"sneaky suspicion" v "sneaking suspicion"
Maria C.
is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
which version do you personally use?
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
Maria C.
![Reinhold [Rey] Aman's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWaT0LUDfKA5mIbowVbHAIA3z5Ut7Y8IMosdHd3OIhPWDnj=s40-c)
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
[...]
> * Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers," of course. From "AUE" + "-er."
~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~
Mark Brader
> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No.
> * Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "One thing that surprises you about this business
m...@vex.net | is the surprises." -- Tim Baker
R H Draney
>
>In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
>is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
>common.
>
>My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
>so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
>which version do you personally use?
A "sneaking suspicion" is one that you arrive at in tiny increments...a "sneaky
suspicion", if there is such a thing, is suspecting that someone is being
sneaky....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Robert Lieblich
>
> Maria Conlon:
> > In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
> > is used. ...
> > My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
>
> No.
>
> > * Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
>
> "AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
Agreed. (How could I possibly disagree with Rey?) But in the
original post, the footnote should have been punctuated:
-- Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs"?
Both sides of the pond.
--
Bob Lieblich
Both sides now
Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
Raymond O'Hara
"Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gfn5t9$kcv$1...@aioe.org...
> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion" is
> used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more common.
>
> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
> so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And, which
> version do you personally use?
NO
dearcilla
I'm under 40, and I tend towards "sneaking suspicion" but I'm sure
I've heard the alternate too.
It sort of seems to me that a sneaking suspicion creeps up on you, but
a sneaky suspicion is one _you_ are creeping up on.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
>is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
>common.
>
>My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
Not until today.
> If
>so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
>which version do you personally use?
>
>* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
I've only seen "AUEers" used as the colloquial form of "AUE members",
which is an informal way of writing "alt.usage.english members", of
course, recognizing that "members" occasionally causes some
definitional problems for newcomers, who are informally and fondly
known as "newbies" in this and in other newsgroups.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Maria C.
> Maria Conlon:
>> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
>> suspicion" is used. ...
>> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
>
> No.
>
>> * Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
>
> "AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
That's what I thought, but I was having a brief, broken synapse ("senior
moment") at the time and couldn't recall what abbreviation I usually
use. And no, I have no idea if "broken synapse" works in that sentence,
but there it is. I like it.
Note: Part of what Mark's deletion ("...") stands for is 'Google shows
that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more common.' (I wish you
handn't deleted that part, Mark. I don't want people thinking I'd use
"sneaky" in the phrase being discussed.)
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
Note from Maria: My server doesn't have Bob's post, and I don't have Bob
blocked. ????
>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>> Maria Conlon wrote:
>>>> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
>>>> suspicion" is used. ...
>>>> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky"
>>>> version?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> * Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
>>>
>>> "AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
>>
>> Agreed. (How could I possibly disagree with Rey?) But in the
>> original post, the footnote should have been punctuated:
>>
>> -- Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs"?
True.
>> Both sides of the pond.
Ditto.
>
> What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> "Maria C." wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> * Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
>
> "AUEers," of course. From "AUE" + "-er."
Thanks, and please see my reply to Mark for an explanation for my
question.
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Maria C. filted:
>>
>> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
>> suspicion" is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I
>> use) is more common.
>>
>> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky"
>> version? If so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40
>> or so)? And, which version do you personally use?
>
> A "sneaking suspicion" is one that you arrive at in tiny
> increments...a "sneaky suspicion", if there is such a thing, is
> suspecting that someone is being sneaky....r
Hmm. I sort of thought that a "sneaky suspicion" might be one in which
the suspector was being sneaky -- maybe by planting the suspiction in
the minds of people who aren't usually so suspicious.
More likely, though, a "sneaky suspicion" is a sister to "another thing
coming."
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
>> suspicion" is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I
>> use) is more common. My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard
>> the "sneaky"
>> version? If so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40
>> or so)? And, which version do you personally use?
>
> NO
Is that an emphatic "no" or an initialism of sorts? (I suppose it could
stand for Neither One, but that wouldn't quite fit.)
--
Maria C.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
>> What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
>
> What "er signs"?
Elizabetha Regina (2nd June 1953 was the day when her Gracious Majesty
was crowned -- curious that I remember the exact date after more than
half a century, when more significant dates have faded from memory).
--
athel
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
>> suspicion" is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I
>> use) is more common.
>>
>> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky"
>> version? If so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40
>> or so)? And, which version do you personally use?
>>
> I'm under 40, and I tend towards "sneaking suspicion" but I'm sure
> I've heard the alternate too.
>
> It sort of seems to me that a sneaking suspicion creeps up on you, but
> a sneaky suspicion is one _you_ are creeping up on.
However, the "sneaky suspicion" I mentioned was used in the sense of a
"sneaking suspicion" -- as far as I could determine. The cat allegedly
making the statement may well adhere to a different (and higher) set of
rules than we mere humans do, of course.
--
Maria C.
Irwell
All along the Mall and other places in 1953 London.
Ian Jackson
writes
Coronation Day 2 June, 1953!
--
Ian
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:44:24 -0500:
> Irwell wrote:
> > Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> Note from Maria: My server doesn't have Bob's post, and I don't have Bob
> blocked. ????
You are posting via aioe and presumably reading that way too. It misses
a lot of posts. Totals for a number of servers for aue for the last 28
days:
<fixed pitch>
alt.usage.english
Merge IOL NIN APN ALB AIO MOZ NDD TNV
Total 6881 6841 6829 6880 6835 4944 6847 6834 6835
Avg. 246 244 244 246 244 177 245 244 244
99.42% 99.24% 99.99% 99.33% 71.85% 99.51% 99.32% 99.33%
IOL – My ISP's server
NIN – news.individual.net - EUR10 p.a.
APN – Forté's rebadged Easynews - $2.95 p.m. for 12GB
ALB – news.albasani.net - free
AIO – news.aioe.org - free
MOZ – news.motzarella.org - free
NDD – news.datemas.de - free
TNV – news.tornevall.net - free
--
Nick Spalding
Mark Brader
>>> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
>>> suspicion" is used. ...
>>> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
Maria Conlon:
> Note: Part of what Mark's deletion ("...") stands for is 'Google shows
> that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more common.' (I wish you
> handn't deleted that part, Mark. I don't want people thinking I'd use
> "sneaky" in the phrase being discussed.)
Huh? I deleted, as usual, the content that I was not responding to.
I don't see why anyone would make such an assumption about your usage
from the sentence as shortened.
--
Mark Brader | "...i will have hideous nightmares involving huge
Toronto | monsters in academic robes carrying long bloody
m...@vex.net | butcher knives labelled Excerpt, Selection,
| Passage and Abridged." -- Helene Hanff
Maria C.
> Maria Conlon (as previously quoted by me, Mark Brader):
>>>> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
>>>> suspicion" is used. ...
>>>> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky"
>>>> version?
>
> Maria Conlon:
>> Note: Part of what Mark's deletion ("...") stands for is 'Google
>> shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more common.' (I
>> wish you handn't deleted that part, Mark. I don't want people
>> thinking I'd use "sneaky" in the phrase being discussed.)
>
> Huh? I deleted, as usual, the content that I was not responding to.
> I don't see why anyone would make such an assumption about your usage
> from the sentence as shortened.
Maybe I'm suffering from STS: Buffalo Springfield, For What It's Worth,
Paranoia....
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>
>> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
>> suspicion" is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I
>> use) is more common.
>>
>> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
>
> Not until today.
I hadn't seen it before. And if I'd heard it, I must have heard it as
"sneaking." Mishearing is, no doubt, why there are 47,900 instances (per
Google) of "sneaky suspicion."
>> If
>> so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
>> which version do you personally use?
>>
>> * Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
>
> I've only seen "AUEers" used as the colloquial form of "AUE members",
> which is an informal way of writing "alt.usage.english members", of
> course, recognizing that "members" occasionally causes some
> definitional problems for newcomers, who are informally and fondly
> known as "newbies" in this and in other newsgroups.
I've been writing "AUEers" for a long time. Suddenly, it just didn't
look right. Crazy.
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Maria C wrote, in part:
>> Note from Maria: My server doesn't have Bob's post, and I don't have
>> Bob blocked. ????
>
> You are posting via aioe and presumably reading that way too. It
> misses a lot of posts. [stats]
You are right about where I was posting from. It was an inadvertency. I
had downloaded aioe for reasons I've now forgotten. I'm deleting it, and
reverting to my regular server/whatever.
Thanks for the heads up, Nick.
--
Maria C.
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
[...]
> I've been writing "AUEers" for a long time. Suddenly, it just didn't
> look right. Crazy.
I'm sure you're mistaken, Maria. The reason why "AUEers" didn't look
right to you is this: Like about a dozen other RRs, you usually write
"aue" and other *lowercase* derivatives.
I've posted about this matter several years ago, recommending the
standard "AUE" and "AUEer."
Anyone interested can search Google groups for users of "aue," "aueer,"
"aue-er," "a.u.e.er," "a.u.e.-er" and similar visual atrocities.
Wood Avens
wrote:
>Irwell wrote:
>> What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
>
>What "er signs"?
Those people on or around 2 June 1953, who weren't quite sure why
everyone else was putting out flags and so put up their own signs with
"er ... er ..." on them.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
the Omrud
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:44:24 -0500, "Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Irwell wrote:
>
>>> What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
>> What "er signs"?
>
> Those people on or around 2 June 1953, who weren't quite sure why
> everyone else was putting out flags and so put up their own signs with
> "er ... er ..." on them.
As in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY-GPnyD6Fw
--
David
Robert Bannister
I only remember it because I had been off sick, and when I returned to
school, I discovered I had been entered in and had won the ballot in my
class to attend. I spent several hours standing in the drizzle behind a
very tall policeman. I don't think I actually saw 'er.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Maria C. filted:
>> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
>> is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
>> common.
>>
>> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
>> so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
>> which version do you personally use?
>
> A "sneaking suspicion" is one that you arrive at in tiny increments...a "sneaky
> suspicion", if there is such a thing, is suspecting that someone is being
> sneaky....r
>
>
I have a sneaking suspicion that it's more likely to be people
mishearing the original.
--
Rob Bannister
John Varela
(in article <ulo0i4pl5pt7cqjnl...@4ax.com>):
> Totals for a number of servers for aue for the last 28
> days:
>
> <fixed pitch>
> alt.usage.english
> Merge IOL NIN APN ALB AIO MOZ NDD
> TNV
> Total 6881 6841 6829 6880 6835 4944 6847 6834
> 6835
> Avg. 246 244 244 246 244 177 245 244
> 244
> 99.42% 99.24% 99.99% 99.33% 71.85% 99.51% 99.32%
> 99.33%
I suppose the minor differences result from varying spam suppression
results.
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
>
> Rey wrote:
> >Maria C. wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> I've been writing "AUEers" for a long time. Suddenly, it just
> >> didn't look right. Crazy.
> >
> > I'm sure you're mistaken, Maria. The reason why "AUEers" didn't
> > look right to you is this: Like about a dozen other RRs, you
> > usually write "aue" and other *lowercase* derivatives.
> >
> > the standard "AUE" and "AUEer."
> >
> > Anyone interested can search Google groups for users of "aue,"
> > "aueer," "aue-er," "a.u.e.er," "a.u.e.-er" and similar visual
> > atrocities.
>
>
I don't take ANY credit for *creating* or *coining* "AUE" and "AUEer,"
nor do I take ANY credit for being the *first* user of them.
>
> I believe I was using AUE early on, and I think, before you. As far
> as AUEer, I also used that as consistent usage deriving from AUE early
> on. The question is who was the first to use AUE and AUEer?
I don't care. Note that I wrote above that several years ago I only
*RECOMMENDED* "AUE" and "AUEer" as the standard, reacting to a variety
of ugly spellings and variants (see above). Several of the ugliest ones
are still used today by at least three females.
At that time, Evan posted something about who used "AUE" (and perhaps
"AUEer") first and/or before me, including the year, if I remember
correctly. I don't think your name was among the very early users, Murray.
--
Mark Brader
>>> What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
Maria Conlon:
>> What "er signs"?
Katy Jennison:
> Those people on or around 2 June 1953, who weren't quite sure why
> everyone else was putting out flags and so put up their own signs with
> "er ... er ..." on them.
Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
#define MSB(type) (~(((unsigned type)-1)>>1))
Ian Jackson
<m...@vex.net> writes
>"Irwell":
>>>> What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
>
>Maria Conlon:
>>> What "er signs"?
>
>Katy Jennison:
>> Those people on or around 2 June 1953, who weren't quite sure why
>> everyone else was putting out flags and so put up their own signs with
>> "er ... er ..." on them.
>
>Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
>when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
is only E1R for Scotland. There was a lot of debate about it at the
time. Of course, the previous Pope, John-Paul the Second, was known (in
some circles, in the Starwars days) as J2P2.
--
Ian
John Holmes
> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
> is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
> common.
>
> My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No, never.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Irwell
We went cycling around Box Hill on that day, about the only people in
Southern England not glued to the telly. Heard about Hilary/Tensing
climbing Everest, curious coincindence.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I've been writing "AUEers" for a long time. Suddenly, it just didn't
>> look right. Crazy.
>
> I'm sure you're mistaken, Maria. The reason why "AUEers" didn't look
> right to you is this: Like about a dozen other RRs, you usually write
> "aue" and other *lowercase* derivatives.
Well, "a long time" is relative, yes?
Actually, the reason I frequenty type "aue" (sans quotes) is because it
saves shifting to caps (and then unshifting). But "aue" is, I admit,
incorrect. (Hmm, or is it? The group is listed as "alt.usage.english" in
the list of groups. So why are caps obligatory?)
>
> I've posted about this matter several years ago, recommending the
> standard "AUE" and "AUEer."
That's probably why I switched to "AUE" and "AUEers" at some point.
> Anyone interested can search Google groups for users of "aue,"
> "aueer," "aue-er," "a.u.e.er," "a.u.e.-er" and similar visual
> atrocities.
I may be guilty of "aue-ers" or even "aue'ers." (Note: "aueer" looks
like a typo for "queer.")
Actually, we may want a new reference/designation for the people who
post to alt.usage.english. A couple of ideas: "the e-gang" or "the
e-posters." The 'e' serves for "english" or for "electronic."
Not too serious,
Maria C.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Rey wrote:
>>
>>At that time, Evan posted something about who used "AUE" (and perhaps
>>"AUEer") first and/or before me, including the year, if I remember
>>correctly. I don't think your name was among the very early users, Murray.
>>
>
>Rey, I'm rarely quoted. That's of no particular matter; I make an effort
>at making my presence ephemeral. I did notice, however, at the time I
>started writing "AUE," "A.U.E" was the common form. But as you would
>correctly put it "who really gives a shit"? This is just some of the
>useless trivia that overburdens my brain.
If not the first I believe I was one of the first to write "AUEer",
not that I really give a FRA who wrote it first.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
JimboCat
> In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
> is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
> common.
>
> so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
> which version do you personally use?
Cat humor has its very own grammar and vocabulary. You can see more of
it than you can ever absorb at
or just google "lolcats". I can't get to http://speaklolspeak.com from
work here, but it purports to be a lolspeak wiki and so might be
somewhat helpful in confusing and complicating the issue, if that's
what you want.
In any case, "sneaky suspicion" definitely smacks of lolspeak. It
probably implies the suspicious one (a cat, no doubt) is as sneaky as
he is suspicious, and has the situation well in hand.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Wanted dead and/or alive: Shroedinger's cat." [John Schild]
Cece
OTOH, I have never heard or read the "sneaking" version. The phrase
is "sneaky suspicion." It describes the feeling one has when a
proposal or someone else's actions aren't quite too good to be true,
but one's subconscious is suspicious -- the suspicion is sneaky,
hiding in the murk while it snakes tendrils of suspicion into the
conscious mind.
Mark Brader
>> Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
>> when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
> Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
> to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
> many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
> is only E1R for Scotland.
Triply wrong.
[1] Our monarch is also Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not
"Elizabeth II of England, Wales, and probably Northern Ireland
and Elizabeth I of Scotland". Scotland doesn't rate a separate
number.
[2] Her name is shown on our coins correctly as ELIZABETH II, and there
are no complaints.
[3] The highway is not named after her.
--
Mark Brader | "...it's a characteristic ... of organizations that try
Toronto | to anticipate every possible failure: they easily
m...@vex.net | come to believe that they *have*..." --Henry Spencer
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Ian Jackson
<m...@vex.net> writes
>Mark Brader:
>>> Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
>>> when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
>
>Ian Jackson:
>> Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
>> to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
>> many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
>> is only E1R for Scotland.
>
>Triply wrong.
>
>[1] Our monarch is also Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not
> "Elizabeth II of England, Wales, and probably Northern Ireland
> and Elizabeth I of Scotland". Scotland doesn't rate a separate
> number.
>
>[2] Her name is shown on our coins correctly as ELIZABETH II, and there
> are no complaints.
>
>[3] The highway is not named after her.
As Scotland didn't ever have a previous Queen called Elizabeth, E2R may
be queen of the UK but, in strictest terms, is only the first Scottish
queen called Elizabeth. At the time of the coronation, there was a lot
of debate about her title was to be. E2R is a compromise. These days, I
doubt if many Scots could care less! However, if anyone has any UK
money, and objects to it having 'Elizabeth II', I will gladly relieve
them of their burden at no charge.
--
Ian
Maria C.
> OTOH, I have never heard or read the "sneaking" version. The phrase
> is "sneaky suspicion."
If I may ask, where is that the case? That is, where are you in this
world, and also, what may you have read that included "sneaky
suspicion"?
> ... It describes the feeling one has when a
> proposal or someone else's actions aren't quite too good to be true,
> but one's subconscious is suspicious -- the suspicion is sneaky,
> hiding in the murk while it snakes tendrils of suspicion into the
> conscious mind.
Wiktionary.org describes "sneaking suspicion" as:
A premonition, or hunch. A belief based on very little evidence
[Example] I have the sneaking suspicion that he has already taken a
decision about this.*
And Merriam-Webster says of "sneaking":
3 a: not openly expressed or acknowledged <a sneaking respect for
culture - H. A. Burton> b: that is a persistent conjecture <a sneaking
suspicion>
So, I would think that "sneaky suspicion" is a simple mishearing of
"sneaking suspicion." (And that's often how our language changes over
time.)
In any case, I thank you for your reply, as it certainly makes a case
for "sneaky suspicion" being in use as a term.
*Note the quote: "...has already taken a decision." Bah. I hope at least
some people still "make" decisions.
--
Maria C.
Mark Brader
> As Scotland didn't ever have a previous Queen called Elizabeth, E2R may
> be queen of the UK but, in strictest terms, is only the first Scottish
True (FSVO "Scottish queen"), but irrelevant. Doubly irrelevant to the QEW.
--
Mark Brader | "People tend to assume that things they don't know
Toronto | about are either safe or dangerous or useless,
m...@vex.net | depending on their prejudices." -- Tim Freeman
Don Aitken
In response to the fuss made by the Scots at that time, it was
announced she, and all future sovereigns, would be referred to by the
*higher* of the two numbers, where they are different. So William (if
and when) will be William V, although only the fourth to reign in
Scotland. A "Scottish" number seems unlikely to be used until we get
another James, and that will still cause problems with any surviving
Jacobites. None of the other Scottish royal names (Alexander,
Constantine, and so on) have been popular among royals for several
centuries. Possibly Margaret would be the best bet.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Robin Bignall
There was only one house with a telly in my area, and somehow most
people in the street, including kids, trooped through to get a glimpse
of the ceremony, and of this (to us) new-fangled invention. During
the year following, those large X and H aerials sprang up everywhere.
For a while the local council tried to ban them from council houses,
since they were in contravention of the "no changes to premises
allowed" rule, but they had to give in eventually.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Chuck Riggs
We were one of the first in my Northern Virginia neighbourhood, but
all the TV showed during the day were the McCarthy hearings. I
remember watching them with friends and family, since there was
nothing else and occasionally something funny would happen, but what
we kids actually wanted were cartoons.
Amethyst Deceiver
ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk says...
Does Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother not count as a queen of Scotland>
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
No. She was not a monarch, just the wife of a monarch.
Queen has two distinct meanings in this context: a female monarch, and the
wife or widow of a male monarch.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Cece
U.S. Grew up in Indiana; now live in Texas. Heard? Family and
friends (including English teachers). Read? Could have been
anywhere; I've read lots and lots of mysteries, science fiction, and
mainstream in the last 50 years.
Cece
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:11:21 -0000, Amethyst Deceiver
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <H7PSdHOLEdIJF...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
> >ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk says...
> >> In message <RvKdnSomL7rmVrzUnZ2dnUVZ_uqdn...@vex.net>, Mark Brader
>
> - Show quoted text -
Specific term: Queen Regnant and Queen Consort.
Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that title officially
-- but that is the position he holds. The other direction -- when
Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he thought he became a real king
of England, but he was only King Consort and had no actual power. But
that's (at least partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
the Omrud
> Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
> century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that title officially
> -- but that is the position he holds. The other direction -- when
> Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he thought he became a real king
> of England, but he was only King Consort and had no actual power. But
> that's (at least partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact). He would
still be a prince even if he'd never met any Queens. I don't believe
there's any specific reason why the husband of a reigning UK monarch
would automatically become a prince.
--
David
James Silverton
>> Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
>> century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that
>> title officially -- but that is the position he holds. The
>> other direction -- when Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he
>> thought he became a real king of England, but he was only King
>> Consort and had no actual power. But that's (at least
>> partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
> Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
I thought "twice-born" was a Hindu phrase but I guess you mean Philip
inherited two titles of "Prince". I'm not particularly interested in
investigating Philip but were not all the legitimate children of some
Italian prices, princesses or princes too?
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Don Aitken
There isn't. The full story goes something like this.
Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles ahortly before hia
marriage, in 1947, although the validity of these renunciations is
more than a little doubtful. He adopted a new surname at the same
time, it being thought that von
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg would not create the desired
impression in the aftermath of the war (the fact that three of his
brothers-in-law had fought on the German side was bad enough). This
enabled him to be married as "Capt. Philip Mountbatten RN". The next
day he was granted, along with his dukedom, the style of Royal
Highness. He was not made a Prince of the United Kingdom until 1957.
the Omrud
> the wrote on Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:31:40 GMT:
>
>>> Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
>>> century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that
>>> title officially -- but that is the position he holds. The
>>> other direction -- when Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he
>>> thought he became a real king of England, but he was only King
>>> Consort and had no actual power. But that's (at least
>>> partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
>
>> Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
>
> I thought "twice-born" was a Hindu phrase but I guess you mean Philip
> inherited two titles of "Prince". I'm not particularly interested in
> investigating Philip but were not all the legitimate children of some
> Italian prices, princesses or princes too?
Albert was the second son of a Duke named Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield,
which wouldn't have made him a prince in his own right. The WikiP
article suddenly starts referring to him as "the prince" during his
courtship of Victoria, but it's not clear why.
--
David
James Silverton
> Albert was the second son of a Duke named
> Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield, which wouldn't have made him a
> prince in his own right.
I like the second name in the triple barrel given later German history.
> The WikiP article suddenly starts referring to him as "the prince"
> during his courtship of Victoria, but it's not clear why.
--
James Silverton
Nick Spalding
on Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:31:40 GMT:
I think Albert was too. I doubt if he would have been considered for
the job if he were not.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
John Varela
(in article <wWiVk.90558$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>):
> Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
Born-again, was he?
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
the Omrud
> the wrote on Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:22:56 GMT:
>
>> Albert was the second son of a Duke named
>> Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield, which wouldn't have made him a
>> prince in his own right.
>
> I like the second name in the triple barrel given later German history.
Ah. Sorry. I did not transcribe it entirely accurately, which would be
immediately obvious to Brits from the final part of the name.
--
David
the Omrud
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:31:40 -0500, the Omrud wrote
> (in article <wWiVk.90558$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>):
>
>> Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
>
> Born-again, was he?
No, he was born as two princes, concurrently. On a table, if the story
runs true.
--
David
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>James Silverton wrote:
I assumed it was a radiation induced spelling mutation.
Roland Hutchinson
> John Varela wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:31:40 -0500, the Omrud wrote
>> (in article <wWiVk.90558$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>):
>>
>>> Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
>>
>> Born-again, was he?
>
> No, he was born as two princes, concurrently.
His poor mother!
> On a table, if the story runs true.
I'm sure that didn't help, either.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Don Aitken
My favorite twist to this is that the house where he was born was
called ""Mon Repos".
HMQ was born in even more down-market circumstances, in a house which
was not only in a street, but even had (horror of horrors) a number.
Irwell
Don't joke about it, our first born was hatched in Whitehaven in
the early 1950s.
Cece
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:31:40 GMT, the Omrud
>
Philip was granted the style and titles of HRH Duke of Edinburgh, Earl
of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich the evening before the wedding. But
all the printing for the wedding had already been done, so none of it
had the titles. Note: he was not made a prince at that time.
A year later, someone mentioned to George VI that his grandchild, the
child of his daughter HRH Princess Elizabeth, would have only the
courtesy titles of a child of a duke; a son would be (by courtesy)
Earl of Merioneth and a daughter Lady [name]. Immediately, the king
declared that Elizabeth's children would be princes and princesses.
Charles was born Prince Charles of Edinburgh (as Elizabeth had been
Princess Elizabeth of York before 1936, and William now is Prince
William of Wales), dropping the "of Endinburgh" when his mother became
Queen.
Philip was called "Prince Philip" for years before he actually got the
dignity of being a Prince of the United Kingdom -- 1957.
Mike Lyle
During the war he decided to blend with his British surroundings by
changing it to Sackville-Cowan-Windscale.
--
Mike.
Irwell
Have a slice of Mountbatten cake.
Maria C.
> U.S. Grew up in Indiana; now live in Texas. Heard? Family and
> friends (including English teachers). Read? Could have been
> anywhere; I've read lots and lots of mysteries, science fiction, and
> mainstream in the last 50 years.
Thanks for the information, Cece.
--
Maria C.
Paul Wolff
And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
rename Windscale Beaufort.
--
Paul
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>
>And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
>rename Windscale Beaufort.
Are there any suggestions for the nearby Seascale?
Wood Avens
<boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
>rename Windscale Beaufort.
They will, Oscar, they will.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Paul Wolff
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:13:33 +0000, Paul Wolff <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
>>rename Windscale Beaufort.
>
>Are there any suggestions for the nearby Seascale?
>
would suggest Frankfort on the Main.
--
Paul
Mike Lyle
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:13:33 +0000, Paul Wolff
> <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
>> rename Windscale Beaufort.
>
> They will, Oscar, they will.
What about Trawsfynydd?
It occurs to me that Beaufort would make a very neat pair with Berkeley.
--
Mike.
Paul Wolff
>Wood Avens wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:13:33 +0000, Paul Wolff
>> <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
>>> rename Windscale Beaufort.
>>
>> They will, Oscar, they will.
>
>What about Trawsfynydd?
The Trawsfynydd Holiday Village is very well thought of, in some classes
of society (no capital 'S' there, as readers will note).
>
>It occurs to me that Beaufort would make a very neat pair with Berkeley.
>
It's Berkshire for me. For a taste of English country life, see this:
http://www.pointtopoint.co.uk/news-2007/areas_midlands.html
where the Old Berks set out their stalls each Easter Monday. I see that
the page repeats: but then, so does the event. Those with stout legs
can walk there from here along the Ridgeway: turn right before the White
Horse and Wayland's Smithy. Enjoy the Best Picnic competition!
--
Paul
Wood Avens
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Wood Avens wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:13:33 +0000, Paul Wolff
>> <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
>>> rename Windscale Beaufort.
>>
>> They will, Oscar, they will.
>
>What about Trawsfynydd?
>
Oh, for Trawsfynydd they simply adjust the pronunciation.
markbo...@gmail.com
This is the most commonly used version on Google & Yahoo (because
it's the correct one).
"Sneaking" is the second most commonly used version (because it
sounds like the correct one)
"Sneaky" is by far the least commonly used version which, again, is
wrong.
Funnily, though not surprisingly, "sneaky" is the version I most
commonly hear in conversation.
Hope that clarifies things...
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
There is no question of one version being "correct" and others being
"incorrect" in any absolute sense. Some people use one version, others use
another.
If you are conversing with a group of people who use one version, and you want
to be seen as part of the group, then the "correct" version to use is the one
that they are using.
The phrases I'm familiar with in BrE are "sneaking suspicion" and "sinking
feeling". I've not come across "sinking suspicion" until this thread. I don't
think I've met "sneaky suspicion" before.
Googling for these phrases on .uk sites gives:
29,900 for "sinking feeling"
10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
503 for "sinking suspicion"
Chuck Riggs
The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>(woops, just fixed a major typo!)
>
>On Nov 30, 7:58 pm, markbouch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The correct use is actually, and only, "sinking"suspicion.
>> This is the most commonly used version (because it's the correct one).
>> "Sneaking" is the second most commonly used version (because it sounds
>> like the correct one)
>> "Sneaky" is by far the least commonly used version which, again, is
>> wrong.
>>
>> Funnily, though not surprisingly, "sneaky" is the version most
>> commonly heard in conversation.
>>
>> hope that clarifies things...
You contradicted yourself, on "sneaky", so it didn't. Is it commonly
used or is it not and in what part of the world is it commonly used,
if it is?
Mike Lyle
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:21 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>> Googling for these phrases on .uk sites gives:
>>
>> 29,900 for "sinking feeling"
>> 10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
>> 3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
>> 503 for "sinking suspicion"
>
> The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
> suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
> for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
More than likely. I quite like "sinking suspicion", though. A
portmanteau phrase, you could call it.
--
Mike.
markbo...@gmail.com
depending on the group I am in, but I recognize that doing so can mean
using the "wrong phrase", gramatically speaking. The term is
"sinking", and variations of it are therefore still gramaically
incorrect, although perhaps somewhat less invalid for the reasons you
give. :O)
@Chuck: I had stated that "sneaky" is the least commonly found one
when Googling, although I think you may have been reading a version of
my post that I thought I deleted (I guess it did it wrong!). Again, an
internet search yeilds the results I mentioned, though in
conversation, the opposite is true, at least in my experience. That
must be why it seemed to you like a contradiction.
Chuck Riggs
I like the sound of it very much, but I have to ask myself, just what
does it mean?
Chuck Riggs
I think I see what happened. It is nothing to worry about, Mark.
Mike Lyle
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:08:38 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:21 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Googling for these phrases on .uk sites gives:
>>>>
>>>> 29,900 for "sinking feeling"
>>>> 10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
>>>> 3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
>>>> 503 for "sinking suspicion"
>>>
>>> The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
>>> suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
>>> for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
>>
>> More than likely. I quite like "sinking suspicion", though. A
>> portmanteau phrase, you could call it.
>
> I like the sound of it very much, but I have to ask myself, just what
> does it mean?
I'd take it to be a telescoping of ideas: a suspicion gives rise to a
sinking feeling. I'm not sure I'll use it any time soon, though.
--
Mike.
Chuck Riggs
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Suspicions rise. Once I feel a sinking suspicion, I'll start using the
expression. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that
occurrence, though. .
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
Wood Avens
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
>suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
Do you think so? To me a "sneaking suspicion" is the tiny, intuitive
doubt about something which arises before one has worked out the
causes or reasons for the doubt.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:29:31 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
>>suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
>
>Do you think so? To me a "sneaking suspicion" is the tiny, intuitive
>doubt about something which arises before one has worked out the
>causes or reasons for the doubt.
Agreed. There will usually be an emotion associated with a doubt, but, to me,
intuition is an intellectual process, albeit one not involving conscious
reasoning. An intuitive doubt seems to result from the mind comparing what is
consciously hypothesised with "patterns" of existing knowledge and reasoning.
An intuitive doubt can sneak up on one because the unconscious mind recognises
(or thinks it recognises) a flaw in the conscious reasoning.
See in particular 5.b. below.
OED:
intuition
1,2,3 Obs.
4. Scholastic Philos. ...angelic and spiritual beings...
5. a. Mod. Philos. The immediate apprehension of an object by the mind
without the intervention of any reasoning process; a particular act of
such apprehension.
b. Immediate apprehension by the intellect alone; a particular act of such
apprehension.
c. Immediate apprehension by sense; a particular act of such apprehension.
Esp. in reference to Kant, who held that the only intuition (anschauung,
intuitus) possible to man was that under the forms of sensibility,
space, and time.
6. In a more general sense: Direct or immediate insight; an instance of
this.
Chuck Riggs
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
Well put, leaving no room or need, as I see it, for a "sinking
suspicion". Whoever found the term somewhere, I wish he'd left it
there.
R H Draney
Let's just leave it in the sink....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Purl Gurl
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>>> To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
>>> suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
>> Well put, leaving no room or need, as I see it, for a "sinking
>> suspicion". Whoever found the term somewhere, I wish he'd left it
>> there.
> Let's just leave it in the sink.
No, leave it in the dishwasher with the dead fish.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>>> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>>>>To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
>>>> suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
>
>>> Well put, leaving no room or need, as I see it, for a "sinking
>>> suspicion". Whoever found the term somewhere, I wish he'd left it
>>> there.
>
>> Let's just leave it in the sink.
>
>
>No, leave it in the dishwasher with the dead fish.
Sparky's dead?!...how did it happen?...r
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote:
>> R H Draney wrote:
>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>>>>> To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
>>>>> suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
>>>> Well put, leaving no room or need, as I see it, for a "sinking
>>>> suspicion". Whoever found the term somewhere, I wish he'd left it
>>>> there.
>>> Let's just leave it in the sink.
>> No, leave it in the dishwasher with the dead fish.
> Sparky's dead?!...how did it happen?
Dry cycle.