How many syllables does 'vegetable' have?

[Berkeley Brett]

I hope you're all well & in good spirits.

So, how many syllables does 'vegetable' have? Three? Four? Isn't the second syllable usually silent?

Thank you for anything you may care to share....

--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
On Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/BerkeleyBrett
(You don't have to be a Twitter user to view this stream of ideas!)

[Guy Barry]

"Berkeley Brett" wrote in message
news:4bd0de85-ce2c-4fca...@googlegroups.com...

>
>I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
>
>So, how many syllables does 'vegetable' have? Three? Four?

Three in my speech.

>Isn't the second syllable usually silent?

There is no such thing as a "silent syllable". I think you mean "elided".

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

That may or may not be technically correct, but if a syllable isn't
pronounced it can't be heard and is therefore silent.

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

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:00:13 AM UTC-4, Berkeley Brett wrote:

> So, how many syllables does 'vegetable' have? Three? Four? Isn't the second syllable usually silent?

If it were, it wouldn't be silent. The second syllable is [t@].

[Don Phillipson]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:d12a0774-6c85-44af...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, in Britain, but many Americans sound out all four syllables as
the spelling suggests, thus make the second sound like jet (unstressed).
American primary school traditions included in the 19th century a rule
for learning new or unfamiliar words: "If in doubt, sound it out."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Peter T. Daniels]

To whom would "vegetable" have been a new or unfamiliar word? Four
syllables would be a spelling-pronunciation, as silly as Ralph Kramden's
"polopponies."

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:8qs50a99la50r4kd7...@4ax.com...

>
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:26:24 +0100, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Berkeley Brett" wrote in message
>>news:4bd0de85-ce2c-4fca...@googlegroups.com...

>>>Isn't the second syllable usually silent?
>>
>>There is no such thing as a "silent syllable". I think you mean "elided".
>
>That may or may not be technically correct, but if a syllable isn't
>pronounced it can't be heard and is therefore silent.

As far as I'm concerned, a syllable has to contain a vowel sound. If it
doesn't contain a vowel sound, it isn't a syllable.

Berkeley Brett's original question was "So, how many syllables does
'vegetable' have? Three? Four?" If the concept of "silent syllables" is
allowed, then it's impossible to answer the question meaningfully. I could
say that it has twenty syllables, including seventeen silent ones.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

<smile>

"The second syllable is silent" could be recursive. S(yllable)3 is
promoted to S2 and S4 to S3. The new S2 becomes silent and S3 (formerly
S4) is promoted to S2. The latest S2 becomes silent leaving just S1.

[Don Phillipson]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:4cd07e1e-3626-4020...@googlegroups.com...

> To whom would "vegetable" have been a new or unfamiliar word?

Ans: any immigrant (child or adult) learning English for the first
time. Assimilation of immigrant children to a uniform and distinctly
American social culture was an important political driver in American
public schools 1840-1960. This was also the period when education
became itself an object of scholarly study. A significant point of
difference
was that European scholars of education had no need to consider children
who could not speak the language of instruction, while American teachers
encountered them in most cities.

[Jerry Friedman]

I don't think I've heard a four-syllable "vegetable" in America, except
possibly from immigrants, as you mention in a later post. My
20th-century American primary-school education included the concept of
"silent letters" as well as the concept of "sounding out".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Well yes, that's probably why many people (not me) just say /vedZ/.


--
athel

[John Dawkins]

In article <ltvd74$q8g$1...@news.albasani.net>,

We do "sound" the second e in vegetation and vegetarian. Are there
other common examples of this phenomenon?

--
J.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 10:46:00 AM UTC-4, Don Phillipson wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4cd07e1e-3626-4020...@googlegroups.com...

[restoring the passage being commented on]

> >> Yes, in Britain, but many Americans sound out all four syllables as
> >> the spelling suggests, thus make the second sound like jet (unstressed).
> >> American primary school traditions included in the 19th century a rule
> >> for learning new or unfamiliar words: "If in doubt, sound it out."

> > To whom would "vegetable" have been a new or unfamiliar word?
>
> Ans: any immigrant (child or adult) learning English for the first
> time. Assimilation of immigrant children to a uniform and distinctly
> American social culture was an important political driver in American
> public schools 1840-1960.

That makes no sense. If the immigrant child was in an ESL class --
because there were dozens of them and a separate class had to be
set up -- the teacher would not teach them to mispronounce "vegetable."
But if the immigrant child was placed in a regular class of English-
speaking children of their own age, within a few weeks the child would
be speaking perfect, unaccented English and that would include the not
uncommon word "vegetable."

Nor are post-WWII classrooms relevant to the claimed "19th-century
tradition." In fact during the period you mention, the "sound it out"
principle -- what came to be called "phonics" -- had fallen very much
out of use in favor of the "whole word method," which was based on the
false notion that English spelling is chaotic and needs to be "simplified."

And, it looks like once again, your "many Americans" means 'some Canadians'.

> This was also the period when education
> became itself an object of scholarly study. A significant point of
> difference
> was that European scholars of education had no need to consider children
> who could not speak the language of instruction, while American teachers
> encountered them in most cities.

Actually, William James and John Dewey had been studying "education"
scientifically for decades before that.

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 7:00:13 AM UTC+1, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> So, how many syllables does 'vegetable' have? Three? Four?
> Isn't the second syllable usually silent?

Four in very polaite society where every syllable is enunciated.

3.5 in normal society where it's pronounced vej u tubble

3 in less polite society where it's pronounced vej dubble

1 in Glasgow where it's pronounced 'chips'

Owain

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <4bd0de85-ce2c-4fca...@googlegroups.com>,

Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>So, how many syllables does 'vegetable' have? Three? Four?

Three. /'vEtS t@ bl-/. (Some speakers will have the voiced
analogue.)

But I certainly have heard a four-syllable pronunciation (Wilford
Brimley comes to mind for some reason): /'vEd ZIt @ bl-/. Not wrong,
but very affected, for AmE speakers.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Peter T. Daniels]

Unstressed vowels get elided when stress shifts all over the place
in English derivational morphology. E.g. bubble/bubbler.

[Jerry Friedman]

Are there some that similar to vegetable/vegetarian in that the word
with the elision is not derived from the word without it?

(Differ/different and labor/laboratory would be better examples for me
than bubble/bubbler. If I ever said "bubbler", it would probably have
three syllables or at least 2.5.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 4:24:36 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 8/31/14 1:34 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:59:39 AM UTC-4, John Dawkins wrote:

> >> We do "sound" the second e in vegetation and vegetarian. Are there
> >> other common examples of this phenomenon?
> > Unstressed vowels get elided when stress shifts all over the place
> > in English derivational morphology. E.g. bubble/bubbler.
>
> Are there some that similar to vegetable/vegetarian in that the word
> with the elision is not derived from the word without it?

They may not be synchronically derivationally related, but obviously
they're from the same base.

> (Differ/different and labor/laboratory would be better examples for me
> than bubble/bubbler.

Good ones! Have you been an ESL teadher?

> If I ever said "bubbler", it would probably have
> three syllables or at least 2.5.)

In Milwaukee, where that's the ordinary word for 'drinking fountain',
it's 2.

[Mike L]

Well, not quite. Generalisation is, as a.u.e. continually reminds us,
a risky business. OED takes a more considered view, but I'm not
interested in handling phonetic symbols at tooth-cleaning time.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

Nor me. But /vedZiz/ is yet worse.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:17:42 -0700 (PDT), spuorg...@gowanhill.com
wrote:

Good man. I'm a three-and-a-halfer.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

On 31/08/2014 2:00 pm, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
>
> So, how many syllables does 'vegetable' have? Three? Four? Isn't the second syllable usually silent?
>
> Thank you for anything you may care to share....
>

Three for me.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Robert Bannister]

Do you have many people who give "Wednesday" three syllables? I have met
one person who did (Australian, I think born in Scotland but without a
Scottish accent). He pronounced the D too. It sounded very strange.

[Robert Bannister]

And an awful lot of children whose native language is not English will
either say that or ['vedZi].

[CDB]

On 31/08/2014 6:37 PM, Mike L wrote:

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

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

>>>>> So, how many syllables does 'vegetable' have? Three? Four?
>>>>> Isn't the second syllable usually silent?

>>>> If it were, it wouldn't be silent. The second syllable is
>>>> [t@].

>>> Yes, in Britain, but many Americans sound out all four syllables
>>> as the spelling suggests, thus make the second sound like jet
>>> (unstressed). American primary school traditions included in the
>>> 19th century a rule for learning new or unfamiliar words: "If in
>>> doubt, sound it out."

>> To whom would "vegetable" have been a new or unfamiliar word? Four
>> syllables would be a spelling-pronunciation, as silly as Ralph
>> Kramden's "polopponies."

> Well, not quite. Generalisation is, as a.u.e. continually reminds
> us, a risky business. OED takes a more considered view, but I'm not
> interested in handling phonetic symbols at tooth-cleaning time.

To particularise, I allow three syllables to the noun but four to the
adjective, maybe under the influence of Marvell. My vegetable love
should grow.

[David Kleinecke]

Gone in my speech. The second syllable seems to be "tble"
which I think is remarkable. I seem to co-articulate the
't' and the 'b'. (reasonably common cross-language).

[Jeffrey Turner]

I pronounce the d in Wednesday (though slightly out of place), and it
still has only two sylLABles (Wends-day). "Wed-nes-day" would be
unusual.

[Peter Moylan]

On 01/09/14 09:04, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 31/08/2014 2:00 pm, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>> I hope you're all well & in good spirits.
>>
>> So, how many syllables does 'vegetable' have? Three? Four? Isn't the
>> second syllable usually silent?
>>
>> Thank you for anything you may care to share....
>>
> Three for me.
>

Yes, I grew up with meat and three veg. Or possibly two; the potatoes
occupied a class of their own, being present in every meal.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

[Mike L]

As the gardener said to the art mistress
after she had said:
"Is that a courgette in your pocket, or are you just not interested?"

--
Mike.

[CDB]

On 01/09/2014 5:58 PM, Mike L wrote:

I had googled the line to be sure it wasn't "our vegetable love", as I
innocently remembered it to be. Empires! His early portraits do look
proud.

[Guy Barry]

"Stefan Ram" wrote in message
news:rhythm-201...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de...

> This reminds me of another word:
>
> �inevitable�.
>
> I'm always suprised how fast this word is being pronounced
> by native speakers. It also ends with something like
> {t}{b}{l}, this is as fast as in �vegetable�, but I feel it
> spoken with more tension, especially the {b}{l}.

I don't think I say it any faster than any other word. And I certainly
don't elide a syllable as in "vegetable".

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Moylan]

On 03/09/14 07:56, Stefan Ram wrote:
> This reminds me of another word:
>
> �inevitable�.
>
> I'm always suprised how fast this word is being pronounced
> by native speakers. It also ends with something like
> {t}{b}{l}, this is as fast as in �vegetable�, but I feel it
> spoken with more tension, especially the {b}{l}.

The native speakers of any language other than one's own always
pronounce words too quickly.

[James Hogg]

Doesn't that mean the pranks where Germans pull up other people's underwear?

--
James

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

James Hogg wrote:
>
> Mike L wrote::

>>
>> But /vedZiz/ is yet worse.
>>
> Doesn't that mean the pranks where Germans pull up
> other people's underwear?
>

Germans? You mean Yanks?

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

[the Omrud]

On 03/09/2014 18:36, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> James Hogg wrote:
>>
>> Mike L wrote::
>>>
>>> But /vedZiz/ is yet worse.
>>>
>> Doesn't that mean the pranks where Germans pull up
>> other people's underwear?
>>
> Germans? You mean Yanks?

They yank up other people's underwear?

obAUE: In BrE, "underwear" includes any item of clothing not normally
visible to others. Pants (BrE), bra, vest, socks, etc.

--
David

[Oliver Cromm]

* Don Phillipson:

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4cd07e1e-3626-4020...@googlegroups.com...

>
>> To whom would "vegetable" have been a new or unfamiliar word?
>

> Ans: any immigrant (child or adult) learning English for the first
> time.

This ESL learner must have heard it hundreds of times, but hadn't
noticed the three-syllable pronunciation before this thread.
However, it is also possible that the natives don't notice that I
pronounce it with 4 (or 3.5, as someone wrote: 4 in my mind, but
the second one is greatly reduced).

--
*Multitasking* /v./ Screwing up several things at once

[CDB]

On 03/09/2014 9:28 AM, James Hogg wrote:
> Mike L wrote:

>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>>> Peter Duncanson [BrE] said:
>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Berkeley Brett wrote:

>>>>>> So, how many syllables does 'vegetable' have? Three? Four?
>>>>>> Isn't the second syllable usually silent?

>>>>> If it were, it wouldn't be silent. The second syllable is
>>>>> [t@].
>>>> <smile>

>>>> "The second syllable is silent" could be recursive. S(yllable)3
>>>> is promoted to S2 and S4 to S3. The new S2 becomes silent and
>>>> S3 (formerly S4) is promoted to S2. The latest S2 becomes
>>>> silent leaving just S1.
>>> Well yes, that's probably why many people (not me) just say
>>> /vedZ/.

>> Nor me. But /vedZiz/ is yet worse.

> Doesn't that mean the pranks where Germans pull up other people's
> underwear?

Mmm, Stampfkartoffeln.

[Robert Bannister]

I would not include socks. Suspenders* perhaps, but I haven't seen a man
wear those in half a century.

BrE, not AmE meaning.

[Robert Bannister]

On 3/09/2014 8:46 pm, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 03/09/14 07:56, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> This reminds me of another word:
>>

>> �inevitable�.

>>
>> I'm always suprised how fast this word is being pronounced
>> by native speakers. It also ends with something like

>> {t}{b}{l}, this is as fast as in �vegetable�, but I feel it

>> spoken with more tension, especially the {b}{l}.
>
> The native speakers of any language other than one's own always
> pronounce words too quickly.
>

Especially women and children.
On the other hand, a short while ago I received a phone call from
hospital regarding my CPAP treatment and the nurse had such a slow,
sultry voice, I thought I was receiving my first ever phone-sex spam.
Sadly not.

[Peter Moylan]

On 04/09/14 10:49, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 3/09/2014 8:46 pm, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 03/09/14 07:56, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> This reminds me of another word:
>>>

>>> �inevitable�.

>>>
>>> I'm always suprised how fast this word is being pronounced
>>> by native speakers. It also ends with something like

>>> {t}{b}{l}, this is as fast as in �vegetable�, but I feel it

>>> spoken with more tension, especially the {b}{l}.
>>
>> The native speakers of any language other than one's own always
>> pronounce words too quickly.
>>
> Especially women and children.
> On the other hand, a short while ago I received a phone call from
> hospital regarding my CPAP treatment and the nurse had such a slow,
> sultry voice, I thought I was receiving my first ever phone-sex spam.
> Sadly not.

Use your imagination. That's what I used to do in the dentist's chair,
as a way of distracting myself from the unpleasantness.

These days, unfortunately, the dental assistants are too young to
trigger any erotic thoughts. On the positive side, the dentist is using
a better anaesthetic.

By the way, make sure that your bladder is completely empty before the
sleep test. Once you're wired up, getting out of bed is a major operation.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:46:22 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>On 4/09/2014 3:13 am, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 03/09/2014 18:36, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>>> James Hogg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mike L wrote::
>>>>>
>>>>> But /vedZiz/ is yet worse.
>>>>>
>>>> Doesn't that mean the pranks where Germans pull up
>>>> other people's underwear?
>>>>
>>> Germans? You mean Yanks?
>>
>> They yank up other people's underwear?
>>
>> obAUE: In BrE, "underwear" includes any item of clothing not normally
>> visible to others. Pants (BrE), bra, vest, socks, etc.
>>
>
>I would not include socks. Suspenders* perhaps, but I haven't seen a man
>wear those in half a century.

Then you haven't been to a wedding where the groom and groomsmen wear
tuxedos. Suspenders are standard for tuxedos. Tuxedo pants do not
have belt loops.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Peter T. Daniels]

Did you overlook the footnote?

[Peter Moylan]

When I was in high school, having one's socks fall down was almost a
hanging offence. Well, perhaps I exaggerate; but certainly a wayward
sock could lead to detention.

We wore garters, though, not suspenders.

[Guy Barry]

"the Omrud" wrote in message news:1LJNv.166731$dz3....@fx20.am4...

>obAUE: In BrE, "underwear" includes any item of clothing not normally
>visible to others. Pants (BrE), bra, vest, socks, etc.

I wouldn't term socks as "underwear". My socks are frequently visible to
others.

--
Guy Barry

[Mike L]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:44:54 +1000, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

>On 04/09/14 10:49, Robert Bannister wrote:

[...]

>> On the other hand, a short while ago I received a phone call from
>> hospital regarding my CPAP treatment and the nurse had such a slow,
>> sultry voice, I thought I was receiving my first ever phone-sex spam.
>> Sadly not.
>
>Use your imagination. That's what I used to do in the dentist's chair,
>as a way of distracting myself from the unpleasantness.
>
>These days, unfortunately, the dental assistants are too young to
>trigger any erotic thoughts. On the positive side, the dentist is using
>a better anaesthetic.

Yes, funny, that. There are several young women of my acquaintance
whom I recognise to be drop-dead gorgeous, and can even be said to
_love_; but they don't stir the old loins in the slightest. It's all
grandpa stuff. There seems to be a barrier at the age of about
twenty-five. At the hospital recently I suddenly realised I was
flirting with the hepatologist, and she was blushing.

>
>By the way, make sure that your bladder is completely empty before the
>sleep test. Once you're wired up, getting out of bed is a major operation.

--

Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

I specifically said BrE meaning of suspenders which you might call garters.

[Robert Bannister]

We used elastic bands or bits of string.

[Robert Bannister]

On 4/09/2014 9:44 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 04/09/14 10:49, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 3/09/2014 8:46 pm, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 03/09/14 07:56, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>> This reminds me of another word:
>>>>

>>>> �inevitable�.

>>>>
>>>> I'm always suprised how fast this word is being pronounced
>>>> by native speakers. It also ends with something like

>>>> {t}{b}{l}, this is as fast as in �vegetable�, but I feel it

>>>> spoken with more tension, especially the {b}{l}.
>>>
>>> The native speakers of any language other than one's own always
>>> pronounce words too quickly.
>>>
>> Especially women and children.
>> On the other hand, a short while ago I received a phone call from
>> hospital regarding my CPAP treatment and the nurse had such a slow,
>> sultry voice, I thought I was receiving my first ever phone-sex spam.
>> Sadly not.
>
> Use your imagination. That's what I used to do in the dentist's chair,
> as a way of distracting myself from the unpleasantness.
>
> These days, unfortunately, the dental assistants are too young to
> trigger any erotic thoughts. On the positive side, the dentist is using
> a better anaesthetic.
>
> By the way, make sure that your bladder is completely empty before the
> sleep test. Once you're wired up, getting out of bed is a major operation.
>

As I discovered when I had the overnight test a few weeks back. Now
we're just trying to get the mask and the air-pressure right. Goodness
knows where the money for it all is going to come from.

[Peter Moylan]

Perhaps I've hit another clash of terminology. Our garters were elastic
bands.

[Mike L]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:04:40 +1000, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

There is a "garter knot", though: they haven't always been elastic.
It's still used by some with Highland dress hose. I think US usage
still applies "garters" to what we call "sock suspenders", now
recognised, let alone used, by very few.

--
Mike.

[Tony Cooper]

At one time, I used sock suspenders. I've always felt that one should
wear otc (over-the-calf) socks with a suit. There was a time when
these socks did not have elastic tops so they stayed "up".

Sock suspenders (I still have some in my sock drawer) were elastic
bands with hanging straps with clips at the end. The other way to
keep socks up were round elastic bands, but they tended to be so tight
that they cut off circulation in the lower leg.

Today's otc socks have elastic tops and don't require sock suspenders
or those round things.

I've never called sock suspenders or the round things "garters".
"Garters" are what women used to wear to hold up their hose.

I do recognize "sleeve garters" for men, though.

[Mike L]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:47:51 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:49:19 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

>>
>>There is a "garter knot", though: they haven't always been elastic.
>>It's still used by some with Highland dress hose. I think US usage
>>still applies "garters" to what we call "sock suspenders", now
>>recognised, let alone used, by very few.
>
>At one time, I used sock suspenders. I've always felt that one should
>wear otc (over-the-calf) socks with a suit. There was a time when
>these socks did not have elastic tops so they stayed "up".

Damn right. A glimpse of stocking is fine, but a peep of skin is
shocking. People who see my normal casualty may not believe how fussy
I am about that when I dress proper.

>
>Sock suspenders (I still have some in my sock drawer) were elastic
>bands with hanging straps with clips at the end. The other way to
>keep socks up were round elastic bands, but they tended to be so tight
>that they cut off circulation in the lower leg.

I've always managed without either.

>
>Today's otc socks have elastic tops and don't require sock suspenders
>or those round things.
>
>I've never called sock suspenders or the round things "garters".
>"Garters" are what women used to wear to hold up their hose.

Back to suspenders we go.

>
>I do recognize "sleeve garters" for men, though.

Ah, the sleeve things. Flat shiny springs, kind of? I tried those not
long ago when my gut was having a greater say in my shirt size than my
neck, so sleeves were too long; but they hurt, and I gave them to one
of my daughters.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

Well, yes and no. We called them garters too, but at some point I became
aware of another thing, also called a garter - How does "1066 and All
That" put it? - Curses, I can't find the book, but my memory says that
King Edward III noticed the Countess of Salisbury had dropped her garter
and he uttered the following memorable words: "Honi soit qui mal y
pense" or in English, "Honey, your silk stocking is hanging down badly".
Therefore, I assumed a garter was something unmentionable.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:28:14 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>I do recognize "sleeve garters" for men, though.
>
>Ah, the sleeve things. Flat shiny springs, kind of? I tried those not
>long ago when my gut was having a greater say in my shirt size than my
>neck, so sleeves were too long; but they hurt, and I gave them to one
>of my daughters.

Accountants, bookkeepers, architects, and draftsmen (draughtsmen) wore
them back in the days when men came to work in long-sleeved dress
shirts. They prevented the cuffs from dragging fresh ink.

The PX at Ft Leonard Wood sold the metal spring things, but they were
used to blouse boots. I never wore them.

[Skitt]

I used blousing straps and blousing chains (wrapped with tape to keep
them quiet) to blouse my pants back in my Army days.

They were somewhat similar to these things:

http://gapolicegear.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/cc207fbf4e42fef931797482188d260d/i/m/img_1793.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwGeA_Y3Y2Fija5Ms701R8yFGbrBP2lmtXLaInbxdBW0ex4lf7cg

--
Skitt

[the Omrud]

On 06/09/2014 03:18, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:28:14 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I do recognize "sleeve garters" for men, though.
>>
>> Ah, the sleeve things. Flat shiny springs, kind of? I tried those not
>> long ago when my gut was having a greater say in my shirt size than my
>> neck, so sleeves were too long; but they hurt, and I gave them to one
>> of my daughters.
>
> Accountants, bookkeepers, architects, and draftsmen (draughtsmen) wore
> them back in the days when men came to work in long-sleeved dress
> shirts. They prevented the cuffs from dragging fresh ink.

My Dad's first job was in a drawing office - he wore the springy metal
things. At least, he had some - I don't know whether he wore them. I
can remember playing with them when I was very young.

--
David

[Adam Funk]

I associate those with characters like Bret Maverick ("like" because I
can't recall accurately whether he, other characters in the series he
was in, or just various poker-playing characters in westerns, [1] wore
them).

[1] ObAUE: how about that comma just before the "[1]"? Good, bad, or
ugly?



--
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
[Ambrose Bierce]

[John Varela]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 02:18:58 UTC, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:28:14 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>I do recognize "sleeve garters" for men, though.
> >
> >Ah, the sleeve things. Flat shiny springs, kind of? I tried those not
> >long ago when my gut was having a greater say in my shirt size than my
> >neck, so sleeves were too long; but they hurt, and I gave them to one
> >of my daughters.
>
> Accountants, bookkeepers, architects, and draftsmen (draughtsmen) wore
> them back in the days when men came to work in long-sleeved dress
> shirts. They prevented the cuffs from dragging fresh ink.

I remember my granduncle Clarence wearing those when he played
poker. He also wore a green eyeshade. He was something of a
character.

> The PX at Ft Leonard Wood sold the metal spring things, but they were
> used to blouse boots. I never wore them.


--

John Varela

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 5:43:02 PM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:

> I associate those with characters like Bret Maverick ("like" because I
> can't recall accurately whether he, other characters in the series he
> was in, or just various poker-playing characters in westerns, [1] wore
> them).
> [1] ObAUE: how about that comma just before the "[1]"? Good, bad, or
> ugly?

Do not separate a subject, even a compound one, from its predicate.

[Robert Bannister]

On 6/09/2014 10:18 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:28:14 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I do recognize "sleeve garters" for men, though.
>>
>> Ah, the sleeve things. Flat shiny springs, kind of? I tried those not
>> long ago when my gut was having a greater say in my shirt size than my
>> neck, so sleeves were too long; but they hurt, and I gave them to one
>> of my daughters.
>
> Accountants, bookkeepers, architects, and draftsmen (draughtsmen) wore
> them back in the days when men came to work in long-sleeved dress
> shirts. They prevented the cuffs from dragging fresh ink.

I used to wear them to play billiards. I might have worn them for
snooker too, but I was never very good at that - it's one of those game
where, if the other player is even just a bit better than you, you have
play defensively, and there's no fun in that.