OT: Neckties - Ping Draney
tony cooper
look. Walking through a major department store's men's clothing
section recently, I checked out the neckties and was appalled at the
prices they command today; more than some suits I've purchased in the
distant past.
That night, I watched Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows, and
then bits of Leno and Letterman. They all wear striking neckties, but
never seem to wear the same one twice. (JS and SC recorded; L&L live)
During news.individual.net's shut-down last night, I Googled
"Letterman +neckties" (OK, I was bored and I've finished the last
previously-unread book in the house) wondering if there was anything
about if celebrities like Letterman are given ties or buy their own.
First hit was a response by Mr Draney in another newsgroup:
alt.fan.letterman. Didn't answer my question, but leads to this: Can
you answer my question, Mr Draney?.
obAue: I consider this to be as important an issue as the proper term
for the object at the end of a light pull cord. Some may not.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
LFS
Jon Snow, famous journalist who presents the news on Channel 4 and is
Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University, is well known for his striking
neckties. I'm pretty sure that he buys his own but, if you like, I'll
enquire next time I see him.
I don't see much connection with English usage in your post but I note
that you included OT in the header. The post about the proper term for
the object at the end of a light pull cord had a clear usage content.
Relative importance is, of course, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Peter Duncanson
If even a single tie is woollen its sheepishness would bring the
whole subject on topic.
> The post about the proper term for
>the object at the end of a light pull cord had a clear usage content.
>Relative importance is, of course, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> Although I don't often wear one anymore, I like neckties. I like the
>> look. Walking through a major department store's men's clothing
>> section recently, I checked out the neckties and was appalled at the
>> prices they command today; more than some suits I've purchased in the
>> distant past.
>>
>> That night, I watched Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows, and
>> then bits of Leno and Letterman. They all wear striking neckties, but
>> never seem to wear the same one twice. (JS and SC recorded; L&L live)
>>
>> During news.individual.net's shut-down last night, I Googled
>> "Letterman +neckties" (OK, I was bored and I've finished the last
>> previously-unread book in the house) wondering if there was anything
>> about if celebrities like Letterman are given ties or buy their own.
>>
>> First hit was a response by Mr Draney in another newsgroup:
>> alt.fan.letterman. Didn't answer my question, but leads to this: Can
>> you answer my question, Mr Draney?.
>> obAue: I consider this to be as important an issue as the proper term
>> for the object at the end of a light pull cord. Some may not.
>>
[ ... ]
>
> I don't see much connection with English usage in your post...
Nor do I, but I also don't see any question, except for the question
"Can you answer my question, Mr Draney?", which reminds me of the sort
of question philosophers once liked to struggle with: is the set of all
sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself?
--
athel
tony cooper
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
I am firmly convinced that any post contributed by a regular
(respected or not) or semi-regular poster will eventually engender an
English usage point. If, for no other reason, because the readership
of this newsgroup reads as much for presentation as for content.
Someone will note that I have phrased something differently than they
would, differently than any careful writer of English would, or
differently than is done crosspondially.
You have no idea of the pressure that this puts on this writer. I
have stared at, and labored over, "differently than" trying to
remember if the proper term is "differently from" or if this is a
"who/that" issue.
It's entirely possible that this thread will not produce any
necktie-related comments (other than yours), but will branch off
immediately into some discussion of an English usage point.
> but I note
>that you included OT in the header. The post about the proper term for
>the object at the end of a light pull cord had a clear usage content.
>Relative importance is, of course, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Nick Spalding
on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:01:37 -0400:
> During news.individual.net's shut-down last night, I Googled
> "Letterman +neckties" (OK, I was bored and I've finished the last
> previously-unread book in the house) wondering if there was anything
> about if celebrities like Letterman are given ties or buy their own.
An excellent backup for NIN is Albasani
<http://www.albasani.net/index.html.en> a free German/Austrian server,
like NIN used to be, run by a couple of people as a hobby. Text only,
completion and retention just about as good as NIN, a bit slower.
--
Nick Spalding
Skitt
> LFS wrote, in part:
>> I don't see much connection with English usage in your post
>
> I am firmly convinced that any post contributed by a regular
> (respected or not) or semi-regular poster will eventually engender an
> English usage point. If, for no other reason, because the readership
> of this newsgroup reads as much for presentation as for content.
Well, alrighty, then. Your last sentence is missing a word, I'd say. Like,
maybe a "than"?
> Someone will note that I have phrased something differently than they
> would, differently than any careful writer of English would, or
> differently than is done crosspondially.
Yup, that's the ticket.
> You have no idea of the pressure that this puts on this writer. I
> have stared at, and labored over, "differently than" trying to
> remember if the proper term is "differently from" or if this is a
> "who/that" issue.
You done pretty good.
> It's entirely possible that this thread will not produce any
> necktie-related comments (other than yours), but will branch off
> immediately into some discussion of an English usage point.
What's a necktie? It that one of those things hanging on a clotheshanger at
the far end of my closet? Oh, wait -- there might be a wedding or a funeral
that I can't skip. Better keep those things for another ten years, or so.
Just in case. Anyway, now that's covered.
--
Skitt
R H Draney
>
>During news.individual.net's shut-down last night, I Googled
>"Letterman +neckties" (OK, I was bored and I've finished the last
>previously-unread book in the house) wondering if there was anything
>about if celebrities like Letterman are given ties or buy their own.
>
>First hit was a response by Mr Draney in another newsgroup:
>alt.fan.letterman. Didn't answer my question, but leads to this: Can
>you answer my question, Mr Draney?.
The necktie discussion in alt.fan.letterman seems to concern two points:
(1) "Does Dave ever wear the same tie twice?" - the answer seems to be yes, but
not often...some of the AFL regulars keep track of such things as whether Dave
steps off the platform to greet his guests when they walk out, whether he'll
kiss a female guest's hand, what songs the band plays bits of during the show,
and most recently what tie Dave wears...the general consensus is that Dave has
his ties selected for him by his wardrobe people (if you've seen any of the
photos of him away from the show, it's hardly surprising that his own fashion
sense is disparaged)....
(2) "Which way do diagonal stripes on Dave's ties generally run?" - the
statistics appear to favor the sinister orientation, from left shoulder to right
hip....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Mike Lyle
> tony cooper wrote:
[...]
>>
>> That night, I watched Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows, and
>> then bits of Leno and Letterman. They all wear striking neckties,
>> but never seem to wear the same one twice. (JS and SC recorded; L&L
>> live)
>>
>> During news.individual.net's shut-down last night, I Googled
>> "Letterman +neckties" (OK, I was bored and I've finished the last
>> previously-unread book in the house) wondering if there was anything
>> about if celebrities like Letterman are given ties or buy their own.
>>
>
> Jon Snow, famous journalist who presents the news on Channel 4 and is
> Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University, is well known for his
> striking neckties. I'm pretty sure that he buys his own but, if you
> like, I'll enquire next time I see him.
I think one needs to wear striking ties on TV (and, if you ask me, in
real life). Richard Whiteley rather shocked me once by telling viewers
not to send him any which weren't made of silk: he was right on the
whole, but what a cheek! But it did reveal that viewers take it on
themselves to send ties to presenters they like.
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> LFS wrote, in part:
>
>>> I don't see much connection with English usage in your post
>>
>> I am firmly convinced that any post contributed by a regular
>> (respected or not) or semi-regular poster will eventually engender an
>> English usage point. If, for no other reason, because the readership
>> of this newsgroup reads as much for presentation as for content.
>
>Well, alrighty, then. Your last sentence is missing a word, I'd say. Like,
>maybe a "than"?
I can't figure out where a word is missed or what the word might be.
A "than" after "reason" doesn't seem required to me.
>> Someone will note that I have phrased something differently than they
>> would, differently than any careful writer of English would, or
>> differently than is done crosspondially.
>
>Yup, that's the ticket.
>
>> You have no idea of the pressure that this puts on this writer. I
>> have stared at, and labored over, "differently than" trying to
>> remember if the proper term is "differently from" or if this is a
>> "who/that" issue.
>
>You done pretty good.
>
>> It's entirely possible that this thread will not produce any
>> necktie-related comments (other than yours), but will branch off
>> immediately into some discussion of an English usage point.
>
>What's a necktie? It that one of those things hanging on a clotheshanger at
>the far end of my closet? Oh, wait -- there might be a wedding or a funeral
>that I can't skip. Better keep those things for another ten years, or so.
>Just in case. Anyway, now that's covered.
In addition to a problem shoulder, I threw my back out last week. I
was told that I was walking like my necktie was caught in my zipper.
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> LFS wrote, in part:
>>>> I don't see much connection with English usage in your post
>>>
>>> I am firmly convinced that any post contributed by a regular
>>> (respected or not) or semi-regular poster will eventually engender
>>> an English usage point. If, for no other reason, because the
>>> readership of this newsgroup reads as much for presentation as for
>>> content.
>>
>> Well, alrighty, then. Your last sentence is missing a word, I'd
>> say. Like, maybe a "than"?
>
> I can't figure out where a word is missed or what the word might be.
> A "than" after "reason" doesn't seem required to me.
Apparently. It does to me, but that does not necessarily make me right.
--
Skitt
tony cooper
<athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't see much connection with English usage in your post...
>
>Nor do I, but I also don't see any question, except for the question
>"Can you answer my question, Mr Draney?", which reminds me of the sort
>of question philosophers once liked to struggle with: is the set of all
>sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself?
Does a question have to be phrased as a interrogative, complete with
question mark, to be a question?
Does the statement "I'm curious to find out if pine needles are a
recommended mulch for this type of planting. Where can I find the
answer to this question?" contain a question in the first sentence?
Skitt
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> I don't see much connection with English usage in your post...
>>
>> Nor do I, but I also don't see any question, except for the question
>> "Can you answer my question, Mr Draney?", which reminds me of the
>> sort of question philosophers once liked to struggle with: is the
>> set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of
>> itself?
>
> Does a question have to be phrased as a interrogative, complete with
> question mark, to be a question?
Sure. That is "an interrogative", by the way.
> Does the statement "I'm curious to find out if pine needles are a
> recommended mulch for this type of planting. Where can I find the
> answer to this question?" contain a question in the first sentence?
None that I can see. In English usage, that is.
--
Skitt
Mark Brader
> That night, I watched Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows, and
I am reminded of an episode of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" (first
US version), where one of the contestants (deliberately) wore the same
type of tie that Regis Philbin always did. It gave them something to
talk about before the game started, anyway.
--
Mark Brader | "...he entertained the notion that I was cribbing from
Toronto | other [students' exams] until it was pointed out that
m...@vex.net | I often had the only correct answer..." --Lars Eighner
Jeffrey Turner
I'd agree with Tony on this one, but that is not unusual.
--Jeff
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
--Dwight Eisenhower
Oleg Lego
If any departed or matrimonial celebrants want me to attend, they
should not expect me to wear anything but a clean pair of jeans, a
long-sleeved shirt, and cowboy boots with the shit scraped off.
LFS
<revises mental image of poster>
Commando, eh?
Oleg Lego
Unless that connotes something other than the "traditional" meaning of
"commando", no.
I just don't do monkey suits. Been there, done that, never willingly,
and stopped doing it as soon as I was no longer dependent on doing it
in order to earn money.
Oleg Lego
>Oleg Lego wrote:
Oh, and there is an image already available on the aue web site.
LFS
So there is. (I think you might have preferred my mental one.) Chap on
the right looks a bit irritable.
Oleg Lego
>Oleg Lego wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:46:52 +0100, LFS posted:
>>
>>
>>>Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If any departed or matrimonial celebrants want me to attend, they
>>>>should not expect me to wear anything but a clean pair of jeans, a
>>>>long-sleeved shirt, and cowboy boots with the shit scraped off.
>>>>
>>>
>>><revises mental image of poster>
>>
>>
>> Oh, and there is an image already available on the aue web site.
>>
>
>So there is. (I think you might have preferred my mental one.)
Drat!
> Chap on the right looks a bit irritable.
She is upset at being mistaken for a boy.
She is probably a tad miffed. She was approximately 6 months old at
the time, and was not at all comfortable with the halter yet, as she
had no halter training before I bought her.
LFS
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:11:59 +0100, LFS posted:
>
>
>>Oleg Lego wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:46:52 +0100, LFS posted:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If any departed or matrimonial celebrants want me to attend, they
>>>>>should not expect me to wear anything but a clean pair of jeans, a
>>>>>long-sleeved shirt, and cowboy boots with the shit scraped off.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>><revises mental image of poster>
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, and there is an image already available on the aue web site.
>>>
>>
>>So there is. (I think you might have preferred my mental one.)
>
>
> Drat!
>
>
>>Chap on the right looks a bit irritable.
>
>
> She is upset at being mistaken for a boy.
I think chaps can be girls as well. I think we've discussed that before.
>
> She is probably a tad miffed. She was approximately 6 months old at
> the time, and was not at all comfortable with the halter yet, as she
> had no halter training before I bought her.
>
And now?
Peter Moylan
I'm more like Skitt. I never throw anything out.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Oleg Lego
>Oleg Lego wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:11:59 +0100, LFS posted:
>>
>>
>>>Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:46:52 +0100, LFS posted:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If any departed or matrimonial celebrants want me to attend, they
>>>>>>should not expect me to wear anything but a clean pair of jeans, a
>>>>>>long-sleeved shirt, and cowboy boots with the shit scraped off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><revises mental image of poster>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and there is an image already available on the aue web site.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So there is. (I think you might have preferred my mental one.)
>>
>>
>> Drat!
>>
>>
>>>Chap on the right looks a bit irritable.
>>
>>
>> She is upset at being mistaken for a boy.
>
>I think chaps can be girls as well. I think we've discussed that before.
I wasn't aware.. sort of like "guys", I guess.
>> She is probably a tad miffed. She was approximately 6 months old at
>> the time, and was not at all comfortable with the halter yet, as she
>> had no halter training before I bought her.
>>
>And now?
She take to the halter well, but I haven't done much else with her.
She's a tad high strung (nervous) to make a good riding horse. I am
considering the possibility of purchasing some harness and teaching
her to drive. I would love to show her off in a parade, pulling a
carriage. She is a very good looking horse (if you are partial to
Appaloosas).
There are some later pictures of her (and her stablemates), at
http:\\www.pbase.com/lar3ry/animals. Her name is Kelly.
Al in Dallas
wrote:
What part of Oklahoma are you from?
--
Al in St. Lou
Oleg Lego
I have never set foot in Oklahoma. I have put up with monkey suits for
far too much of my life, and finally, have decided that if people
don't like the way I dress, that's too bad. The alternative is to not
expect me to be there. It's their choice.
Oleg Lego
Oops! I have indeed set foot (and landing gear) in Oklahoma. I was
there twice, for a total of less than 48 hours. It was the only place
I have ever experienced 98 degree weather at midnight.
Al in Dallas
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:21:24 -0600, Oleg Lego posted:
>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:57:54 -0500, Al in Dallas posted:
>>>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:25:11 -0600, Oleg Lego <r...@atatatat.com>
>>>wrote:
[snip]
>>>>If any departed or matrimonial celebrants want me to attend, they
>>>>should not expect me to wear anything but a clean pair of jeans, a
>>>>long-sleeved shirt, and cowboy boots with the shit scraped off.
>>>
>>>What part of Oklahoma are you from?
>>
>>I have never set foot in Oklahoma.
>
>Oops! I have indeed set foot (and landing gear) in Oklahoma. I was
>there twice, for a total of less than 48 hours. It was the only place
>I have ever experienced 98 degree weather at midnight.
You're the only non-Oklahoman I've met who insists that new blue jeans
are *dressy* enough for a funeral. Of course, when I was raised in New
Jersey, we also wore suits for all the major holiday get-togethers,
and now people don't do that.
[snip]
tony cooper
<alfar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You're the only non-Oklahoman I've met who insists that new blue jeans
>are *dressy* enough for a funeral.
For a guest or for the featured attraction?
Oleg Lego
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:30:52 -0600, Oleg Lego <r...@atatatat.com>
>wrote:
>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:21:24 -0600, Oleg Lego posted:
>>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:57:54 -0500, Al in Dallas posted:
>>>>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:25:11 -0600, Oleg Lego <r...@atatatat.com>
>>>>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>>If any departed or matrimonial celebrants want me to attend, they
>>>>>should not expect me to wear anything but a clean pair of jeans, a
>>>>>long-sleeved shirt, and cowboy boots with the shit scraped off.
>>>>
>>>>What part of Oklahoma are you from?
>>>
>>>I have never set foot in Oklahoma.
>>
>>Oops! I have indeed set foot (and landing gear) in Oklahoma. I was
>>there twice, for a total of less than 48 hours. It was the only place
>>I have ever experienced 98 degree weather at midnight.
>
>You're the only non-Oklahoman I've met who insists that new blue jeans
>are *dressy* enough for a funeral.
I don't consider "dressy" when I go anywhere. It's not that I consider
anything "dressy" enough for any given function (or not); rather that
I'll no longer go to any function that requires me to purchase a set
of clothing deemed by someone else to be appropriate for the function.
If I am not required to "dress for the occasion", I'll go, and the
folks there can like it or not.
Even when I used to wear monkey suits as required by my employer, I
never knowingly ate in any restaurant that had a requirement for a
jacket and/or tie.
Mike Lyle
I'm guessing your "monkey suit" means simply what I call a "suit", or
"lounge suit" or "business suit" (i.e., not tweed). Is that right? If
so, is it usual CanE? I've seen the expression used in USE for what I
call a "dinner jacket" (trousers are understood); but I don't think it
exists in OtherE. I have a vague sense that "monkey jacket" may mean a
bolero in BrE, but I'm not sure.
tony cooper
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Even when I used to wear monkey suits as required by my employer, I
>> never knowingly ate in any restaurant that had a requirement for a
>> jacket and/or tie.
>
>I'm guessing your "monkey suit" means simply what I call a "suit", or
>"lounge suit" or "business suit" (i.e., not tweed). Is that right? If
>so, is it usual CanE? I've seen the expression used in USE for what I
>call a "dinner jacket" (trousers are understood); but I don't think it
>exists in OtherE. I have a vague sense that "monkey jacket" may mean a
>bolero in BrE, but I'm not sure.
>
I haven't seen "monkey suit" used for years, but - to me - it means a
tuxedo. I understand that Oleg means any type of suit, but I picked
that up from context.
I could be wrong, though. Oleg may be a retired head waiter, and the
swanky joint that employed him really made him wear a "monkey suit".
Wood Avens
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:15:56 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
><mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm guessing your "monkey suit" means simply what I call a "suit", or
>>"lounge suit" or "business suit" (i.e., not tweed). Is that right? If
>>so, is it usual CanE? I've seen the expression used in USE for what I
>>call a "dinner jacket" (trousers are understood); but I don't think it
>>exists in OtherE. I have a vague sense that "monkey jacket" may mean a
>>bolero in BrE, but I'm not sure.
>>
>I haven't seen "monkey suit" used for years, but - to me - it means a
>tuxedo. I understand that Oleg means any type of suit, but I picked
>that up from context.
>
I think we'd call that a "penguin suit" in BrE. So why "monkey"?
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Mike Lyle
I found the energy to look in the dictionary, and find that in BrE it
seems to refer to various kinds of one-piece suit, from something
children apparently used to wear to flying suits. OED says that in
American use it refers to various uniforms and, yes, the tux. And, of
course, a fancy-dress monkey costume.
I was wrong about a "monkey jacket" being a bolero: OED says it's a
short close-fitting jacket.
LFS
That's odd. I have always known a "monkey suit" as a dinner jacket
(AmE:tuxedo) and a "penguin suit" as tails.
LFS
Not to be confused with a donkey jacket.
sage
Odd: I was thinking about tuxes and things the other day. "Monkey suit"
came to mind but only in the sense of white tie and tails. Consider the
profile ...
Cheers, Sage
Wood Avens
Hmm. On reflection, yes, I'm wrong, a penguin suit must refer to
tails. I don't think I've ever used "monkey suit" for a dinner jacket
(with black tie, as opposed to a white), though. And I still wonder
why "monkey". I suppose I'm missing something obvious.
tony cooper
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:15:56 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
>> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Even when I used to wear monkey suits as required by my employer, I
>>>> never knowingly ate in any restaurant that had a requirement for a
>>>> jacket and/or tie.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing your "monkey suit" means simply what I call a "suit", or
>>> "lounge suit" or "business suit" (i.e., not tweed). Is that right? If
>>> so, is it usual CanE? I've seen the expression used in USE for what I
>>> call a "dinner jacket" (trousers are understood); but I don't think
>>> it exists in OtherE. I have a vague sense that "monkey jacket" may
>>> mean a bolero in BrE, but I'm not sure.
>>>
>> I haven't seen "monkey suit" used for years, but - to me - it means a
>> tuxedo. I understand that Oleg means any type of suit, but I picked
>> that up from context.
>>
>> I could be wrong, though. Oleg may be a retired head waiter, and the
>> swanky joint that employed him really made him wear a "monkey suit".
>
>I found the energy to look in the dictionary, and find that in BrE it
>seems to refer to various kinds of one-piece suit, from something
>children apparently used to wear to flying suits. OED says that in
>American use it refers to various uniforms and, yes, the tux. And, of
>course, a fancy-dress monkey costume.
At least one store thinks that a "monkey suit" is any type of formal
wear: http://www.themonkeysuit.com/
I think that the average American considers any version of formal wear
to be a "monkey suit" if they do use that term. I think it comes from
the idea that the man is dressed up like an organ grinder's monkey in
an unnatural - to the ordinary man - type of garb. Which leads us to:
>I was wrong about a "monkey jacket" being a bolero: OED says it's a
>short close-fitting jacket.
That's what I picture the organ grinder's monkey to be wearing: a
short, close-fitting jacket. Mind you, I don't recall ever seeing an
organ grinder, or hurdy-gurdy man, with a live monkey.
>--
>Mike.
Skitt
> At least one store thinks that a "monkey suit" is any type of formal
> wear: http://www.themonkeysuit.com/
>
> I think that the average American considers any version of formal wear
> to be a "monkey suit" if they do use that term. I think it comes from
> the idea that the man is dressed up like an organ grinder's monkey in
> an unnatural - to the ordinary man - type of garb. Which leads us to:
>
>> I was wrong about a "monkey jacket" being a bolero: OED says it's a
>> short close-fitting jacket.
>
> That's what I picture the organ grinder's monkey to be wearing: a
> short, close-fitting jacket. Mind you, I don't recall ever seeing an
> organ grinder, or hurdy-gurdy man, with a live monkey.
Oo, oo, I have! Way back, in Latvia. Several times.
--
Skitt
the Omrud
Me too, although I can't quite remember where. Eastern Europe, I
think, most likely Prague or Budapest.
Researching organ grinder's monkeys, I have come across sites where
"organ grinder" seems to refer to the instrument. Is this common? I
mean, surely the instrument is an organ and the bloke who works it is
the grinder. One site talked about a man who had "bought an organ
grinder and a monkey".
- Who's that over there, Sergeant?
- That's an organ grinder, Inspector.
- Best steer clear of him then.
(ISIRTA, late 60s).
--
David
=====
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Researching organ grinder's monkeys, I have come across sites where
> "organ grinder" seems to refer to the instrument. Is this common? I
> mean, surely the instrument is an organ and the bloke who works it is
> the grinder. One site talked about a man who had "bought an organ
> grinder and a monkey".
>
> - Who's that over there, Sergeant?
> - That's an organ grinder, Inspector.
> - Best steer clear of him then.
> (ISIRTA, late 60s).
Gotta be a mistake. It's definitely the person, not the instrument.
(I've had a look in OED, too.)
Peter Moylan
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:30:17 -0500, Al in Dallas
> <alfar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You're the only non-Oklahoman I've met who insists that new blue
>> jeans are *dressy* enough for a funeral.
>
> For a guest or for the featured attraction?
The featured attraction needs a tie to hide the fact that the heads have
been switched.
Peter Moylan
> Hmm. On reflection, yes, I'm wrong, a penguin suit must refer to
> tails. I don't think I've ever used "monkey suit" for a dinner
> jacket (with black tie, as opposed to a white), though. And I still
> wonder why "monkey". I suppose I'm missing something obvious.
Wearing a monkey suit to attract women (I assume that's why we do it) is
a more sophisticated version of ape-like behaviour such as displaying pink
buttocks.
Now that I'm single again, I find that I dress a little more carefully.
I don't go as far as wearing a tie - that's reserved for weddings,
funerals, and court appearances - but I've moderated my sloppy look.
After all, it's unpredictable when I'll meet someone I'd like to sweep
off her feet. When I'm relaxing at home, where comfort is more important
than appearance, it's back to the torn jeans that have more patches than
unpatched material.
Al in Dallas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:30:17 -0500, Al in Dallas
><alfar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You're the only non-Oklahoman I've met who insists that new blue jeans
>>are *dressy* enough for a funeral.
>
>For a guest or for the featured attraction?
At one funeral I attended in Oklahoma, the featured attraction was
wearing a purple sweatsuit. Everyone except the daughter who had made
the decision was horrified.
Robert Bannister
Isn't a "penguin suit" one with tails as opposed to a dinner jacket?
--
Rob Bannister
Oleg Lego
Well, it's a suit or a sport jacket, with or without a "dress shirt"
and tie.I don't know the significance of tweed vs. any other material,
but if it's called anything like a suit, I call it a monkey suit.
> If so, is it usual CanE?
Probably not. Such is my scorn for them, however, I include them where
others might limit the phrase to tuxedos and the like.
Oleg Lego
Organ grinder. Dressed-up monkey. The idea, to me, is not so much what
exact "suit" is the one in question, but rather the whole idea that
when you dress a monkey up in something he doesn't normally wear, it
make him something other than what he is.
Any getup I put on in order to conform to some arbitrary standard of
dress, id a monkey suit to me.
Oleg Lego
Seeing that sight, I would assume that the dearly departed was an
unpretentious fellow who would not be caught dead in a monkey suit,
and that some loving member of his family had seen to his wishes.
R H Draney
>
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:20:08 -0500, Al in Dallas posted:
>
>>wearing a purple sweatsuit. Everyone except the daughter who had made
>>the decision was horrified.
>
>Seeing that sight, I would assume that the dearly departed was an
>unpretentious fellow who would not be caught dead in a monkey suit,
>and that some loving member of his family had seen to his wishes.
I remember some show where the deceased came back during a seance to recommend
to his survivors that they be buried in jogging suits...seems you have to spend
eternity wearing whatever they bury you in, and Heaven was crammed full of
people in itchy wool suits....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
R H Draney
>
>- Who's that over there, Sergeant?
>- That's an organ grinder, Inspector.
>- Best steer clear of him then.
>(ISIRTA, late 60s).
And that ain't chopped liver....r
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:20:08 -0500, Al in Dallas posted:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:33:45 -0400, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:30:17 -0500, Al in Dallas
>>><alfar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You're the only non-Oklahoman I've met who insists that new blue jeans
>>>>are *dressy* enough for a funeral.
>>>
>>>For a guest or for the featured attraction?
>>
>>At one funeral I attended in Oklahoma, the featured attraction was
>>wearing a purple sweatsuit. Everyone except the daughter who had made
>>the decision was horrified.
>
>Seeing that sight, I would assume that the dearly departed was an
>unpretentious fellow who would not be caught dead in a monkey suit,
>and that some loving member of his family had seen to his wishes.
And I'd assume he went to Kansas State, LSU, Northwestern, or some
other college with purple as one of the school colors.
She could have carried this far:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75528,00.html
Skitt
> Oleg Lego filted:
>> Al in Dallas posted:
>>> At one funeral I attended in Oklahoma, the featured attraction was
>>> wearing a purple sweatsuit. Everyone except the daughter who had
>>> made the decision was horrified.
>>
>> Seeing that sight, I would assume that the dearly departed was an
>> unpretentious fellow who would not be caught dead in a monkey suit,
>> and that some loving member of his family had seen to his wishes.
>
> I remember some show where the deceased came back during a seance to
> recommend to his survivors that they be buried in jogging
> suits...seems you have to spend eternity wearing whatever they bury
> you in, and Heaven was crammed full of people in itchy wool suits....r
Well, without a warm sweatsuit you could catch your death in the cold of
outer space.
--
Skitt
Richard Bollard
<pe...@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> wrote:
>On 17/09/07 06:57, Wood Avens wrote:
>
>> Hmm. On reflection, yes, I'm wrong, a penguin suit must refer to
>> tails. I don't think I've ever used "monkey suit" for a dinner
>> jacket (with black tie, as opposed to a white), though. And I still
>> wonder why "monkey". I suppose I'm missing something obvious.
>
>Wearing a monkey suit to attract women (I assume that's why we do it) is
>a more sophisticated version of ape-like behaviour such as displaying pink
>buttocks.
I think that's around the wrong way. Isn't it the females who
advertise their fecundity with technicolour cleavage?
[...]
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Amethyst Deceiver
> Now that I'm single again, I find that I dress a little more
> carefully. I don't go as far as wearing a tie - that's reserved for
> weddings,
> funerals, and court appearances - but I've moderated my sloppy look.
> After all, it's unpredictable when I'll meet someone I'd like to sweep
> off her feet. When I'm relaxing at home, where comfort is more
> important than appearance, it's back to the torn jeans that have more
> patches than unpatched material.
I wouldn't worry about it. I was swept off my feet by a man in jeans and a
t-shirt. He did actually buy a suit for our wedding but that was totally his
choice, and it's the only time I've seen him wear it. It's jeans all the
way.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> Now that I'm single again, I find that I dress a little more
>> carefully. I don't go as far as wearing a tie - that's reserved for
>> weddings,
>> funerals, and court appearances - but I've moderated my sloppy look.
>> After all, it's unpredictable when I'll meet someone I'd like to sweep
>> off her feet. When I'm relaxing at home, where comfort is more
>> important than appearance, it's back to the torn jeans that have more
>> patches than unpatched material.
>
> I wouldn't worry about it. I was swept off my feet by a man in jeans and a
> t-shirt. He did actually buy a suit for our wedding but that was totally his
> choice, and it's the only time I've seen him wear it. It's jeans all the
> way.
Linz, you are a lady of taste and discernment. But we already knew that.
Amethyst Deceiver
Peter, you're a gentleman!
Mike M
> I am firmly convinced that any post contributed by a regular
> (respected or not) or semi-regular poster will eventually engender an
> English usage point.
OK. How about the Pondian difference: "tie" vs. "necktie"?
Everybody in the UK knows what a "necktie" is, but they don't say it;
they just say "tie". Where else would you wear one?
Mike M
Oleg Lego
"Tie" in Canada, though I have heard the other occasionally. I am
surprised by your UK mention. I always thought "necktie" was normal
British usage.
the Omrud
Mike is right - it sounds American and is not used in ordinary UK
speech.
--
David
=====
Mike M
Nope. Whenever I hear it, I think "American",
It is quite curious that the names for items of clothing display so
many Pondian differences: trousers, pants, shorts, braces, suspenders,
vest, cardigan, sweater, bowler hat, derby hat, etc., etc.
Mike M
Peter Duncanson
Which brings us (me at least) to "clothes", "clothing",
"garments" and "apparel".
In the UK these words seem to be ordered by increasing
degree of formality as:
clothes, clothing
garments
apparel
In UK usage "apparel appears to be a rather fancy or
literary word . Judging by examples from US TV shows it is
in much more "ordinary" use there.
Is this so?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Father Ignatius
"Mike M" <mikm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1190632038....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Everybody in the UK knows what a "necktie" is, but they don't say it;
> they just say "tie". Where else would you wear one?
The margin is too small for a full reply, but maybe you'd care to skip over
to some of the bondage groups.
"Is that an avocado?"
"Yeah, right: that's an avocado, for sure."
Mike M
<FatherIgnat...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote:
> "Mike M" <mikmoo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190632038....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Everybody in the UK knows what a "necktie" is, but they don't say it;
> > they just say "tie". Where else would you wear one?
>
> The margin is too small for a full reply, but maybe you'd care to skip over
> to some of the bondage groups.
>
I knew somebody was going to say that.
Mike M
tony cooper
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>Which brings us (me at least) to "clothes", "clothing",
>"garments" and "apparel".
>
>In the UK these words seem to be ordered by increasing
>degree of formality as:
>
> clothes, clothing
> garments
> apparel
>
>In UK usage "apparel appears to be a rather fancy or
>literary word . Judging by examples from US TV shows it is
>in much more "ordinary" use there.
>
>Is this so?
Well, "apparel" is hardly an unknown word to us. Some refer to a shop
as a "Men's clothing shop" and some refer to the same place as a
"Men's apparel shop". Department stores have "Men's apparel" sections
and "Men's clothing" sections. I suppose some might think that shoes,
belts, wallets, etc are apparel, but not clothing.
Just about all references to "apparel" are to outside-the-home
references. We shop in the "Men's apparel" section, but we have
clothes or clothing in our closets. I don't think we ever wear
"apparel". I don't think we shop for "apparel" although we may shop
in the "Men's apparel" department. I don't think we ever say "What
kind of apparel was he wearing?".
I associate "garments" with dry cleaning establishments. They refer
to articles of clothing as "garments".
In stores, there are also "Menswear" departments. I don't think I've
ever seen it "Men'swear", but I have seen "Men's Wear".
"Women's" or "Children's" can be substituted for "Men's" in any of the
above.
R H Draney
>
>In stores, there are also "Menswear" departments. I don't think I've
>ever seen it "Men'swear", but I have seen "Men's Wear".
ObMixedMessage:
http://members.cox.net/dadoctah/images/menswear.jpg
Percival P. Cassidy
>> Which brings us (me at least) to "clothes", "clothing",
>> "garments" and "apparel".
>>
>> In the UK these words seem to be ordered by increasing
>> degree of formality as:
>>
>> clothes, clothing
>> garments
>> apparel
>>
>> In UK usage "apparel appears to be a rather fancy or
>> literary word . Judging by examples from US TV shows it is
>> in much more "ordinary" use there.
>>
>> Is this so?
> Well, "apparel" is hardly an unknown word to us. Some refer to a shop
> as a "Men's clothing shop" and some refer to the same place as a
> "Men's apparel shop". Department stores have "Men's apparel" sections
> and "Men's clothing" sections. I suppose some might think that shoes,
> belts, wallets, etc are apparel, but not clothing.
>
> Just about all references to "apparel" are to outside-the-home
> references. We shop in the "Men's apparel" section, but we have
> clothes or clothing in our closets. I don't think we ever wear
> "apparel". I don't think we shop for "apparel" although we may shop
> in the "Men's apparel" department. I don't think we ever say "What
> kind of apparel was he wearing?".
I don't know what the signs in the stores say, but many of the
advertising inserts we get with our newspapers seem to have replaced
"intimate apparel" by "innerwear." I still think or it as "underwear";
to me "innerware" suggests... Oh, never mind.
Perce
Nick Atty
wrote:
Were else would you wear glasses other than on your eyes?
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Skitt
> Mike M wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> I am firmly convinced that any post contributed by a regular
>>> (respected or not) or semi-regular poster will eventually engender
>>> an English usage point.
>>
>> OK. How about the Pondian difference: "tie" vs. "necktie"?
>>
>> Everybody in the UK knows what a "necktie" is, but they don't say it;
>> they just say "tie". Where else would you wear one?
When I was a wee tyke, I used to skip along on them, watching out for the
trains, of course.
> Were else would you wear glasses other than on your eyes?
I don't wear my glasses -- I drink wine from them.
--
Skitt
Wood Avens
wrote:
>> Mike M wrote:
>>> Everybody in the UK knows what a "necktie" is, but they don't say it;
>>> they just say "tie". Where else would you wear one?
>
>When I was a wee tyke, I used to skip along on them, watching out for the
>trains, of course.
>
Ah. In Britland those are sleepers. Ties are draws, of course.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Robin Bignall
Early Christmas prescience?
--
Robin
Herts, England
Robert Bannister
I was reading a particularly gruesome detective story recently where the
kidnapped victim had "hard plastic ties" round her wrists. Also, I
believe Americans call sleepers railroad ties.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Clothing shops use a quite different vocabulary from that used by
ordinary people. I discovered recently that our Australian shops call
the item that I know as as a short-sleeved jumper or pullover a "vest",
which struck me as very odd.
--
Rob Bannister
Barbara Bailey
> Mike M wrote:
>> OK. How about the Pondian difference: "tie" vs. "necktie"?
>
> kidnapped victim had "hard plastic ties" round her wrists. Also, I
> believe Americans call sleepers railroad ties.
Ah, what we would call wire ties or cable ties here in the American
Midwest. And you're correct, to USians (unless they're from a railroading
family) a railroad track is made up of rails and ties, the 'rails' being
the long skinny metal pieces and the 'ties' being the big wooden chunks
going crosswise under them.
Unless you're buying them at the surplus yard, in which case they
metamorphose into 'landscape timbers'.
Oleg Lego
Around these parts (Saskatchewan), "ties" default to actual railroad
ties, which are very handy for a number of uses. I just finished
moving a grain bin, and will soon be raising it to a height that will
allow the cats to get underneath in order to perform their
mouse-catching duties. It will be resting on railroad ties.
"Landscape timbers" are known around here as "landscape ties",
usually, and are very much smaller than railroad ties, of a much
different shape, and are pressure-treated.
Al in Dallas
A sleeveless sweater is called a *sweater vest* in Texas and Oklahoma.
I would never call a sweater vest a pullover *or* a jumper, of course.
--
Al in St. Lou
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:27:54 +0200 (CEST), Barbara Bailey posted:
In this area, there are three types: railroad ties, landscape 4 x 4s,
and landscape timbers. The first are actual railroad ties removed for
replacement by the owner of the tracks. Big, heavy, tar? covered
things. Landscape 4" x 4"s are square, pressure-treated wood.
Landscape timbers are 4" x 2.5" with two flat and two rounded sides
and pressure-treated. The second two come 8' long, but railroad ties
are shorter.
I just put in some landscape timbers around a planting area. The 4 x
4s and landscape timbers are sold at Home Depot, but the railroad ties
are purchased from the owner of the tracks or some company that
removes them.
Nick Atty
wrote:
>A sleeveless sweater is called a *sweater vest* in Texas and Oklahoma.
>I would never call a sweater vest a pullover *or* a jumper, of course.
Enlightenment dawns!
If the defining feature of a vest is being a sleeveless garment for the
upper body, then both common uses of the word (what the other calls
"waistcoat" and - er I don't know; what do you call underpants for your
chest?) are normal uses. We just have used the single word for a
specific sort of instance of it and lost the general version.
I'd always wondered why such different items got the same name.
Oleg Lego
Yes. They are treated with creosote, if I remember correctly.
> Landscape 4" x 4"s are square, pressure-treated wood.
Not sure I've seen these. I do occasionally buy 4 x 4s, pressure
treated, but they aren't advertised as "landscape", and come in a
variety of lengths. I recently picked up some 10 ft. one.
>Landscape timbers are 4" x 2.5" with two flat and two rounded sides
>and pressure-treated. The second two come 8' long, but railroad ties
>are shorter.
Those are what we call "landscape ties". Next time I'm in the BORG
I'll check their signage.
the Omrud
> If the defining feature of a vest is being a sleeveless garment for the
> upper body, then both common uses of the word (what the other calls
> "waistcoat" and - er I don't know; what do you call underpants for your
> chest?)
They call them undershirts.
--
David
=====
Mike M
Short-sleeved shirts, yes, but...short-sleeved pullovers? I can't
quite imagine such a thing. I could have sworn that all jumpers and
cardies either have long sleeves, or no sleeves at all - the latter
often being referred to as "tank tops".
(I'm speaking menswear here, of course. Wimmin wear all sorts of
strange stuff).
Mike M
Mike Lyle
"Cable ties" in BrEtcE, too; and, yes, I've seen pictures of them
serving as handcuffs in real life somewhere*. But you don't mention what
railroading families /do/ call the rails and and sleepers/ties ...
*Useful for other things, too: I keep forgetting to put some on my wheel
trims. You never have to drive far before seeing the result of omitting
the precaution.
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Oleg Lego
Wheel trims?
Could this be what we would call "hubcaps"?
the Omrud
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:04:34 +0100, Mike Lyle posted:
>
> >"Cable ties" in BrEtcE, too; and, yes, I've seen pictures of them
> >serving as handcuffs in real life somewhere*. But you don't mention what
> >railroading families /do/ call the rails and and sleepers/ties ...
> >
> >*Useful for other things, too: I keep forgetting to put some on my wheel
> >trims. You never have to drive far before seeing the result of omitting
> >the precaution.
>
> Wheel trims?
>
> Could this be what we would call "hubcaps"?
To an extent. Wheel trims are plastic; the clips often break,
making them liable to leave for their own adventures. To my mind, a
hub cap is metal and its disappearance can usually be spotted by the
clanging sound it makes as it chases you down the road.
--
David
=====
Barbara Bailey
$26371$8826...@free.teranews.com:
> Barbara Bailey wrote:
> "Cable ties" in BrEtcE, too; and, yes, I've seen pictures of them
> serving as handcuffs in real life somewhere*. But you don't mention what
> railroading families /do/ call the rails and and sleepers/ties ...
In a railroading family, the term 'sleepers' would certainly be recognized,
although 'ties' might still be used if the subject came up in conversation.
Mike Lyle
That's right. I wouldn't dignify the placky things with the solid manly
name of "hubcap". I mean, you can't cook chapatis in a wheel trim. Mine
even have fake nuts moulded in: I call that embarrassing.
Peter Duncanson
In my limited and not necessarily typical experience a
hubcap covers the hub leaving most of the wheel visible.
Wheel trim goes all the way to the wheel rim.
Terminology might vary when alloy wheels are fitted and must
be displayed to the world in spite of the risk of theft.
Philip Eden
They were always "sleeveless jumpers" when I were a lad. When
did "tank tops" come in? I don't remember hearing that until, ooh,
the 1980s (just possibly late-70s).
What do you get if you cross a sheep with a kangaroo ... no,
perhaps not.
Philip Eden
Beds, UK.
Philip Eden
I'm told that it is now very difficult to get hold of them in the UK
(at least in this part) because the Health and Safety Nazis say that
they are far too dangerous for gardens as they are full of oil and
lavatory effluent.
Philip Eden
Beds, UK
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Mike M" <mikm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Short-sleeved shirts, yes, but...short-sleeved pullovers? I can't
>> quite imagine such a thing. I could have sworn that all jumpers and
>> cardies either have long sleeves, or no sleeves at all - the latter
>> often being referred to as "tank tops".
>>
> They were always "sleeveless jumpers" when I were a lad. When did
> "tank tops" come in? I don't remember hearing that until, ooh, the
> 1980s (just possibly late-70s).
They've always been "tank tops" in the US in my experience (which, of
course, bounds both "always" and "in the US").
The OED cites it back to 1968 in the _New Yorker_. Looking at the _NY
Times_, I see ads for them back to 1951. I see it in scare quotes in
an article in 1951 (after the first several ads):
There are "tank tops"--made like a chemise or a slip with slender
straps and bare shoulders. [6/26/1951]
So that's probably right around when the term was introduced.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple
|That we couldn't.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Mike Lyle
> "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes:
>
>> "Mike M" <mikm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Short-sleeved shirts, yes, but...short-sleeved pullovers? I can't
>>> quite imagine such a thing. I could have sworn that all jumpers and
>>> cardies either have long sleeves, or no sleeves at all - the latter
>>> often being referred to as "tank tops".
>>>
>> They were always "sleeveless jumpers" when I were a lad. When did
>> "tank tops" come in? I don't remember hearing that until, ooh, the
>> 1980s (just possibly late-70s).
>
> They've always been "tank tops" in the US in my experience (which, of
> course, bounds both "always" and "in the US").
>
> The OED cites it back to 1968 in the _New Yorker_. Looking at the _NY
> Times_, I see ads for them back to 1951. I see it in scare quotes in
> an article in 1951 (after the first several ads):
>
> There are "tank tops"--made like a chemise or a slip with slender
> straps and bare shoulders. [6/26/1951]
>
> So that's probably right around when the term was introduced.
In OtherE, or especially AusE, that's a "singlet". A piece of underwear,
but, especially if navy blue, often the sole upperwear of the Australian
in the hole in the road or at the shearing chute. It isn't a sleeveless
pullover, which is, as described above, woolly, and often called simply
"a sleeveless": I think of that as a rather Oz clout, too. "Tank top"
for "singlet" was a rag-trade affectation of, as Philip says, the 70s or
80s
Mike Lyle
And also because they had to start importing them from central Europe,
having used up most of the domestic supply cremating cattle during the
last aphthous fever panic. They were enormous fun to work with.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes:
>>
>>> "Mike M" <mikm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Short-sleeved shirts, yes, but...short-sleeved pullovers? I can't
>>>> quite imagine such a thing. I could have sworn that all jumpers
>>>> and cardies either have long sleeves, or no sleeves at all - the
>>>> latter often being referred to as "tank tops".
>>>>
>>> They were always "sleeveless jumpers" when I were a lad. When did
>>> "tank tops" come in? I don't remember hearing that until, ooh, the
>>> 1980s (just possibly late-70s).
>>
>> They've always been "tank tops" in the US in my experience (which, of
>> course, bounds both "always" and "in the US").
>>
>> The OED cites it back to 1968 in the _New Yorker_. Looking at the
>> _NY Times_, I see ads for them back to 1951. I see it in scare
>> quotes in an article in 1951 (after the first several ads):
>>
>> There are "tank tops"--made like a chemise or a slip with slender
>> straps and bare shoulders. [6/26/1951]
>>
>> So that's probably right around when the term was introduced.
>
> In OtherE, or especially AusE, that's a "singlet". A piece of
> underwear,
Note that it's not a chemise or slip, it's *made like* a chemise or
slip. It's not underwear in the US and never has been as far as I
know. If an undershirt is described as a "tank top" it will be in
reference to the shirt.
> but, especially if navy blue, often the sole upperwear of the Australian
> in the hole in the road or at the shearing chute. It isn't a sleeveless
> pullover, which is, as described above, woolly,
Okay, a tank top here won't be wooly (a word I don't recall seeing
previously in this discussion). But it is a "pullover", and a
sleeveless one at that.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Its like grasping the difference
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what
|*is* a difficult problem. The day
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all
(650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't
|difficult...there's the leap.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe
Eric Schwartz
> Okay, a tank top here won't be wooly (a word I don't recall seeing
> previously in this discussion). But it is a "pullover", and a
> sleeveless one at that.
Only technically; I don't know anyone in the US who would ever
actively use the word "pullover" to describe any article of clothing,
much less a tank top. I recognize the word passively, but would never
generate a sentence with it unless specifically requested to do so.
And as far as tank tops go, if you call it a "pullover", you'd have to
call a t-shirt a "pullover", which would render the word meaningless
for all practical porpoises.
-=Eric (Impractical porpoises are much more common, and might appreciate it)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes:
>> Okay, a tank top here won't be wooly (a word I don't recall seeing
>> previously in this discussion). But it is a "pullover", and a
>> sleeveless one at that.
>
> Only technically; I don't know anyone in the US who would ever
> actively use the word "pullover" to describe any article of
> clothing, much less a tank top.
Hi, Eric. Pleased to meet you. In my house, both now and growing up,
shirts and sweaters pretty much come in two flavors: "pullover" and
"button".
> I recognize the word passively, but would never generate a sentence
> with it unless specifically requested to do so. And as far as tank
> tops go, if you call it a "pullover", you'd have to call a t-shirt a
> "pullover", which would render the word meaningless for all
> practical porpoises.
It's not a canonical pullover, but it is one for me.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A burro is an ass. A burrow is a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |hole in the ground. As a
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |journalist, you are expected to
|know the difference.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | UPI Stylebook
(650)857-7572
Al in Dallas
wrote:
Yes, that's what they're called in AmE.
Al in Dallas
wrote:
Sweaters were called pullovers when they were pullovers, but they
always had long sleeves.
tony cooper
wrote:
>Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes:
>> Okay, a tank top here won't be wooly (a word I don't recall seeing
>> previously in this discussion). But it is a "pullover", and a
>> sleeveless one at that.
>
>Only technically; I don't know anyone in the US who would ever
>actively use the word "pullover" to describe any article of clothing,
You don't? I would use "pullover" to describe a sweater that is not a
cardigan; a V-neck, turtle-neck, or crew neck. A sweater is the only
piece of clothing that I would use "pullover" to describe, but it
would be normal in that context.
Eric Schwartz
> Eric Schwartz <emsc...@pobox.com> writes:
> > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes:
> >> Okay, a tank top here won't be wooly (a word I don't recall seeing
> >> previously in this discussion). But it is a "pullover", and a
> >> sleeveless one at that.
> >
> > Only technically; I don't know anyone in the US who would ever
> > actively use the word "pullover" to describe any article of
> > clothing, much less a tank top.
>
> Hi, Eric. Pleased to meet you. In my house, both now and growing up,
> shirts and sweaters pretty much come in two flavors: "pullover" and
> "button".
Fair enough; there goes a perfectly good line, but what can you do
with facts? Stupid facts.
FWIW, In my house, both now and growing up, it's only a sweater if it
doesn't have any buttons; sweaters with buttons are either sweater
vests, if they are armless*, or something completely indeterminate if
they aren't, being as we never wore them. Either it was cold enough
to wear sweaters, in which case we did, or it wasn't, in which case we
wore a jacket, or possibly a coat.
* Sweater vests didn't count as sweaters in the sense that if you
asked for a sweater, and were presented with a sweater vest, you'd
send it back and remind the presenter you asked for a sweater.
-=Eric
Eric Schwartz
Well, clearly I'm defective, pullover-experience-wise, as you, Evan,
and Al all agree that it is common usage. I just can't ever recall
coming across the word except in writing, and that primarily (I'd say
exclusively, but then I'll remember an exception 5 seconds after
hitting 'Send') in fiction.
I guess I will have to say "I know at least three people in the US who
actively use the word 'pullover'" from now on.
-=Eric