another.
>
> It could also mean being able to name the notes, regardless of being
> able to reproduce the music. But in choir, we conventionally use "X
> reads music" (without "can") to mean what I said.

Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
It is not called "able to read music."

I wonder why you deleted that comment from your first reply.

> >> It would be unusual for a classically trained singer, of course. Even a
> >> bunch of people in our amateur choir can do it reasonably well.
> > According to Wikip, "In an interview in 2005 with Jeremy Paxman on the
> > BBC, Pavarotti rejected the allegation that he could not read music,
> > although he acknowledged he did not read orchestral scores."

> Reading orchestral scores requires a number of additional skills, like
> translating notes written in various clefs. Many singers only know to
> read the one usually used for their voice - treble or bass - well and
> struggle with the other of those two most common ones. People who
> learned piano normally can do those two, but not alto and tenor clefs.

Probably more important is transposing. Eric Weimer, whom I recruited
to be the WCGC accompanist and a graduate student of the composer
Easley Blackwood , was the accompanist of the Chicago Symphony
Chorus, and Margaret Hillis could ask him to play, say, the 3rd trumpet
and the 2nd clarinet part of a passage in Mahler's Eighth (I don't know
why she would, but he could do it) -- which would be written in F and in
Bb respectively -- and he could play them at concert pitch (i.e. C) for
the use of the singers.

(He was also rehearsal pianist for the Lyric Opera, and occasionally
appeared on stage as a pianist [in Wozzeck] or as a bandleader [in
Tosca], but he hated being a soloist.)

I once turned pages for Eric in Stravinsky's Les Noces, which is scored
for four pianos and percussion and chorus. Eric was on Piano IV,
Blackwood was on Piano I, and the four pianos were matched Steinway
9-foot concert grands. (It cost them a pretty penny just to move three
of them to the main concert hall.) During rehearsal, Blackwood was
calling out wrong notes _by piano_. (Not performers' mistakes -- at
that level they don't make mistakes -- but mistakes in the individual
parts the performers read from or maybe even in the score itself.)
Afterward I asked him how he could do it. He said he simply knows
the score very well. I couldn't get to how he could detect which of
three other identical pianos had the mistake.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:47:02 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:

> OK, so at least in respect of this one word, movie scripts began to
> include it in the mid-60s, though it would be bleeped if those movies
> were shown on TV. And presumably, when screened unbleeped, those movies
> would be given ratings designed to protect children's tender ears.

You're being dense. Those movies COULD NOT BE "SCREENED" UNBLEEPED.
If they were, the station would be off the air -- if not overnight, then at the
latest at the next quinquennial license renewal procedure.

Ratings were instituted -- much later -- to protect tender eyes from
things it was recommended they not see. Currently, a broadcast show
can have a "warning" in four categories:

D – Sexual or suggestive dialogue
L – Coarse or crude language
S – Sexual situations
V – Violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Parental_Guidelines#Content_descriptors

A slide with those warnings will appear for several seconds at the start
of an episode, and upon return from a commercial break, the "rating"
and the "descriptor" appear in a small box at the upper left, presumably
covering the segment until the next commercial. They are also used for
non-fiction non-live broadcasts, such as news shows (e.g. 60 Minutes)
and "reality shows" (e.g. Shark Tank, The Bachelorette).

NYPD Blue (1993-2005) was Steven Bochco's attempt to push the boundaries.
Every regular character on the show was shown in full backal nudity at
least once over the multi-year run (except Gordon Clapp, who reappeared
years later as the recurring character of the chaplain on Dick Wolf's
Chicago Fire, by which time he was beyond the age when full backal
nudity would be welcome). In their last season they got toned down
considerably, due to rightwing puritanism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYPD_Blue#Controversy

> But for (US broadcast) TV, there is still a taboo on certain words. The
> authority is the FCC; the network censors you refer to are there to
> avoid trouble from the FCC (and from viewers).
>
> Scripted TV would, I guess, have simply avoided the word from the
> beginning, which is why it doesn't show up on IMDB. So the bleeping
> would be mainly on news, chat shows and various "reality" things. And in

People being interviewed know what they're not supposed to say.

"Live" TV has what used to be called the "7-second delay" -- the Will
Smith slap during the Oscars was not seen by ABC's audience.

There are exceptions for what are called in court "excited utterances"
and a newsroom won't be punished if they show live, say, a firefighter
uttering the f-word when a blazing beam falls onto the victim they
are trying to rescue; but if the clip is shown later, it will be bleeped
or silenced.

> 1995, the "news" value of Mrs G's whispered word was so great that the
> network just decided to let it go. What I'm not clear about is whether
> "bitch" thereupon became acceptable ever after (which is what I took
> from your original remark), or whether this was an isolated incident.

As I said, the word has been used in scripted dialog ever since (given
whatever lag was involved in writing next season's scripts).

The word "poop" has been all over TV for quite a while now. It was
probably never on any "banned" list -- "shit" was -- but it's something
that people just didn't talk about.

Lucy Ricardo couldn't say "pregnant" while Lucille Ball was "expecting"
(1953). Interestingly, the first time the Ricardos' bedroom was shown,
they had a big bed (bigger than the double beds of the time, probably
so it would show up well on the tiny screens of those days); the second
time, some weeks later, it was clearly two twin beds pushed together;
and ever thereafter -- still in their first season -- they had twin beds in
the occasional bedroom scene, like every TV couple for decades after.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.

What do you think "reads music" means, then? I've never encountered "can
read music" in conversation.

Maybe I'll ask our conductor what she means by it if I remember.

>>>> It would be unusual for a classically trained singer, of course. Even a
>>>> bunch of people in our amateur choir can do it reasonably well.
>>> According to Wikip, "In an interview in 2005 with Jeremy Paxman on the
>>> BBC, Pavarotti rejected the allegation that he could not read music,
>>> although he acknowledged he did not read orchestral scores."
>
>> Reading orchestral scores requires a number of additional skills, like
>> translating notes written in various clefs. Many singers only know to
>> read the one usually used for their voice - treble or bass - well and
>> struggle with the other of those two most common ones. People who
>> learned piano normally can do those two, but not alto and tenor clefs.
>
> Probably more important is transposing. Eric Weimer, whom I recruited
> to be the WCGC accompanist and a graduate student of the composer
> Easley Blackwood , was the accompanist of the Chicago Symphony
> Chorus, and Margaret Hillis could ask him to play, say, the 3rd trumpet
> and the 2nd clarinet part of a passage in Mahler's Eighth (I don't know
> why she would, but he could do it) -- which would be written in F and in
> Bb respectively -- and he could play them at concert pitch (i.e. C) for
> the use of the singers.

I called it "translating", but it's essentially the same thing. It's not
really transposing, which to me means playing something in a different
key than the intended one on paper, not a different one than it appears
to if you don't know the notation, but of course the relevant skills are
very close.

The instruments you mentioned basically use a different clef without
writing the actual clef.

Another skill involved is seeing so many notes spread out over so many
staffs as a unit.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
school.

> What do you think "reads music" means, then? I've never encountered "can
> read music" in conversation.

That is _exactly_ what I said I wondered about when I heard those
descriptions of Pavarotti and Sinatra (probably in that order). Contrast
Brian Wilson, who took Music Theory _in high school_ and was able to
write pop songs not limited to I - IV -V - I.

> Maybe I'll ask our conductor what she means by it if I remember.

What's her first language?

> >>>> It would be unusual for a classically trained singer, of course. Even a
> >>>> bunch of people in our amateur choir can do it reasonably well.
> >>> According to Wikip, "In an interview in 2005 with Jeremy Paxman on the
> >>> BBC, Pavarotti rejected the allegation that he could not read music,
> >>> although he acknowledged he did not read orchestral scores."
> >> Reading orchestral scores requires a number of additional skills, like
> >> translating notes written in various clefs. Many singers only know to
> >> read the one usually used for their voice - treble or bass - well and
> >> struggle with the other of those two most common ones. People who
> >> learned piano normally can do those two, but not alto and tenor clefs.
> > Probably more important is transposing. Eric Weimer, whom I recruited
> > to be the WCGC accompanist and a graduate student of the composer
> > Easley Blackwood , was the accompanist of the Chicago Symphony
> > Chorus, and Margaret Hillis could ask him to play, say, the 3rd trumpet
> > and the 2nd clarinet part of a passage in Mahler's Eighth (I don't know
> > why she would, but he could do it) -- which would be written in F and in
> > Bb respectively -- and he could play them at concert pitch (i.e. C) for
> > the use of the singers.
>
> I called it "translating", but it's essentially the same thing. It's not

That is simply not English.

> really transposing, which to me means playing something in a different
> key than the intended one on paper, not a different one than it appears
> to if you don't know the notation, but of course the relevant skills are
> very close.
>
> The instruments you mentioned basically use a different clef without
> writing the actual clef.

Good grief. In quite a few 19th-century works, the clarinetist is asked
to switch between Bb and A clarinets because this or that key was easier
-- or only possible -- to play on one or the other. They are written on the
same staff with the same clef, distinguished only by the notation at the left
end and the key signature (which tells the player which fingerings to use).
With the development of sophisticated systems of levers and open and
closed hole-caps, such as the Boehm System, switching became less
prevalent.

Stravinsky used both sizes in his solo work (in three movements).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pieces_for_Solo_Clarinet

Was it because he wanted to capitalize on the very slight difference
in timbre? Or was it to "ease" the fingering a bit? (The latter is unlikely.)

> Another skill involved is seeing so many notes spread out over so many
> staffs as a unit.

Well duh.

Cf. Penderecki's Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima, for 52 solo
string instruments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threnody_to_the_Victims_of_Hiroshima

Or, more relevant to a vocal accompanist, Vaughan Williams's
Serenade to Music, for 16 soloists (written for 16 specific singers)
and orchestra; can also be done by chorus.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:23:11 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:

> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:35:12 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Jerry Friedman:

...

Yes, having tried to follow a few orchestral scores, I suspect that's the main
thing Pavarotti said he was missing (if what he said was reported
accurately). One can look at all those black things on the page and give
up before one ever gets to the viola part.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:04:32 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:23:11 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:
> > * Peter T. Daniels:
> > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:35:12 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > >> * Jerry Friedman:

You might not even notice it, but each group (woodwinds, strings, etc.)
and each group within (the trombones, the 1st & 2nd violins, etc.) are
joined by different-shaped brackets/braces at the start of each line,
with at least a little extra space between the main groups. Just as in
books, typography should be invisible -- just guiding the eye without
the eye realizing it's being guided.

The "music-engraving" program I use, Finale, does all that pretty
automatically after you tell it which instruments are used in the
work. Presumably its main competition, Sibelius, does it too. And
a universal music-notation code has just been introduced, so after
everything gets converted to using it, you can open any score in
any program. (Like any word processor needs to be able to open
a .doc or .docx file, even if it doesn't use that format itself.)

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:


>> > Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
>> > It is not called "able to read music."
>>
>> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
>
>I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
>as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
>school.
>

Two important revelations!

I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
for "sight-reading".

Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
music in a.u.e..

The Committee must be creating offices and rules that have not been
revealed to us lesser mortals in the group.

However, El Presidente of Musicology makes a good point. If someone
has been talking about a subject since elementary school, that
obviously qualifies them to dictate the acceptability of related
terms. What other qualifications would one possibly need?
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/05/2022 5:52 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
>>>> It is not called "able to read music."
>>>
>>> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
>>
>> I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
>> as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
>> school.
>>
>
> Two important revelations!
>
> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
> for "sight-reading".

Well, what's "acceptable" depends on who is or is not doing the
accepting. But the two terms are not synonymous. Sight reading is
the skill of playing a piece sight unseen. Doing it well is
bloody hard - a lot harder than just reading the notes.

> Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
> music in a.u.e..

<shrug>

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[bruce bowser]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 12:52:56 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> > Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
> >> > It is not called "able to read music."
> >>
> >> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
> >
> >I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
> >as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
> >school.
> >
> Two important revelations!
>
> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
> for "sight-reading".
>
> Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
> music in a.u.e..
>
> The Committee must be creating offices and rules that have not been
> revealed to us lesser mortals in the group.
>
> However, El Presidente of Musicology makes a good point.

Or just lyrics?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 12:52:56 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> > Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
> >> > It is not called "able to read music."
> >>
> >> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
> >
> >I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
> >as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
> >school.
> >
> Two important revelations!
>
> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
> for "sight-reading".

No one has ever suspected you of musical literacy.

> Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
> music in a.u.e..

Oh, look. The "sage" of Orlando found another way to rag on Q.

> The Committee must be creating offices and rules that have not been
> revealed to us lesser mortals in the group.
>
> However, El Presidente of Musicology makes a good point. If someone

Try learning what "musicology" means.

> has been talking about a subject since elementary school, that
> obviously qualifies them to dictate the acceptability of related
> terms. What other qualifications would one possibly need?

Familiarity with the English language, moron.

Go pick on someone as intellectually limited as yourself.

> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
>
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

And vitriol.

[charles]

In article <kvj49hdbt6uhqtfti...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:


> >> > Once again, the skill you describe is called in English
> >> > "sight-reading." It is not called "able to read music."

To me, as an amateur musician, "sight reading" is the ability to play while
reading the score for the first time. It goes without saying that to do
this needs the ability to read music",

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 18:21:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 28/05/2022 5:52 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
>>>>> It is not called "able to read music."
>>>>
>>>> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
>>>
>>> I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
>>> as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
>>> school.
>>>
>>
>> Two important revelations!
>>
>> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
>> for "sight-reading".
>
>Well, what's "acceptable" depends on who is or is not doing the
>accepting. But the two terms are not synonymous. Sight reading is
>the skill of playing a piece sight unseen

I think your definition is missing a few words. It would be difficult
for anyone to sight-read a sheet of music when the sheet is unseen.

>> Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
>> music in a.u.e..
>

There are many openings for presidents of subjects talked about since
elementary school. Toss your hat in the ring for one before they're
all gone.

[charles]

In article <trs49h5tomuukgteq...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 18:21:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> >On 28/05/2022 5:52 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
> >>>>> It is not called "able to read music."
> >>>>
> >>>> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
> >>>
> >>> I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
> >>> as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
> >>> school.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Two important revelations!
> >>
> >> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
> >> for "sight-reading".
> >
> >Well, what's "acceptable" depends on who is or is not doing the
> >accepting. But the two terms are not synonymous. Sight reading is
> >the skill of playing a piece sight unseen

> I think your definition is missing a few words. It would be difficult
> for anyone to sight-read a sheet of music when the sheet is unseen.

"previously" is missing

> >> Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
> >> music in a.u.e..
> >
> There are many openings for presidents of subjects talked about since
> elementary school. Toss your hat in the ring for one before they're
> all gone.

--

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:05:00 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> In article <kvj49hdbt6uhqtfti...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > >> > Once again, the skill you describe is called in English
> > >> > "sight-reading." It is not called "able to read music."
>
> To me, as an amateur musician, "sight reading" is the ability to play while
> reading the score for the first time.

Which, of course, is precisely the skill included in what you deleted.

It goes without saying that to do
> this needs the ability to read music",

"I am able to read Shakespeare" entails "I am able to read Marvel Comics."

The reverse does not necessarily follow.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:15:27 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 18:21:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >On 28/05/2022 5:52 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>>>> Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
> >>>>> It is not called "able to read music."
> >>>> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
> >>> I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
> >>> as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
> >>> school.
> >> Two important revelations!
> >> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
> >> for "sight-reading".
> >Well, what's "acceptable" depends on who is or is not doing the
> >accepting. But the two terms are not synonymous. Sight reading is
> >the skill of playing a piece sight unseen
>
> I think your definition is missing a few words. It would be difficult
> for anyone to sight-read a sheet of music when the sheet is unseen.

In England they used to do an exercise in Latin or Greek class called
"unseen translation." It means translating a passage that the student
had never seen before. (I have a little book for Latin-students called
"Exercises in Unseen Translation.")

Heathfield's sentence is entirely consistent with that usage.

> >> Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
> >> music in a.u.e..
>
> There are many openings for presidents of subjects talked about since
> elementary school. Toss your hat in the ring for one before they're
> all gone.

Have you cleared that with the inventor of the usage, Quinn?

> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
>
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

And leaping to conclusions.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:48:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Perhaps you read "before" into Heathfield's statement. I didn't see
it.

>
>> >> Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
>> >> music in a.u.e..
>>
>> There are many openings for presidents of subjects talked about since
>> elementary school. Toss your hat in the ring for one before they're
>> all gone.
>
>Have you cleared that with the inventor of the usage, Quinn?

Quinn suggested "president of English language", and you modestly
claimed only the presidency of how to talk about music in English.

I'm waiting for Heathfield to claim to be president of talking about
what goes on behind the bike shed. I'm sure he's been discussing that
ever since he was in elementary school.

>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
>>
>> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.
>
>And leaping to conclusions.

And I have to modestly admit that leaping is no longer a motor skill
for me. I can reach out to the low hanging fruit that you present
here, though.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/05/2022 8:15 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 18:21:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/05/2022 5:52 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
>>>>>> It is not called "able to read music."
>>>>>
>>>>> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
>>>>
>>>> I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
>>>> as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
>>>> school.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Two important revelations!
>>>
>>> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
>>> for "sight-reading".
>>
>> Well, what's "acceptable" depends on who is or is not doing the
>> accepting. But the two terms are not synonymous. Sight reading is
>> the skill of playing a piece sight unseen
>
> I think your definition is missing a few words. It would be difficult
> for anyone to sight-read a sheet of music when the sheet is unseen.

Your objection seems artificial. To me, "sight unseen" means "not
seen *before*", not "not seen at all". <See
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sight_unseen>

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/05/2022 8:28 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <trs49h5tomuukgteq...@4ax.com>,
> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 18:21:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> On 28/05/2022 5:52 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
>>>>>>> It is not called "able to read music."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
>>>>> as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
>>>>> school.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two important revelations!
>>>>
>>>> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
>>>> for "sight-reading".
>>>
>>> Well, what's "acceptable" depends on who is or is not doing the
>>> accepting. But the two terms are not synonymous. Sight reading is
>>> the skill of playing a piece sight unseen
>
>> I think your definition is missing a few words. It would be difficult
>> for anyone to sight-read a sheet of music when the sheet is unseen.
>
> "previously" is missing

Not so. "Previously" is implicit in "sight unseen".

[Richard Heathfield]

I'm guessing that the term "sight unseen" is unfamiliar to you.
It has "before" built right in.

<snip>

[charles]

In article <393e6cb6-b9bc-43a3...@googlegroups.com>,

and it was also the case in French. However, it is now 67 years since I did
these exams, so I can't remember much about them.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 28-May-22 17:52, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
> music in a.u.e..

This and many other threads reminded me of something.

Alonso Quixano becomes Don Quixote, and is fully engaged in vanquishing
all manner of fanciful foes - and of course he must win every battle
since he refuses to accept any other outcome.

I can't imagine what brought this to mind.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Ross Clark]

On 29/05/2022 1:51 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:47:02 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>
>> OK, so at least in respect of this one word, movie scripts began to
>> include it in the mid-60s, though it would be bleeped if those movies
>> were shown on TV. And presumably, when screened unbleeped, those movies
>> would be given ratings designed to protect children's tender ears.
>
> You're being dense.

No, I'm not. I was referring to the big screen. Even when I was a kid
there were movies labelled "Adults Only". The Motion Picture Association
rating system started in 1968. (And the mid-60s date I found for the
emergence of "bitch" in movie dialogue coincides pretty well with the
abandonment of the Hays Code.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#Replacement_of_the_Hays_Code

or meant to say

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:15:28 +0100, Richard Heathfield

That is patently incorrect.

If you say "I bought a car sight unseen", it means you purchased the
car without ever seeing it.

Not only is "previously" not implied, the exact opposite is meant.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:13:21 +0100, Richard Heathfield

<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 28/05/2022 8:15 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 18:21:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/05/2022 5:52 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
>>>>>>> It is not called "able to read music."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
>>>>> as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
>>>>> school.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two important revelations!
>>>>
>>>> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
>>>> for "sight-reading".
>>>
>>> Well, what's "acceptable" depends on who is or is not doing the
>>> accepting. But the two terms are not synonymous. Sight reading is
>>> the skill of playing a piece sight unseen
>>
>> I think your definition is missing a few words. It would be difficult
>> for anyone to sight-read a sheet of music when the sheet is unseen.
>
>Your objection seems artificial. To me, "sight unseen" means "not
>seen *before*", not "not seen at all". <See
>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sight_unseen>

Your own definition contradicts you.

Compare:

"I bought the car sight unseen", which means I bought the car without
seeing it.

"I bought the car sight unseen beforehand" means I bought the car
after seeing it, but I had not seen it before it was shown to me at
the time I bought it.

[Ross Clark]

I think not necessarily. OED has two glosses for this:

(1) without previous inspection,
(2) without seeing the object to be acquired.

(1) has "previous" (your "before") built right in, but (2) does not. The
first citation is an example of (2):

1892 Dial. Notes 1 231 To trade knives sight unseen is to swap
without seeing each other's knife.

It seems to be particularly used for commercial transactions: you buy
something "sight unseen" on the strength of a verbal description, or
somebody's assurance, without actually seeing the thing you are buying.
Equivalent to buying a pig in a poke, or a cat in a bag.

They don't seem to have any citations which are clearly sense (1), but
when it was used here in the context of sight-reading, it seemed quite
natural to me. The expression "at sight" was used, IIRC, back in my
youth when I occasionally had to attempt sight-reading.

Just for the record, I agree that "sight-reading" includes a performing
(singing or playing) component as well as the reading itself.

And (on an issue raised elsewhere) I think that

reads music
can read music
is able to read music

are all perfectly normal English, just like

speaks French
can speak French
is able to speak French

And (furthermore) I do not intend to seek the presidency.

[Richard Heathfield]

No, sir, it isn't.

> If you say "I bought a car sight unseen", it means you purchased the
> car without ever seeing it.

It means you purchased it without seeing it prior to the purchase.

> Not only is "previously" not implied, the exact opposite is meant.

Incorrect. But okay, we disagree over the definition of a phrase.
(No big deal.)

[Richard Heathfield]

No, it doesn't.

> Compare:
>
> "I bought the car sight unseen", which means I bought the car without
> seeing it.

Without seeing it beforehand.

> "I bought the car sight unseen beforehand" means I bought the car
> after seeing it, but I had not seen it before it was shown to me at
> the time I bought it.

"I bought the car sight unseen" means that, with "beforehand"
implicit in the term "sight unseen".

Clearly we disagree. You think I'm wrong and I think you're
wrong. I suspect we will both survive the disagreement without
lasting damage.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/05/2022 10:43 pm, Ross Clark wrote:
> They don't seem to have any citations which are clearly sense
> (1), but when it was used here in the context of sight-reading,
> it seemed quite natural to me.

Thank you. And it seemed natural to me to use it. The mistake I
made was in assuming (without of course realising I was assuming)
that it would seem quite natural to everyone else.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Um, no. I quote
"sight unseen (not comparable)

1. (idiomatic) Not having seen the object beforehand. "

There is - for some reason - no sense 2 listed.

> Compare:
>
> "I bought the car sight unseen", which means I bought the car without
> seeing it.
>
> "I bought the car sight unseen beforehand" means I bought the car
> after seeing it, but I had not seen it before it was shown to me at
> the time I bought it.

FWIW, not being native, I agree with Heathfield. Possibly because,
officially, my education is in British English.

/Anders, Denmark

[Sam Plusnet]

The august seat of learning in Ankh-Morpork is called "Unseen University"

Coincidence?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Jerry Friedman]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 4:39:59 PM UTC-6, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 28-May-22 21:29, charles wrote:
> > In article <393e6cb6-b9bc-43a3...@googlegroups.com>,

> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote: ...

> >> In England they used to do an exercise in Latin or Greek class called
> >> "unseen translation." It means translating a passage that the student
> >> had never seen before. (I have a little book for Latin-students called
> >> "Exercises in Unseen Translation.")
> >
> > and it was also the case in French. However, it is now 67 years since I did
> > these exams, so I can't remember much about them.
> >
> The august seat of learning in Ankh-Morpork is called "Unseen University"
>
> Coincidence?

Well, I think it has more to do with the Invisible College.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_College

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 4:07:25 PM UTC-6, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 28-05-2022 kl. 23:30 skrev Tony Cooper:
> > On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:13:21 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> > <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 28/05/2022 8:15 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 18:21:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> >>> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

...

> >>>> But the two terms are not synonymous. Sight reading is
> >>>> the skill of playing a piece sight unseen
> >>>
> >>> I think your definition is missing a few words. It would be difficult
> >>> for anyone to sight-read a sheet of music when the sheet is unseen.
> >>
> >> Your objection seems artificial. To me, "sight unseen" means "not
> >> seen *before*", not "not seen at all". <See
> >> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sight_unseen>
> >
> >
> > Your own definition contradicts you.

> Um, no. I quote
> "sight unseen (not comparable)
>
> 1. (idiomatic) Not having seen the object beforehand. "
>
> There is - for some reason - no sense 2 listed.

> > Compare:
> >
> > "I bought the car sight unseen", which means I bought the car without
> > seeing it.
> >
> > "I bought the car sight unseen beforehand" means I bought the car
> > after seeing it, but I had not seen it before it was shown to me at
> > the time I bought it.

> FWIW, not being native, I agree with Heathfield. Possibly because,
> officially, my education is in British English.

Possibly. In my English, playing a score sight unseen is impossible.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Sam Plusnet]

Thanks. I knew about the Gresham group as a precursor of the Royal
Society, but not this.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Richard Heathfield]

Probably.

"Unseen University" is a (non-coincidental) allusion to the
"invisible college", a bunch of natural philosopher friends of
Robert Boyle and a possible early prototype of the Royal Society.

[Peter Moylan]

On 27/05/22 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:49:25 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz
> wrote:

>> The one TV series that turned up in this brief search was the
>> Australian series "Prisoner" (1979-86). Maybe only US TV held out
>> until Mrs Gingrich broke the barrier?
>
> What on earth?????
>
> If that series were ever broadcast in the US, the word would have
> been bleeped.

If you're talking about "Prisoner", it was indeed broadcast in the US. I
was there in 1979-80, and watched it on American TV. You might not
recognise it because the title was changed (for American distribution,
but apparently also in some other countries) to "Prisoner: Cell Block H".

I see that Wikipedia confirms this, even saying
<quote>
The series was so popular in the United States, in Los Angeles, it was
the second-highest-rated show after Charlie's Angels and was the
second-highest rating programme at KTLA-5 amongst 65 primetime
programmes transmitted through eleven Los Angeles–based stations on
Wednesday evenings at 8:30 p.m.
</quote>

It's too long ago for me to remember whether there was any bleeping. I
do remember that the characters included some real bitches, so the word
would have been used.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

On 29/05/2022 7:18 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 27/05/22 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:49:25 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz
>> wrote:
>
>>> The one TV series that turned up in this brief search was the
>>> Australian series "Prisoner" (1979-86). Maybe only US TV held out
>>> until Mrs Gingrich broke the barrier?
>>
>> What on earth?????
>>
>> If that series were ever broadcast in the US, the word would have
>> been bleeped.
>
> If you're talking about "Prisoner", it was indeed broadcast in
> the US. I
> was there in 1979-80, and watched it on American TV. You might not
> recognise it because the title was changed (for American
> distribution,
> but apparently also in some other countries) to "Prisoner: Cell
> Block H".

It was with that title that it was broadcast in the UK in the
eighties and early nineties. No bleeping IIRC.

[Peter Moylan]

I agree. That's how it is used when talking about sight reading.

And it's a skill that has to be developed from relatively early stages.
When I was doing guitar exams (which I only pursued up to Grade 4),
playing a piece of music I had never seen before was part of the
examination, even as early as Grade 1 IIRC. Of course the complexity of
the music that one had to play was different at different levels. I
think it was at about Grade 3 that we were expected to recognise and
play a four-note chord without hesitation - not all possible chords, but
the ones one was likely to meet in the keys of C, G, D, and A major.

These days I have to read music as part of learning a new choral piece,
and my ability in this is roughly as Jerry mentioned upthread. If asked
to sing from the score the first time, I'll manage only an approximation
because I'm reading at the level of "a medium jump up", "left hand down
a bit", and so on. But I can play it on the guitar, and then I'll know
how to sing it.

[Peter Moylan]

On 29/05/22 16:52, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 29/05/2022 7:18 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 27/05/22 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:49:25 PM UTC-4,
>>> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>
>>>> The one TV series that turned up in this brief search was the
>>>> Australian series "Prisoner" (1979-86). Maybe only US TV held
>>>> out until Mrs Gingrich broke the barrier?
>>>
>>> What on earth?????
>>>
>>> If that series were ever broadcast in the US, the word would
>>> have been bleeped.
>>
>> If you're talking about "Prisoner", it was indeed broadcast in the
>> US. I was there in 1979-80, and watched it on American TV. You
>> might not recognise it because the title was changed (for American
>> distribution, but apparently also in some other countries) to
>> "Prisoner: Cell Block H".
>
> It was with that title that it was broadcast in the UK in the
> eighties and early nineties. No bleeping IIRC.

In the 1970s there was a big jump, in both quality and quantity, in
Australian-produced TV series. I suspect that was because the Whitlam
government - the best government we have ever had - improved conditions
for the creative arts. Regardless of the reason, Australian drama
suddenly reached a number of export markets.

That run is well over, as far as I know. The only thing worth watching
these days is the Melbourne Comedy Festival.

Oh, we do get some weekly political satire, but it doesn't match the
quality of the satire of the past.

I'll be interested to see whether there will be any change in
Parliamentary Question Time. In the past this has suffered from poor
casting decisions, but there have been rumours that "Dorothy Dix"
questions will be banned.

[Arindam Banerjee]

It is all about quiz these days.
Bogans got their place in the sun in the series "Kath and Kim".
Nothing to beat that, what. The last word was spoken.

[CDB]

On 5/28/2022 5:43 PM, Ross Clark wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:

>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Tony Cooper wrote: < "Peter T. Daniels"

But "to be acquired" implies that the seeing would take place (or not)
before the acquisition, and the knives would usually be displayed for
comparison before any decision was made to swap them.

[CDB]

On 5/28/2022 5:30 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:

>>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

[reading music with your eyes shut]

>>>> Well, what's "acceptable" depends on who is or is not doing
>>>> the accepting. But the two terms are not synonymous. Sight
>>>> reading is the skill of playing a piece sight unseen

>>> I think your definition is missing a few words. It would be
>>> difficult for anyone to sight-read a sheet of music when the
>>> sheet is unseen.

>> Your objection seems artificial. To me, "sight unseen" means "not
>> seen *before*", not "not seen at all". <See
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sight_unseen>

> Your own definition contradicts you.

> Compare:

> "I bought the car sight unseen", which means I bought the car
> without seeing it.

> "I bought the car sight unseen beforehand" means I bought the car
> after seeing it, but I had not seen it before it was shown to me at
> the time I bought it.

But not after you had bought it, presumably. How does the word
"previously" make a difference?

It still seems to me that examination precedes decision unless otherwise
noted.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 5:14:13 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 29/05/2022 1:51 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:47:02 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:

> >> OK, so at least in respect of this one word, movie scripts began to
> >> include it in the mid-60s, though it would be bleeped if those movies
> >> were shown on TV. And presumably, when screened unbleeped, those movies
> >> would be given ratings designed to protect children's tender ears.
> > You're being dense.
>
> No, I'm not. I was referring to the big screen.

That's why you said "when screened unbleeped" in the context of
"when shown on TV"?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:18:35 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 27/05/22 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:49:25 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz
> > wrote:

> >> The one TV series that turned up in this brief search was the
> >> Australian series "Prisoner" (1979-86). Maybe only US TV held out
> >> until Mrs Gingrich broke the barrier?
> > What on earth?????
> > If that series were ever broadcast in the US, the word would have
> > been bleeped.
>
> If you're talking about "Prisoner", it was indeed broadcast in the US. I
> was there in 1979-80, and watched it on American TV. You might not
> recognise it because the title was changed (for American distribution,
> but apparently also in some other countries) to "Prisoner: Cell Block H".

Oh, I've heard of that. Did they include the word "bitch" in the broadcast?

> I see that Wikipedia confirms this, even saying
> <quote>
> The series was so popular in the United States, in Los Angeles, it was
> the second-highest-rated show after Charlie's Angels and was the
> second-highest rating programme at KTLA-5 amongst 65 primetime
> programmes transmitted through eleven Los Angeles–based stations on
> Wednesday evenings at 8:30 p.m.
> </quote>
>
> It's too long ago for me to remember whether there was any bleeping. I
> do remember that the characters included some real bitches, so the word
> would have been used.

No reason not to use the word regarding lady canines. Cf. tit.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 29-May-22 7:52, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 29/05/2022 7:18 am, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> If you're talking about "Prisoner", it was indeed broadcast in the US. I
>> was there in 1979-80, and watched it on American TV. You might not
>> recognise it because the title was changed (for American distribution,
>> but apparently also in some other countries) to "Prisoner: Cell Block H".
>
> It was with that title that it was broadcast in the UK in the eighties
> and early nineties. No bleeping IIRC.
>

We don't need no bleeping bleeps!

--
Sam Plusnet

[Ross Clark]

Usually, yes; but "sight unseen" describes the unusual situation when
they are not displayed.

[Ross Clark]

On 30/05/2022 1:06 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 5:14:13 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On 29/05/2022 1:51 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:47:02 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>
>>>> OK, so at least in respect of this one word, movie scripts began to
>>>> include it in the mid-60s, though it would be bleeped if those movies
>>>> were shown on TV. And presumably, when screened unbleeped, those movies
>>>> would be given ratings designed to protect children's tender ears.
>>> You're being dense.
>>
>> No, I'm not. I was referring to the big screen.
>
> That's why you said "when screened unbleeped" in the context of
> "when shown on TV"?

in contrast to

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 08:50:22 +1200, Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

There seems to some sort of pondial difference, but I can't understand
why. To me, "sight unseen" can mean only "never previously seen".
"Previously" meaning "before I take possession".

If I was a collector of pocket knives (which I'm not), I might tell
someone "If you come across a Buck 110 Folding Hunter, I'll buy it
sight unseen for $50.". That means the other person can send me the
knife without me seeing it or a photo of it and expect me to pay $50
for it.

>>> It seems to be particularly used for commercial transactions: you
>>> buy something "sight unseen" on the strength of a verbal description,
>>> or somebody's assurance, without actually seeing the thing you are
>>> buying. Equivalent to buying a pig in a poke, or a cat in a bag.

Well, a "pig in a poke" is a more general item than what I've
described above. To use the same example, and to make it a pig in a
poke, I would have to say "If you see an interesting old pocket knife,
I'll buy it sight unseen for $10." That means I'll pay $10 for any
old pocket knife that the other person thinks is "interesting". It's
more of a gamble for me, so I'll pay less.

[Ross Clark]

I don't see any pondial (or other) difference in understanding the
commercial use of the word, which is just as you say.
The problem in this thread has been fitting that usage with the musical
one, where "previously" means "before starting to sing or play what's
written". I don't have a problem with that, but it seems some people do.

> If I was a collector of pocket knives (which I'm not), I might tell
> someone "If you come across a Buck 110 Folding Hunter, I'll buy it
> sight unseen for $50.". That means the other person can send me the
> knife without me seeing it or a photo of it and expect me to pay $50
> for it.
>
>>>> It seems to be particularly used for commercial transactions: you
>>>> buy something "sight unseen" on the strength of a verbal description,
>>>> or somebody's assurance, without actually seeing the thing you are
>>>> buying. Equivalent to buying a pig in a poke, or a cat in a bag.
>
> Well, a "pig in a poke" is a more general item than what I've
> described above. To use the same example, and to make it a pig in a
> poke, I would have to say "If you see an interesting old pocket knife,
> I'll buy it sight unseen for $10." That means I'll pay $10 for any
> old pocket knife that the other person thinks is "interesting". It's
> more of a gamble for me, so I'll pay less.
>

That sounds _less_ general. Buying "a pig in a poke" is still "sight
unseen", right? But you are restricting it to a situation where you have
even _less_ advance information about your purchase than in the first
case you described.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 12:24:37 +1200, Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz>

Specific: a Buck 100 Folding Hunter knife
General: any interesting old pocket knife.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 29/05/2022 10:49 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:

<snip>

> There seems to some sort of pondial difference, but I can't understand
> why. To me, "sight unseen" can mean only "never previously seen".

That's what "sight unseen" means, yes.

I walk into the exam room. You hand me a piece of music. I've
never before seen that music. Perhaps you just wrote it
aleatorically and it didn't even exist until you printed it out
just now. But if I can play the notes right off the page, I'm
sight-reading it and you must give me full credit because I
played it sight unseen,

> "Previously" meaning "before I take possession".

"Previously" meaning "previously".

<snip>

[Richard Heathfield]

On 30/05/2022 1:42 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Specific: a Buck 100 Folding Hunter knife
> General: any interesting old pocket knife.

Can you distinguish them sight unseen? You've never seen either
knife. They sit side by side on a tray under a tea towel.

If when someone removes the towel you can tell which is which
with your first glance, you have distinguished them sight unseen,
whether or not you then go on to buy one or other of them. This
whole buying wild goose chase is nothing to do with sight-reading.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:59:04 PM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 30/05/2022 1:42 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > Specific: a Buck 100 Folding Hunter knife
> > General: any interesting old pocket knife.
> Can you distinguish them sight unseen? You've never seen either
> knife. They sit side by side on a tray under a tea towel.
>
> If when someone removes the towel you can tell which is which
> with your first glance, you have distinguished them sight unseen,
> whether or not you then go on to buy one or other of them. This
> whole buying wild goose chase is nothing to do with sight-reading.

But it has a lot to do with "sight unseen", which is what we're
talking about.

I checked the first 30 hits on "sight unseen" at COCA, the Corpus of
Contemporary American English. All but three were about buying or
renting or some such. One was about a jury's decision to allow a
child witness to be provided with a dog in the witness box for
emotional support. One was about someone's decision of what
university to attend. (It seemed he was recruited to play some sport
there and wouldn't be paying anything.)

One seems to be an example of what you're talking about. "Singleton:
When everything hit with Rodney King, for the first time ever, we saw
what we always knew - - brothers [black men] were being lynched by
the LAPD [Los Angeles Police Department] sight unseen over and over
again." (From a documentary about an incident where police officers
severely beat a black man, and the riots that followed when a
bystander's video was made public.) I'm not entirely clear on what
"sight unseen" means there, but maybe it means that the officers
presumably hadn't seen or particularly noticed the black men before?
Or hadn't seen them do anything that might be thought to deserve a
beating?

I think that those COCA results underestimate how great a majority
of American uses of "sight unseen" refer to commercial transactions
or other things where the process is over before any sight is seen. It's
no wonder that using it for reading a score or translating a text is
strange to us.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

Changing the discussion a bit...this is the second or third time I've
seen "commerical transactions" used in discussing "sight unseen".

Why "commercial transactions"?

That, to me, means a transaction where one or both of the parties is a
business.

In my knife example, where I would buy a knife "sight unseen", that
would be a "private transaction" because neither the seller nor the
buyer is a business.

A definition from the web: Commercial transactions is generally
defined as some sort of payment for a good or service. There are many
forms of commercial transactions, including those that occur between
two separate businesses, consumers and businesses, businesses and
government entities and between internal divisions of a company to
name a few.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 01:52:36 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 29/05/2022 10:49 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> There seems to some sort of pondial difference, but I can't understand
>> why. To me, "sight unseen" can mean only "never previously seen".
>
>That's what "sight unseen" means, yes.
>
>I walk into the exam room. You hand me a piece of music. I've
>never before seen that music. Perhaps you just wrote it
>aleatorically and it didn't even exist until you printed it out
>just now. But if I can play the notes right off the page, I'm
>sight-reading it and you must give me full credit because I
>played it sight unseen,

You played it by sight-reading, and it was previously sight unseen,
but the instant you looked at the page and started to read the music,
it was no longer sight unseen, so you didn't start to play it sight
unseen. You'd seen it.

>> "Previously" meaning "before I take possession".

In your example, "previously" means "before I looked at what was
handed to me".

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 01:59:00 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 30/05/2022 1:42 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Specific: a Buck 100 Folding Hunter knife
>> General: any interesting old pocket knife.
>
>Can you distinguish them sight unseen?

No.

>You've never seen either
>knife. They sit side by side on a tray under a tea towel.
>
>If when someone removes the towel you can tell which is which
>with your first glance, you have distinguished them sight unseen,
>whether or not you then go on to buy one or other of them.

Oh, for God's sake. They are no longer sight unseen when the towel is
removed, and after your first glance. If you buy them after that,
you are not buying them sight unseen.

This is something you can't figure out on your own?

What confuses you about the word "unseen"?

> This
>whole buying wild goose chase is nothing to do with sight-reading.

There are two separate discussions and two separate expressions. One
is "sight-reading" and one is "sight unseen". This sub-thread is
about the "sight unseen". No one is disputing anything about
"sight-reading".

[Peter Moylan]

On 30/05/22 14:20, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 01:52:36 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2022 10:49 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> There seems to some sort of pondial difference, but I can't
>>> understand why. To me, "sight unseen" can mean only "never
>>> previously seen".
>>
>> That's what "sight unseen" means, yes.
>>
>> I walk into the exam room. You hand me a piece of music. I've never
>> before seen that music. Perhaps you just wrote it aleatorically and
>> it didn't even exist until you printed it out just now. But if I
>> can play the notes right off the page, I'm sight-reading it and you
>> must give me full credit because I played it sight unseen,
>
> You played it by sight-reading, and it was previously sight unseen,
> but the instant you looked at the page and started to read the
> music, it was no longer sight unseen, so you didn't start to play it
> sight unseen. You'd seen it.

You might get a different opinion from people involved with music. In
fact, you have been getting that different opinion.

In music, sight reading means interpreting the music sight unseen: being
able to deal with a previously unseen a piece of sheet music. Both
expressions are used.

That it has a different meaning in buying/selling/trading is a different
question.

[Tony Cooper]

I'll go along with "previously unseen", but - to me - once you see it,
it's no longer sight-unseen.

>
>That it has a different meaning in buying/selling/trading is a different
>question.
--

[Peter Moylan]

OK, but somebody upthread has already cited a dictionary that says that
"sight unseen" has two different meanings.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 30/05/2022 5:20 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 01:52:36 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2022 10:49 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> There seems to some sort of pondial difference, but I can't understand
>>> why. To me, "sight unseen" can mean only "never previously seen".
>>
>> That's what "sight unseen" means, yes.
>>
>> I walk into the exam room. You hand me a piece of music. I've
>> never before seen that music. Perhaps you just wrote it
>> aleatorically and it didn't even exist until you printed it out
>> just now. But if I can play the notes right off the page, I'm
>> sight-reading it and you must give me full credit because I
>> played it sight unseen,
>
> You played it by sight-reading,

Yes.

> and it was previously sight unseen,
> but the instant you looked at the page and started to read the music,
> it was no longer sight unseen, so you didn't start to play it sight
> unseen. You'd seen it.

Evidently, we disagree over the meaning. We can continually
assert our positions to no avail or simply agree that we differ.

[Ross Clark]

The specification of the object to be purchased is more general, but the
situation is less general, if I'm right in suggesting that "pig in poke"
situations are only a subset of "sight unseen" situations.

[Ross Clark]

All I meant by that phrase was "buying and selling", and it's really
only buying (though there's also trading, and someone's mentioned
renting). They're exchange transactions, I guess; but giving each other
presents would not be included.

[Ross Clark]

On 30/05/2022 4:20 p.m., Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 01:52:36 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2022 10:49 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> There seems to some sort of pondial difference, but I can't understand
>>> why. To me, "sight unseen" can mean only "never previously seen".
>>
>> That's what "sight unseen" means, yes.
>>
>> I walk into the exam room. You hand me a piece of music. I've
>> never before seen that music. Perhaps you just wrote it
>> aleatorically and it didn't even exist until you printed it out
>> just now. But if I can play the notes right off the page, I'm
>> sight-reading it and you must give me full credit because I
>> played it sight unseen,
>
> You played it by sight-reading, and it was previously sight unseen,
> but the instant you looked at the page and started to read the music,
> it was no longer sight unseen, so you didn't start to play it sight
> unseen. You'd seen it.

But "sight unseen" does not describe the object. It's an adverb
describing the situation surrounding the action:

(1) I bought the boat sight unseen. (I had not seen the boat before I
bought it.)

(2) I played the music sight unseen. (I had not seen the music before I
played it.)

I think everybody is OK with (1), and only some people with (2). My
point is that they are parallel.

"Sight-reading" is simply a conventional term for the musical activity
described in (2).

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:52:50 -0400
Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 May 2022 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> > Once again, the skill you describe is called in English "sight-reading."
> >> > It is not called "able to read music."
> >>
> >> Tone it down, you are not the president of the English language.
> >
> >I am, however, "president" of how to talk about music in English,
> >as is just about everyone who has been doing it since elementary
> >school.
> >
>
> Two important revelations!
>
> I was not aware that "able to read music" is not acceptable English
> for "sight-reading".
>

> Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
> music in a.u.e..
>
> The Committee must be creating offices and rules that have not been
> revealed to us lesser mortals in the group.
>
> However, El Presidente of Musicology makes a good point. If someone
> has been talking about a subject since elementary school, that
> obviously qualifies them to dictate the acceptability of related
> terms. What other qualifications would one possibly need?

I hereby put forward my claim to President of "It's". I've been using "it's" and "its" for years and can sometimes go for days without getting it wrong. So I have vast experience. Vote for me!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:31:52 +0100
Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

> On 28-May-22 17:52, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > Also, I was not aware that we have a "president" of how we talk about
> > music in a.u.e..
>

> This and many other threads reminded me of something.
>
> Alonso Quixano becomes Don Quixote, and is fully engaged in vanquishing
> all manner of fanciful foes - and of course he must win every battle
> since he refuses to accept any other outcome.
>
> I can't imagine what brought this to mind.
>
It's a whirlwind of entertainment in here.

[CDB]

On 5/29/2022 4:50 PM, Ross Clark wrote:

Yes. I was lobbying for the "inclusion of previous" side.

>>> 1892 Dial. Notes 1 231 To trade knives sight unseen is to
>>> swap without seeing each other's knife.

>>> It seems to be particularly used for commercial transactions:
>>> you buy something "sight unseen" on the strength of a verbal
>>> description, or somebody's assurance, without actually seeing the
>>> thing you are buying. Equivalent to buying a pig in a poke, or a
>>> cat in a bag.

[sight reading]

[CDB]

On 5/29/2022 10:15 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:

I think the second: they stop the Black man without having seen any
specific evidence of crime. But the usage in the example is sloppy: the
men are considered suspects on grounds of colour (so not "sight
unseen"), but the police treat suspects roughly (the word "lynch" being
a rhetorical flourish) for resisting their attentions, not for
committing a crime if they go quietly.

[Ross Clark]

Yes, that was me, and on reflection I don't think they are two different
meanings. They are not from different sub-senses in OED; they are simply
parts of the same definition, separated by a semicolon. I would say they
were two different attempts to characterize the same meaning.

It's important to be clear that this is an adverbial expression,
referring to the situation/action as a whole; it does not describe the
object. The meaning is that subject performed the action *without
previously having seen the object*. That, I think, can be applied
equally to the financial and the musical uses.

[Jerry Friedman]

Since many people are discussing this phrase cite unseen, I'll quote the whole
OED entry:

1. f. /sight unseen/ adv. without previous inspection, without seeing the object
to be acquired. Originally /U.S./

1892 /Dial. Notes/ 1 231 To trade knives /sight unseen/ is to swap without

seeing each other's knife.

1898 /Yearbk. U.S. Dept. Agric. 1897/ 427 The intelligent farmer of today
has got beyond trading ‘sight unseen’ or ‘buying a cat in a bag’ when it
comes to fertilizers.

1940 F. D. Davison /Woman at Mill/ 94 I learned that he had selected
sight-unseen, that he had now come to look over his property for the first time.

1962 V. Nabokov /Pale Fire/ 82 I have had occasion to say something about
the amenities of my habitation. The charming, charmingly vague lady..who
secured it for me, sight unseen, meant well, no doubt.

1968 Listener 7 Mar. 303 I said you were mad to advertise our modest needs—
sight unseen—in the New Statesman.

1979 /Daily Tel./ 3 Feb. 34/2 I am recommending this [TV film], sight unseen,
because the first offering in the series..was so good.

So it seems that originally it applied to trading and buying and meant that
the process was over before the sight was seen. The extension to seeing
something only when the process starts, as performing music, seems to
have happened mostly outside the U.S. The OED could probably use an
example of it.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 8:24:50 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 30/05/2022 9:49 a.m., Tony Cooper wrote:

> > There seems to some sort of pondial difference, but I can't understand
> > why. To me, "sight unseen" can mean only "never previously seen".
> > "Previously" meaning "before I take possession".
>
> I don't see any pondial (or other) difference in understanding the
> commercial use of the word, which is just as you say.
>
> The problem in this thread has been fitting that usage with the musical
> one, where "previously" means "before starting to sing or play what's
> written". I don't have a problem with that, but it seems some people do.

There is no "musical usage" of "sight unseen." The practice is simply
called "sight-reading."

(And not, as Q suggested, "can read music.")

"Unseen" was inappropriately brought in by Heathfield, mistakenly
importing the usage from the BrE expression "unseen translation."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 5:55:48 AM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:

> But "sight unseen" does not describe the object. It's an adverb
> describing the situation surrounding the action:
>
> (1) I bought the boat sight unseen. (I had not seen the boat before I
> bought it.)
>
> (2) I played the music sight unseen. (I had not seen the music before I
> played it.)
>
> I think everybody is OK with (1), and only some people with (2). My
> point is that they are parallel.

Nothing wrong with "I sight-read the music -- I played it sight unseen."
Even Heathfield got that right. But there is no reason whatsoever to
add the second sentence. It is redundant. It is the very definition of
the first sentence,