Lozenge vs. Lozenger

[Norm Wahl]

Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
irritation between two of my friends.

Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one
understands, that is language. Variations are the only
means of enriching the language, and an overconcern for
"correctness" can sometimes dampen expressiveness.

Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word?
Thanks very much.

--
Norm Wahl

[Benjamin D Lukoff]

Norm Wahl <7233...@CompuServe.COM> writes:

>Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
>word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
>gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
>reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
>whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
>irritation between two of my friends.

The question shouldn't be whether or not "lozenger" is a word -- quite
obviously it is, since a number of people use it, and since your friend
who doesn't use it still understood exactly what it meant. The question
is, is it *standard* English? I think the answer would have to be no.
Whether its use should be corrected depends on a number of things. Are
we talking about its use in writing or in speech? In formal or informal
settings? It probably shouldn't be used in formal writing or speech, but
telling them never to use it in any context would make no sense.

BDL

[KJBlake]

In article <4egoae$r0v$2...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>, Norm Wahl
<7233...@CompuServe.COM> writes:

>Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
>word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
>gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
>reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
>whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
>irritation between two of my friends.

I've heard this too. I think that they are using the same word, "lozenge,"
but just pronouncing the final "e," which is normally silent in most
people's speech.

[Matthew Rabuzzi]

Norm Wahl <7233...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
: Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
: word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
: gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
: reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
: whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
: irritation between two of my friends.

It ain't standard, but noone's going to misunderstand you.
But you can avoid the problem (or discover new ones!) entirely
by calling 'em "pastilles", "troches", or "trochisci", if you want.

..............................................................
Pastille your face
Matthew Rabuzzi

[Peter Hoogenboom]

KJBlake (kjb...@aol.com) wrote:
: I've heard this too. I think that they are using the same word, "lozenge,"

: but just pronouncing the final "e," which is normally silent in most
: people's speech.

I have always been under the impression that "lozenger" users thought
that the verb "lozenge" means "soothe" or something.

Peter

--
Peter Hoogenboom phoo...@wlu.edu
Department of Music, DuPont 208 hoogen...@fs.sciences.wlu.edu
Washington and Lee University phoog...@wesleyan.edu
Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 463-8697

[Avi Jacobson]

Norm Wahl <7233...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
>word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
>gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
>reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
>whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
>irritation between two of my friends.

>Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one

>understands, that is language. Variations are the only
>means of enriching the language, and an overconcern for
>"correctness" can sometimes dampen expressiveness.

>Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word?
>Thanks very much.

Hi, Norm.

You wouldn't be posting from Philadelphia, by any chance, would you?
I grew up there (I've been living in Israel for the past 25-odd
years), and definitely said "lozenger" as a kid. I realized,
consciously, at some point, that I had been back-forming from the
plural "lozenges", which I assumed to have a dropped "r" like so many
South-Jersey pronunciations I had heard from trans-Delaware River
invaders ("Gimme a box o' lozenjuhs and a Sundee pay-puh.")

I also remember being told as a child -- during a massive
transportation strike -- about a guy by the name of Hoffa (of course,
I know the whole story now), and thinking his name was Hoffer.

I can't remember if anybody else in Philly said "lozenger"; I seem to
remember, in a vague sort of way that they did; besides, I don't think
I could have gotten away with carrying the pronunciation well into
puberty if it hadn't been common among my peers.

--
Avi Jacobson, Audio Lingual Consultant | When an idea is wanting,
Home Page: | a word can always be
http://www.netvision.net.il/php/avi_jaco | found to take its place.
email: avi_...@netvision.net.il | -- Goethe

[lynnre...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 28, 1996 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Norm Wahl wrote:
> Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
> word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
> gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
> reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
> whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
> irritation between two of my friends.
>
> Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one
> understands, that is language. Variations are the only
> means of enriching the language, and an overconcern for
> "correctness" can sometimes dampen expressiveness.
>
> Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word?
> Thanks very much.
>

> --
> Norm Wahl

My husband says Lozenger, too! (He's 16 years older than me.) :-)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, January 31, 1996 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Matthew Rabuzzi wrote:

> Norm Wahl <7233...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> : Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
> : word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
> : gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
> : reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
> : whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
> : irritation between two of my friends.
>

> It ain't standard, but noone's going to misunderstand you.
> But you can avoid the problem (or discover new ones!) entirely
> by calling 'em "pastilles", "troches", or "trochisci", if you want.

And then no one will know what you mean.

[micky]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:36:48 -0800 (PST), lynnre...@gmail.com
wrote:

Maybe you all are from Boston. President Kennedy pronounced Cuba as
Cuber, and most words ending in "a" he added an "r" to, as do lots of
Bostonians.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 12:18:41 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:36:48 -0800 (PST), lynnre...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 28, 1996 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Norm Wahl wrote:

> >> Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
> >> word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
> >> gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
> >> reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
> >> whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
> >> irritation between two of my friends.
>
> >> Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one
> >> understands, that is language. Variations are the only
> >> means of enriching the language, and an overconcern for
> >> "correctness" can sometimes dampen expressiveness.
>
> >> Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word?
> >> Thanks very much.

> >My husband says Lozenger, too! (He's 16 years older than me.) :-)
>
> Maybe you all are from Boston. President Kennedy pronounced Cuba as
> Cuber, and most words ending in "a" he added an "r" to, as do lots of
> Bostonians.

But "lozenge" doesn't end with an e-sound, except among those who
misinterpreted the plural form. (Or heard it said by people who
said it that way.)

[Whiskers]

That's the second necropost from a Google user this weekend, responding
to an article posted in the last century. Is Google putting these
ancient artefacts where the latest articles should be? The previous
version of their web forum interface prevented responses to usenet
articles more than (I think) six weeks old.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Peter T. Daniels]

I don't know what a "web forum interface" may be, nor what it has to do
with "Usenet" or newsgroups, but someone calling herself "lynnre..."
responded to a 17 1/2 year old posting, and therefore the brief thread
appeared.

[Whiskers]

Google operate a web forum service, they call it "Google Groups". The
web forum interface in question is the one they provide for people to
read and post to their web forums (or "Google Groups"). That same web
forum interface is also used to provide access to an archive of usenet
newsgroups (such as this one) and to allow reading and posting to those
usenet newsgroups using their own web forum interface - instead of the
usual method, running a 'newsreader' or 'usenet client' on your own
computer and connecting it to a 'news-server' on the internet.

Unless you have found a previously unknown way of faking the message
headers inserted by news-servers and user-agents into each article, you
are using "Google Groups" to post here.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I am using Google Groups and have been since I switched to DSL almost
seven years ago. I have no reason to suppose it is a "web forum
service," whatever that may be. Nor do I have reason to suppose that
the earlier Google Groups put up some sort of six-week barrier.

[Whiskers]

Sheesh. It's a service; Google provide advertising space for profit and
attract potential customers for the advertisers by creating a place
where people can exchange messages in public - ie, a forum, or rather
several forums related to different interests. This all happens on the
World Wide Web, or 'web' for short, and people use web browsers to
access the forums. So there is a service, in the form of forums, on the
web; a web forum service.

Google aren't the only people doing such things; Yahoo and Microsoft do
too, and so do many commercial entities and publications for
communicating with and supporting their customers or readers.

Google bought a usenet archive called 'DejaNews' in 2001 to give their
new proprietary web forums some ready-made content and so attract users.
The DejaNews archive was later supplemented by adding usenet archives
from various universities, and then they added the facility for Google
Group users to create new 'Google Groups' of their own, not having
anything to do with usenet. All user access provided by Google is via
the World Wide Web; usenet has no mechanism for generating income or
profit from advertisements so they have no interest in providing a
conventional news-server accessed using the NNTP protocol.

The interface by which users interact with Google Groups has undergone
significant changes from time to time.

> Nor do I have reason to suppose that
> the earlier Google Groups put up some sort of six-week barrier.

Well it's too late now to go back in time to compare what could be
posted in 2006, 2010, or before and after June this year (when the
latest version appeared). I can clearly remember the annoyance caused
in usenet newsgroups by Google users answering ancient articles, and I
seem to remember being one of many who complained to Google about it. I
clearly remember the general delight expressed by usenet users in 2010
when a new Google Groups version restricted the age of articles that
could be responded to. It seems that the new 2013 version has lost that
restriction.

Wikipedia's offering is informative
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Groups&oldid=581894974>
(The link near the foot of the page to "Old (pre-2012) version of Google
Groups" now goes to the current version's front page).

[Peter T. Daniels]

For some reason you refuse to believe that THERE IS NO ADVERTISING AT
GOOGLE GROUPS. Why don't you just go there and see for yourself?

> attract potential customers for the advertisers by creating a place
> where people can exchange messages in public - ie, a forum, or rather
> several forums related to different interests. This all happens on the
> World Wide Web, or 'web' for short, and people use web browsers to
> access the forums. So there is a service, in the form of forums, on the
> web; a web forum service.

It's a service; it isn't on the World Wide Web, unless it can somehow be
on the World Wide Web without having "www." in its url; and "forum" means
nothing to me in this context.

> Google aren't the only people doing such things; Yahoo and Microsoft do
> too, and so do many commercial entities and publications for
> communicating with and supporting their customers or readers.

Yahoo Groups are nothing like the newsgroups accessed via Google Groups.
Primarily, Yahoo Groups send messages to email, and Google Groups don't.

> Google bought a usenet archive called 'DejaNews' in 2001 to give their
> new proprietary web forums some ready-made content and so attract users.
> The DejaNews archive was later supplemented by adding usenet archives
> from various universities, and then they added the facility for Google
> Group users to create new 'Google Groups' of their own, not having
> anything to do with usenet. All user access provided by Google is via
> the World Wide Web; usenet has no mechanism for generating income or
> profit from advertisements so they have no interest in providing a
> conventional news-server accessed using the NNTP protocol.

Again, no "www." Who is the "they" who "have no interest"? Not Google,
since there is no way it is getting any money from Google Groups.

> The interface by which users interact with Google Groups has undergone
> significant changes from time to time.

Once in the past seven years -- about 5 months ago. It was a serious change
for the worse.

> > Nor do I have reason to suppose that
> > the earlier Google Groups put up some sort of six-week barrier.
>
> Well it's too late now to go back in time to compare what could be
> posted in 2006, 2010, or before and after June this year (when the
> latest version appeared). I can clearly remember the annoyance caused
> in usenet newsgroups by Google users answering ancient articles, and I
> seem to remember being one of many who complained to Google about it. I
> clearly remember the general delight expressed by usenet users in 2010
> when a new Google Groups version restricted the age of articles that
> could be responded to. It seems that the new 2013 version has lost that
> restriction.

What a pity you were inconvenienced by history.

[John Holmes]

People were smarter eighteen years ago. Especially Matthew.

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

[Steve Hayes]

It's a matter of being lozenger than thou.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Whiskers]

On 2013-12-02, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 1, 2013 5:42:20 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>> On 2013-12-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:44:39 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>> >> On 2013-12-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:

[...]

>> > I am using Google Groups and have been since I switched to DSL almost
>> > seven years ago. I have no reason to suppose it is a "web forum
>> > service," whatever that may be.
>>
>> Sheesh. It's a service; Google provide advertising space for profit and
>
> For some reason you refuse to believe that THERE IS NO ADVERTISING AT
> GOOGLE GROUPS. Why don't you just go there and see for yourself?

That must be another change with the current interface; there certainly
were adverts alongside the articles in earlier versions. Perhaps the
ads will be sneeked in later, or perhaps they now just mine the content
you read and post to help target adverts at you elsewhere.

>> attract potential customers for the advertisers by creating a place
>> where people can exchange messages in public - ie, a forum, or rather
>> several forums related to different interests. This all happens on the
>> World Wide Web, or 'web' for short, and people use web browsers to
>> access the forums. So there is a service, in the form of forums, on the
>> web; a web forum service.
>
> It's a service; it isn't on the World Wide Web, unless it can somehow be
> on the World Wide Web without having "www." in its url;

Many things on the web don't have www. in the URL; the server address
chosen for a web server can be anything you want - many people do use
www.something.tld as a web server name, but it isn't a requirement.

The URL for this newsgroup's Google Groups page is
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.usage.english>. What makes
it a web page is the https:// which says 'use the hypertext transfer
protocol'; 'hypertext' is the unique aspect of the web which allows
'links' to documents on different servers all over the planet to be
followed from within any other document carried on a connected computer.
Whatever comes after the http:// or https:// is whatever the operator of
the web site wants to call the web server concerned - or the IP number
of it, if no name is wanted and no other web servers are using the same IP
number. Here's one that works with no server name at all
<http://130.133.4.11/> instead of <http://individual.net/>; that is a
web page, part of the worldwide web, accessed using a web browser - just
as all of Google Groups' pages are.

<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html> "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol -- HTTP/1.1"

Using the Individual.net news-server, this newsgroup's URL is
<news://news.individual.net/alt.usage.english/> (you need an account
with a username and password to actually go there) for which you need a
'newsreader' or 'usenet client' (or telnet), not a web browser.
(Although Lynx is a web browser that can handle news:// URLs, and so is
Opera 12.* which has a built-in usenet client). That is not a web page,
and it isn't part of the worldwide web. It is 'on the internet' though.

> and "forum" means nothing to me in this context.

,---- [ "forum, n.". OED Online. September 2013. Oxford University Press.
| <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/73767?redirectedFrom=forum>
| (accessed December 02, 2013). ]
| forum, n.
|  1.
|  
|  a. Roman Hist. The public place or market-place of a city. In ancient
| Rome the place of assembly for judicial and other public business.
|
|  b. as the place of public discussion; hence fig.
|
| [...]
|
| Draft additions March 2003
|  
|   Computing. A discussion group which is accessible online, as through a
| mailing list, a bulletin board system, a newsgroup, or the World Wide
| Web, esp. one dedicated to the exchange of information and opinions on a
| particular topic.
| In early use, not always distinguished from the general sense of ‘a
| place of public discussion’ (see 1b).
`----

We are discussing, in public, here; so this is a forum.

>> Google aren't the only people doing such things; Yahoo and Microsoft do
>> too, and so do many commercial entities and publications for
>> communicating with and supporting their customers or readers.
>
> Yahoo Groups are nothing like the newsgroups accessed via Google Groups.
> Primarily, Yahoo Groups send messages to email, and Google Groups don't.

The key difference between Google's web forums and those operated by
Yahoo and others, is that Google combine access to usenet newsgroups
using the same interface as for their own proprietary 'groups'.

Google do offer "Read group posts through email, ..."
<https://support.google.com/groups/answer/46601?hl=en-GB> and it's
possible to post to Google Groups using email:-

,-- <https://support.google.com/groups/answer/1059071?hl=en&ref_topic=2459438>
| To read and respond to posts using email:
|
| Click on the email in your inbox. The contents of the email are
| displayed.
| Type a response to the email.
| Select reply (to respond only to the poster) or reply to all (to respond
| to the whole group). The response is posted.
| Note: This process assumes that you have "Email" checked in the "How do
| you want to read this group?" section of the my Membership settings (you
| are receiving an email for every post to the group).
`----

Which looks to me like a 'mailing-list'. AUE is rather too busy for
convenience as a mailing-list unless you have a good email service and
an email user agent that can 'thread' and 'filter' like a newsreader. I
don't think there would be much point using webmail to read and post to
Google groups; you'd just be substituting one web page for another.

>> Google bought a usenet archive called 'DejaNews' in 2001 to give their
>> new proprietary web forums some ready-made content and so attract users.
>> The DejaNews archive was later supplemented by adding usenet archives
>> from various universities, and then they added the facility for Google
>> Group users to create new 'Google Groups' of their own, not having
>> anything to do with usenet. All user access provided by Google is via
>> the World Wide Web; usenet has no mechanism for generating income or
>> profit from advertisements so they have no interest in providing a
>> conventional news-server accessed using the NNTP protocol.
>
> Again, no "www." Who is the "they" who "have no interest"? Not Google,
> since there is no way it is getting any money from Google Groups.

A www. in a URL doesn't make it part of the worldwide web, and a web
page doesn't need a www. in its URL. It's the http:// or https:// that
makes it part of the worldwide web. See above.

Google can 'mine' what you read and post, and connect their analysis of
that to a profile (not the one you can manage, one of their own) linked
to your Google account and the cookies associated with it, and use that
information to direct adverts 'relevant' to you wherever Google have
advertisements on web pages. They do the same with Gmail.

>> The interface by which users interact with Google Groups has undergone
>> significant changes from time to time.
>
> Once in the past seven years -- about 5 months ago. It was a serious change
> for the worse.

That's just the most recent of at least three major changes, and several
small ones. As far as usenet is concerned, almost every Google change
has been for the worse. So much so that some people block anything
posted using Google Groups <http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/>
(yes, another web site without a www in its URL).

>> > Nor do I have reason to suppose that
>> > the earlier Google Groups put up some sort of six-week barrier.
>>
>> Well it's too late now to go back in time to compare what could be
>> posted in 2006, 2010, or before and after June this year (when the
>> latest version appeared). I can clearly remember the annoyance caused
>> in usenet newsgroups by Google users answering ancient articles, and I
>> seem to remember being one of many who complained to Google about it. I
>> clearly remember the general delight expressed by usenet users in 2010
>> when a new Google Groups version restricted the age of articles that
>> could be responded to. It seems that the new 2013 version has lost that
>> restriction.
>
> What a pity you were inconvenienced by history.

Not history but Google. I used to be a fan, when they had one of the
best web search engines and a fully functional usenet archive; they've
spoiled the former and have competition that works better for me, and
the latter has become very limited and unreliable. Their ethos has also
changed from 'hey, let's do cool useful stuff for people' to 'aha;
there's gold in them there punters'. Their 'portal' to usenet has
always been an irritation, although the annoyances vary depending on
which parts of their software design they get wrong.

>> Wikipedia's offering is informative
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Groups&oldid=581894974>
>> (The link near the foot of the page to "Old (pre-2012) version of Google
>> Groups" now goes to the current version's front page).

See the www that isn't in that web page URL?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, December 2, 2013 1:41:23 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> On 2013-12-02, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 5:42:20 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>
> >> On 2013-12-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:44:39 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>
> >> >> On 2013-12-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> > I am using Google Groups and have been since I switched to DSL almost
>
> >> > seven years ago. I have no reason to suppose it is a "web forum
>
> >> > service," whatever that may be.
>
> >>
>
> >> Sheesh. It's a service; Google provide advertising space for profit and
>
> >
>
> > For some reason you refuse to believe that THERE IS NO ADVERTISING AT
>
> > GOOGLE GROUPS. Why don't you just go there and see for yourself?
>
>
>
> That must be another change with the current interface; there certainly
> were adverts alongside the articles in earlier versions. Perhaps the

From 2007 to the present, there have been no advertisements.

> ads will be sneeked in later, or perhaps they now just mine the content
> you read and post to help target adverts at you elsewhere.
>
> >> attract potential customers for the advertisers by creating a place
> >> where people can exchange messages in public - ie, a forum, or rather
> >> several forums related to different interests. This all happens on the
> >> World Wide Web, or 'web' for short, and people use web browsers to
> >> access the forums. So there is a service, in the form of forums, on the
> >> web; a web forum service.
>
> > It's a service; it isn't on the World Wide Web, unless it can somehow be
> > on the World Wide Web without having "www." in its url;
>
> Many things on the web don't have www. in the URL; the server address

You didn't say "the web." You said the World Wide Web. Not the same thing.

> chosen for a web server can be anything you want - many people do use
> www.something.tld as a web server name, but it isn't a requirement.
>
> The URL for this newsgroup's Google Groups page is
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.usage.english>. What makes
> it a web page is the https:// which says 'use the hypertext transfer
> protocol'; 'hypertext' is the unique aspect of the web which allows
> 'links' to documents on different servers all over the planet to be
> followed from within any other document carried on a connected computer.

If that's how you want to identify "web," fine.

> Whatever comes after the http:// or https:// is whatever the operator of
> the web site wants to call the web server concerned - or the IP number
> of it, if no name is wanted and no other web servers are using the same IP
> number. Here's one that works with no server name at all
> <http://130.133.4.11/> instead of <http://individual.net/>; that is a
> web page, part of the worldwide web, accessed using a web browser - just
> as all of Google Groups' pages are.
> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html> "Hypertext Transfer
> Protocol -- HTTP/1.1"
> Using the Individual.net news-server, this newsgroup's URL is
> <news://news.individual.net/alt.usage.english/> (you need an account
> with a username and password to actually go there) for which you need a
> 'newsreader' or 'usenet client' (or telnet), not a web browser.
> (Although Lynx is a web browser that can handle news:// URLs, and so is
> Opera 12.* which has a built-in usenet client). That is not a web page,
> and it isn't part of the worldwide web. It is 'on the internet' though.

And this is why I don't look at messages detailing the inner workings of
cyberthings. I don't need to know any of that, any more than I need to
know what's going on in my car engine.

> > and "forum" means nothing to me in this context.
> ,---- [ "forum, n.". OED Online. September 2013. Oxford University Press.
> | <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/73767?redirectedFrom=forum>
> | (accessed December 02, 2013). ]
> | forum, n.
> |  1.
> |  a. Roman Hist. The public place or market-place of a city. In ancient
> | Rome the place of assembly for judicial and other public business.
> |  b. as the place of public discussion; hence fig.
> | [...]
> | Draft additions March 2003
> |   Computing. A discussion group which is accessible online, as through a
> | mailing list, a bulletin board system, a newsgroup, or the World Wide
> | Web, esp. one dedicated to the exchange of information and opinions on a
> | particular topic.
> | In early use, not always distinguished from the general sense of ‘a
> | place of public discussion’ (see 1b).

Thus not a technical term at all, merely a metaphor.

Then I looked at how much more typing appears below, and stopped reading ...

[Whiskers]

On 2013-12-02, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Monday, December 2, 2013 1:41:23 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>> On 2013-12-02, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 5:42:20 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>> >> On 2013-12-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:44:39 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>> >> >> On 2013-12-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:

[...]

> And this is why I don't look at messages detailing the inner workings of
> cyberthings. I don't need to know any of that, any more than I need to
> know what's going on in my car engine.

[...]

Do you nevertheless argue with your mechanic about the terminology and
fundamental principles upon which your car engine is built?

> Then I looked at how much more typing appears below, and stopped reading ...

[...]

I spy wilful ignorance. If you don't want the answers, don't ask the
questions.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, December 2, 2013 3:43:18 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> On 2013-12-02, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 2, 2013 1:41:23 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> >> On 2013-12-02, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 5:42:20 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> >> >> On 2013-12-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:44:39 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> >> >> >> On 2013-12-01, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013 1:06:40 PM UTC-5, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:

> [...]
>
> > And this is why I don't look at messages detailing the inner workings of
> > cyberthings. I don't need to know any of that, any more than I need to
> > know what's going on in my car engine.
>
> [...]
>
> Do you nevertheless argue with your mechanic about the terminology and
> fundamental principles upon which your car engine is built?

I do not to know about either of those topics.

> > Then I looked at how much more typing appears below, and stopped reading ...
>
> [...]
>
> I spy wilful ignorance. If you don't want the answers, don't ask the
> questions.

Have you heard about the book on penguins that tells the little boy far
more than he wanted to know about penguins? or is that just a local saying?

[Whiskers]

I've never heard of it. Ixquick did find this for me:-

,---- ["More information about penguins than I care to have" - Boing Boing
| <http://boingboing.net/2012/01/02/more-information-about-pengu.html>]
| In 1944 a children’s book club sent a volume about penguins to a
| 10-year-old girl, enclosing a card seeking her opinion. She wrote, “This
| book gives me more information about penguins than I care to have.”
| American diplomat Hugh Gibson called it the finest piece of literary
| criticism he had ever read.
`----

Comments on that page point out some of the weaknesses in that myth.
I'd add that given wartime shortages, it's unlikely that any publisher
would send unsolicited books to any child - even if they thought a book
for children about penguins was worth printing at such a time.

I don't know when the little girl became a little boy, but I suspect
that's not on topic for this newsgroup anyway.

I haven't found any other reference to Hugh S Gibson having commented on
any child's literary criticism - or penguins.

[james.adam...@gmail.com]

Everybody knows that a lozenger helps ensure that the throat rhombus is at or below forty-five degrees. I am Australian and I believe that 20 years ago when this forum post was first sent out, I was calling throat-drops lozengers too. I have no idea if I was just crazy or if this was the norm.

[Robert Bannister]

On 27/03/2016 7:03 pm, james.adam...@gmail.com wrote:
> Everybody knows that a lozenger helps ensure that the throat rhombus is at or below forty-five degrees. I am Australian and I believe that 20 years ago when this forum post was first sent out, I was calling throat-drops lozengers too. I have no idea if I was just crazy or if this was the norm.
>

I've only ever heard lozenge and lozenges, but I imagine the difference
in sound between "lozenges" and "lozengers" is not a great deal.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[rebeka...@gmail.com]

Lozenger is not a word! My husband is wrong

[bebe...@aol.com]

Le lundi 28 mars 2016 04:12:09 UTC+2, Robert Bannister a écrit :
> On 27/03/2016 7:03 pm, james.adam...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Everybody knows that a lozenger helps ensure that the throat rhombus is at or below forty-five degrees. I am Australian and I believe that 20 years ago when this forum post was first sent out, I was calling throat-drops lozengers too. I have no idea if I was just crazy or if this was the norm.
> >
>
> I've only ever heard lozenge and lozenges, but I imagine the difference
> in sound between "lozenges" and "lozengers" is not a great deal.

They're pronounced the same by a rhotic and a non-rhotic speaker,
respectively - making "lozenger" an "eye dialect" back formation,
so to say.

[CDB]

On 7/14/2017 3:49 PM, rebeka...@gmail.com wrote:

> Lozenger is not a word! My husband is wrong

Poor abused spouse, can't even get punctuated.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/11/lozenge-lozenger.html

[Peter Moylan]

Yet the link supplied by CDB suggests that the "lozenger" variant is
used mostly by rhotic speakers.

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

[bebe...@aol.com]

That makes sense: if a rhotic speaker who doesn't know the word
ears "lozenges" pronounced by a rhotic person, they mihgt think it's
"lozengers" pronounced by a non-rhotic one, and derive "lozenger". I
guess the confusion originated with cross-Pondian travels.

(Actually, the point is to know whether the person who says "lozenges"
is rhotic or not in the first place.)

[Whiskers]

This rhotic BrE speaker only ever said 'lozenge'. The Bristol dialect
does tend to add an /l/ to words ending in a vowel, but 'lozenge' as
spoken doesn't.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 17:11:00 +0100, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com>
wrote:

The OED does have "lozenger" and labels it "U.S. and north. dial." Where
"north" means Northern England.

lozenger, n.
Etymology: < lozenge n. + -er suffix1.

†1. = lozenge n. 1. Obs.
1527 in J. Raine Testamenta Eboracensia (1884) V. 244 Unum le
diamond vocatum a losinger.

2. = lozenge n. 3. U.S. and north. dial.

1860 O. W. Holmes Elsie Venner (1887) 59 Boxes containing
‘lozengers’, as they were commonly called.
1887 T. E. Brown Doctor 6 Somethin just to be haulin out For the
kids—a lozenger or the lek.

O. W. Holmes is the American Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. (1809–1894)
physician, teacher of anatomy, and writer.

Not to be confused with his son: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841–1935),
an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

or with: Oliver Wendell Holmes (archivist) (1902-1981), American
archivist and historian.

lozenge n. 1. is a diamond-shaped heraldic symbol on a shield.
lozenge n. 3. is a small cake or tablet, originally diamond-shaped, of
medicated or flavoured sugar, etc. to be held and dissolved in the
mouth. [OED]

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

[Peter T. Daniels]

A non-rhotic Bostonian.

> Not to be confused with his son: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841–1935),
> an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Of whom sound recordings probably exist.

> or with: Oliver Wendell Holmes (archivist) (1902-1981), American
> archivist and historian.

Perhaps grandson of the former?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

No. But...

http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44517682.pdf

28 American Antiquarian Society

OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES

Oliver Wendell Holmes, historian, encyclopedist, and archi-
vist, was born on February 2, 1902, in St. Paul, Minnesota; he
died on November 25, 1981, in Washington, D.C. When his
Swedish-born parents named him, they inadvertently assured
him a lifetime of explaining that he was not, in fact, related to
the poet and jurist whose names he bore.

[Peter T. Daniels]

:-)

Not a problem faced by Edward Everett Hale (short-story writer, known for "The Man
Without a Country") and Edward Everett Horton (character actor). Or George Washington Carver.

Still awaiting an explanation of James Earl Carter, James Earl Jones, and James Earl Ray
(approximate coaevals).

[Harrison Hill]

That's where I have it from then. My childhood was spent on The
Wirral, and to me it is a "lozenger".

[bebe...@aol.com]

That would tend to prove my theory right.

[GordonD]

Now you've done it. Darth Vader voiced by Jimmy Carter? That's almost as
bad as David Prowse!
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[jesami...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 28, 1996 at 6:30:00 PM UTC+10:30, Norm Wahl wrote:
> Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
> word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
> gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
> reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
> whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
> irritation between two of my friends.
>

> Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one
> understands, that is language. Variations are the only
> means of enriching the language, and an overconcern for
> "correctness" can sometimes dampen expressiveness.
>
> Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word?
> Thanks very much.
>
> --
> Norm Wahl
I'm from Australia and we pretty well all say Lozenger haha

[Peter Moylan]

> I'm from Australia and we pretty well all say Lozenger haha

I'm from Australia, too, and I can't remember what we said in 1996. I
don't think we say it now, though. On the other hand, I'm not from the
generation of those who put haha at the end of a sentence, so maybe
adolescents say it differently.

A lozenger is someone who lozenges.

[RH Draney]

Alternatively, lozenger is "more lozenge"....r

[Peter Moylan]

That's the lozengest suggestion I've heard today.

[Katy Jennison]

By coincidence this was posted by a Facebook friend today. The word
"losenger" appears.

http://news.sky.com/story/linguists-compile-list-of-lost-words-that-need-to-be-brought-back-11036102

http://tinyurl.com/y9ozycrk

"Losenger - A false flatterer, a lying rascal, a deceiver".

It's probably not pronounced the same as "lozenger", but so far I've
managed to avoid hearing either of them in the wild.

--
Katy Jennison

[occam]

That was an interesting article, thank you. My first reaction was 'why
bring them back? Let sleeping dogs lie." God knows we have enough new
internet-words sloshing around, without resurrecting old ones. Then when
I saw "Betrump - To deceive, cheat, elude, slip from", I thought some of
these could have present-day relevance. Similarly, I'd use 'Sillytonian'
to describe Boris Johnson - both silly and an Etonian. (OK, this last
one is a re-definition rather than a resurrection.)

[Robert Bannister]

I even lived in the bush for 14 years, but I've have never heard "lozenger".

[Jean mitt Tonnick]

If you lived in the bush for that long there would not be call for you
to have heard of a lozenger. You'd be sucking on koala scrotums and
eucalyptus bark for relief.

[Robert Bannister]

I was barking a bit.

[christ...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 28, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Norm Wahl wrote:
> Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
> word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
> gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
> reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
> whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
> irritation between two of my friends.
>
> Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one
> understands, that is language. Variations are the only
> means of enriching the language, and an overconcern for
> "correctness" can sometimes dampen expressiveness.
>
> Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word?
> Thanks very much.
>

> --
> Norm Wahl

I am firm believer that this came out of its plural use. The plural "Lozenges" is often mispronounced as "Lozengers" (especially in the NE, more specifically RI and SE MA). If the plural is often pronounced incorrectly as Lozengers and just one of them would be incorrectly called a lozenger.

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 23:02:40 -0700 (PDT), christ...@gmail.com
wrote:

What you say makes perfect sense, but I've never heard anyone say
"lozenger" nor seen it in print.

[Robert Bannister]

Makes sense, but I've never heard anyone say it that way (yet).

[morabit...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 28, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Norm Wahl wrote:
> Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the
> word "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted
> gives "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral
> reference to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not
> whether its use should be corrected, has become a point of
> irritation between two of my friends.
>
> Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one
> understands, that is language. Variations are the only
> means of enriching the language, and an overconcern for
> "correctness" can sometimes dampen expressiveness.
>
> Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word?
> Thanks very much.
>
> --
> Norm Wahl

Norm,

Are you still alive? Just got caught up on 22 years of heated lozenge talk. Have you reached a conclusion on whether it is "lozenge" or "lozenger?"

Would love to hear back if you are indeed still alive.

From the future,
Karen & John

ps its lozenger

[Peter Moylan]

On 30/04/18 12:55, morabit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 28, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Norm Wahl wrote:

>> Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the word
>> "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted gives
>> "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral reference
>> to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not whether its use
>> should be corrected, has become a point of irritation between two
>> of my friends.
>>
>> Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one
>> understands, that is language. Variations are the only means of
>> enriching the language, and an overconcern for "correctness" can
>> sometimes dampen expressiveness.
>>
>> Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word? Thanks
>> very much.

> Are you still alive? Just got caught up on 22 years of heated lozenge
> talk. Have you reached a conclusion on whether it is "lozenge" or
> "lozenger?"

I don't remember whether we resolved this back in 1996, but in my mind
the explanation's simple enough. In a non-rhotic dialect like mine
there's no audible difference between "lozenges" and "lozengers". It's
the sort of word where you're quite likely to hear the plural before you
hear the singular. Thus "lozenger" was invented by faulty extrapolation
from the plural.

Actually, I don't think I've heard this pseudo-word since 1996, so
perhaps it's died out.

> Would love to hear back if you are indeed still alive.
>
> From the future,

> ps its lozenger

I'll assume that that's a joke.

[Peter T. Daniels]

It was discussed here when this thread was revived in 2013, 2016 (for
just one message), and 2017.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 30-04-2018 kl. 05:37 skrev Peter Moylan:
> On 30/04/18 12:55, morabit...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 28, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Norm Wahl wrote:
>
>>> Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the word
>>> "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted gives
>>> "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral reference
>>> to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not whether its use
>>> should be corrected, has become a point of irritation between two
>>> of my friends.
>>>
>>> Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one
>>> understands, that is language. Variations are the only means of
>>> enriching the language, and an overconcern for "correctness" can
>>> sometimes dampen expressiveness.
>>>
>>> Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word? Thanks
>>> very much.
>
>> Are you still alive? Just got caught up on 22 years of heated lozenge
>> talk. Have you reached a conclusion on whether it is "lozenge" or
>> "lozenger?"
>
> I don't remember whether we resolved this back in 1996, but in my mind
> the explanation's simple enough. In a non-rhotic dialect like mine
> there's no audible difference between "lozenges" and "lozengers".

Interesting. In my non-rhotic accent they are clearly different.
Rhyme with "is" and "hers", respectively, except that the s's
are unvoiced.

> It's
> the sort of word where you're quite likely to hear the plural before you
> hear the singular. Thus "lozenger" was invented by faulty extrapolation
> from the plural.
>
> Actually, I don't think I've heard this pseudo-word since 1996, so
> perhaps it's died out.
>
>> Would love to hear back if you are indeed still alive.
>>
>> From the future,
>
>> ps its lozenger
>
> I'll assume that that's a joke.

/Anders, Denmark.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:23:33 PM UTC-6, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 30-04-2018 kl. 05:37 skrev Peter Moylan:
> > On 30/04/18 12:55, morabit...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, January 28, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Norm Wahl wrote:
> >
> >>> Several friends of mine (including my wife) grew up using the word
> >>> "lozenger" for cough drops. Every source I have consulted gives
> >>> "lozenge" as the correct word, without even a peripheral reference
> >>> to "lozenger". Whether this is a word, and if not whether its use
> >>> should be corrected, has become a point of irritation between two
> >>> of my friends.
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I feel that if one person speaks and another one
> >>> understands, that is language. Variations are the only means of
> >>> enriching the language, and an overconcern for "correctness" can
> >>> sometimes dampen expressiveness.
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone contribute any background on this (pseudo-)word? Thanks
> >>> very much.
> >
> >> Are you still alive? Just got caught up on 22 years of heated lozenge
> >> talk. Have you reached a conclusion on whether it is "lozenge" or
> >> "lozenger?"
> >
> > I don't remember whether we resolved this back in 1996, but in my mind
> > the explanation's simple enough. In a non-rhotic dialect like mine
> > there's no audible difference between "lozenges" and "lozengers".
>
> Interesting. In my non-rhotic accent they are clearly different.
> Rhyme with "is" and "hers", respectively,

I think that's RP. But Australian English, like a great deal of American
English, has the "weak-vowel merger", so the last vowel in "lozenges"
is a schwa. Or so I've read.

> except that the s's are unvoiced.

...

I don't think that's RP at all. We Americans may at least partially
devoice the final s's.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mark Brader]

Peter Moylan:

> > In a non-rhotic dialect like mine
> > there's no audible difference between "lozenges" and "lozengers".

Anders Nygaard:

> Interesting. In my non-rhotic accent they are clearly different.
> Rhyme with "is" and "hers", respectively, except that the s's
> are unvoiced.

I find it hard to imagine any of those words or word-forms having an
unvoiced S. Iz, herz, lozenjez, lozenjerz.
--
Mark Brader|"But how can we do something about something that isn't happening?"
Toronto |"It's much easier to solve an imaginary problem than a real one."
m...@vex.net| --Lynn & Jay: "Yes, Prime Minister" (2013)

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 01-05-2018 kl. 05:12 skrev Mark Brader:
> Peter Moylan:
>>> In a non-rhotic dialect like mine
>>> there's no audible difference between "lozenges" and "lozengers".
>
> Anders Nygaard:
>> Interesting. In my non-rhotic accent they are clearly different.
>> Rhyme with "is" and "hers", respectively, except that the s's
>> are unvoiced.
>
> I find it hard to imagine any of those words or word-forms having an
> unvoiced S. Iz, herz, lozenjez, lozenjerz.

You are right - all are voiced.
I often have trouble distinguishing voiced and unvoiced S, as Danish
does not use voiced S.

/Anders, Denmark.

[katd...@gmail.com]

A: The sweetened, medicated tablet is spelled “lozenge” and pronounced LAH-zinj in standard English, according to dictionaries in the US and the UK. However, the Oxford English Dictionary says a variant spelling, “lozenger” (pronounced LAH-zin-jer), is present in the US and northern England.Nov 18, 2013

[Peter Moylan]

Here, for those who are keeping track, is another revival of an old
thread where the References: header exists, but the subject line did not
contain a Re:.

Another point of interest: The body finishes with a five-year-old date.
Is this the date of the article being responded to, or is it the posting
date of the disinterring post? Is it possible that an article can sit in
GG for five years before finally being posted?

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:47:46 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 01/11/18 15:20, katd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > A: The sweetened, medicated tablet is spelled “lozenge” and
> > pronounced LAH-zinj in standard English, according to dictionaries
> > in the US and the UK. However, the Oxford English Dictionary says a
> > variant spelling, “lozenger” (pronounced LAH-zin-jer), is present in
> > the US and northern England.Nov 18, 2013
>
> Here, for those who are keeping track, is another revival of an old
> thread where the References: header exists, but the subject line did not
> contain a Re:.

I have not figured out how to tell which G2 posts came from a PC
and which came from a mobile device.
So I can't verify that that is what no-Re means.

> Another point of interest: The body finishes with a five-year-old date.
> Is this the date of the article being responded to, or is it the posting
> date of the disinterring post? Is it possible that an article can sit in
> GG for five years before finally being posted?

All of the dates in the header are 2018 (31 Oct PDT for rx'd dates, 01 Nov +0 for injection date).

I have never had a post take 5 years to show up, via any posting agent.

/dps

[snide...@gmail.com]

I forgot to include my comments on the "2013" reference.
I do not see a post in the thread between February 1st, 1996,
and November 30th, 2013. The 18th does not seem to have any posts,
and both the in-reply-to and references headers point at
the original thread post of Norm Wahl on January 28th, 1996.

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

The thread was initiated on 1/28/96, with 6 messages over 5 days
It was revived on 11/20/13,with 17 messages over 4 days
It was revived on 3/27/16 with 1 reply
It was revived on 7/14/17 with 25 messages in three groups until 10/1/17
It was revived yesterday

[Default User]

snide...@gmail.com wrote:

> I have not figured out how to tell which G2 posts came from a PC
> and which came from a mobile device.
> So I can't verify that that is what no-Re means.

I believe that the ones with no "Re:", which also typically have no
quoted material, are from mobile devices.

On rec.arts.sf.written, a frequent contributor does this on occasion.

I had checked with my iPad and found that when accessing Google Groups
through it there seemed to be no way to have quotes without doing a
copy/paste from the original message before replying. Even then it's
not a proper quote with depth markers ('>' etc.). I didn't try editing
the subject line to add the "Re:" part. Perhpas I will experiment this
afternoon during reading time.

I don't know why GG doesn't provide an option for a quote. Then again,
over the years many of the things the designers and maintainers do with
it are puzzling.

I have said in the past that the two qualifications for working on the
project are to be an incompetent software developer and be completely
unfamiliar with usenet.


Brian

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-7, Default User wrote:

> I don't know why GG doesn't provide an option for a quote. Then again,
> over the years many of the things the designers and maintainers do with
> it are puzzling.

Since GG on a desktop browser defaults to quoting the respondee,
with proper guzintas, the "doesn't provide an option for a quote"
would be for a mobile device, where screen space is at a premium
(relatively speaking).

/dps

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:20:49 AM UTC-7, Default User wrote:

> snide...@gmail.com wrote:

> > I have not figured out how to tell which G2 posts came from a PC
> > and which came from a mobile device.
> > So I can't verify that that is what no-Re means.
>
> I believe that the ones with no "Re:", which also typically have no
> quoted material, are from mobile devices.

But there is nothing in the header which I can tie to mobile or not.

/dps

[Default User]

I am posting this via GG using my iPad as a reply to the post that started this latest discussion. The subject line did not include the “Re:” part but I was able to edit it to add that.


Brian

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 2:15:36 PM UTC-7, Default User wrote:
> I am posting this via GG using my iPad as a reply to the post that started this latest discussion. The subject line did not include the “Re:” part but I was able to edit it to add that.

[unwrapped line left as is]

That is a useful experiment, and allows us to correlate a specific message
with a behavior that's been observed.

However, there is nothing in the header to indicate a mobile device,
so in the case of random messages we can only guess.

I've done posts from Android phones before,
and from the mobile interface while in a desktop browser,
and so I've seen the "quotelessness" first hand;
I did not track re:s at that time.

YMMV. Battery included with most mobile devices. Tax and Shipping Extra.

/dps

[Default User]

I had been speaking of the mobile version thoughout the message, but I
did not specify that in the paragraph, so apparently that caused some
confusion.


Brian

[Peter Moylan]

I suppose Google deserves some credit for thinking of the possibility of
someone reading Usenet on a phone. It had never occurred to me that
anyone would try that. I would find it impossibly frustrating.

[Default User]

Peter Moylan wrote:

> I suppose Google deserves some credit for thinking of the possibility
> of someone reading Usenet on a phone. It had never occurred to me that
> anyone would try that. I would find it impossibly frustrating.

I didn't look exhaustively, but there aren't many options for
newsreaders on mobile devices. It's a bit hard to say because
"newsreader" is now used more for reading news, not usenet.

Reading isn't particularly difficult with GG on mobile. It would be
better if mobile versions of browsers allowed you to increase the font
size as you can with desktop versions. The font size on GG is pretty
small. I can "pinch spread" it a bit as there is some margin space
available.

The replying is somewhat more challenging. I don't know why they didn't
at least include an option for full quote.


Brian

[Snidely]

On Thursday, Peter Moylan queried:

I've done it on occasion. GG is, for me, easier to use on a phone than
the noosereeder tried before that (maybe 6 years ago? I haven't tried
to find them recently).

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Lewis]

In message <prgpjf$323$1...@dont-email.me> Default User <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:

>> I suppose Google deserves some credit for thinking of the possibility
>> of someone reading Usenet on a phone. It had never occurred to me that
>> anyone would try that. I would find it impossibly frustrating.

> I didn't look exhaustively, but there aren't many options for
> newsreaders on mobile devices. It's a bit hard to say because
> "newsreader" is now used more for reading news, not usenet.

Search for NNTP

--
"There will always be women in rubber flirting with me."

[Ken Blake]

Except when I'm traveling, I do Usenet on my desktop computer. When
I'm traveling, I do most things on my smart phone, but I don't do
Usenet at all. It's not so much a matter of frustration; it's rather
that I don't want to devote the time to it.

So if you see no messages here from me for two weeks or so, I'm
probably on vacation.

[morabit...@gmail.com]

RIP Norm

[doreent...@gmail.com]

I’ve always called it a losenger. I was recently corrected. I guess someone probably my parents taught me that way. Usually how mispronunciations begin with one person saying it and another hearing it for the first time.

[RH Draney]

On 1/10/2020 12:30 PM, doreent...@gmail.com wrote:
> I’ve always called it a losenger. I was recently corrected. I guess someone probably my parents taught me that way. Usually how mispronunciations begin with one person saying it and another hearing it for the first time.

In one of the later silent "Our Gang" films, one of the kids sits down
to a breakfast of what the title card calls "sossingers" (the same short
features a very early instance of product placement, when a closeup of a
trademarked bottle of Tabasco Sauce is shown)....

What you've got hold of there is what happens when the rhotic meet the
non-rhotic....r

[Mack A. Damia]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:39:52 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On 1/10/2020 12:30 PM, doreent...@gmail.com wrote:

>> I致e always called it a losenger. I was recently corrected. I guess someone probably my parents taught me that way. Usually how mispronunciations begin with one person saying it and another hearing it for the first time.

>
>In one of the later silent "Our Gang" films, one of the kids sits down
>to a breakfast of what the title card calls "sossingers" (the same short
>features a very early instance of product placement, when a closeup of a
>trademarked bottle of Tabasco Sauce is shown)....

This posted on Facebook this morning:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQFDM0Diq5RezbDs3FtxiUfL11mAWgGNqWQlKQAJZrmIjXv3FLL

Somebody wrote, 'Laurel and Hardy?"

And I said, "Chubby and Alfalfa" from Our Gang.

[RH Draney]

On 1/10/2020 2:09 PM, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
> This posted on Facebook this morning:
>
> https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQFDM0Diq5RezbDs3FtxiUfL11mAWgGNqWQlKQAJZrmIjXv3FLL
>
> Somebody wrote, 'Laurel and Hardy?"
>
> And I said, "Chubby and Alfalfa" from Our Gang.

An anachronism, I think...Chubby was out of the cast by the time Alfalfa
arrived....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

Spanky?

I got a DVD set (cheap!) that claimed to be The Complete Our Gang Comedies
-- but doesn't include the silents.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 01:54:51 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net>
wrote:

I thought as much. I couldn't find a photo of them together.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 06:49:05 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:55:08 AM UTC-5, RH Draney wrote:
>> On 1/10/2020 2:09 PM, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>> > This posted on Facebook this morning:
>> > https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQFDM0Diq5RezbDs3FtxiUfL11mAWgGNqWQlKQAJZrmIjXv3FLL
>> > Somebody wrote, 'Laurel and Hardy?"
>> > And I said, "Chubby and Alfalfa" from Our Gang.
>>
>> An anachronism, I think...Chubby was out of the cast by the time Alfalfa
>> arrived....r
>
>Spanky?

That was my first choice, and there are plenty of photos of the two
together (Alfalfa).

But I thought of this guy, and there is no contest:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/ourgang/images/c/cf/Chubby.jpg/

[Jerry Friedman]

On 1/10/20 1:39 PM, RH Draney wrote:
...

> In one of the later silent "Our Gang" films, one of the kids sits down
> to a breakfast of what the title card calls "sossingers" (the same short
> features a very early instance of product placement, when a closeup of a
> trademarked bottle of Tabasco Sauce is shown)....

...

Green has it as "sassinger" back to 1821.

https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/ktfbh7q

Like "messenger" and "passenger", I guess.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mark Brader]

R.H. Draney:

> In one of the later silent "Our Gang" films, one of the kids sits down
> to a breakfast of what the title card calls "sossingers" (the same short
> features a very early instance of product placement, when a closeup of a
> trademarked bottle of Tabasco Sauce is shown)....

How do you know it was product placement?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Show that 17x17 = 289. Generalise this result."
m...@vex.net | -- Carl E. Linderholm

[bil...@shaw.ca]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-8, Mark Brader wrote:
> R.H. Draney:
> > In one of the later silent "Our Gang" films, one of the kids sits down
> > to a breakfast of what the title card calls "sossingers" (the same short
> > features a very early instance of product placement, when a closeup of a
> > trademarked bottle of Tabasco Sauce is shown)....
>
> How do you know it was product placement?

Good question. Tabasco Sauce would be a suitable condiment
for sossingers, which seem to be somewhat tangential to sausages.

bill

[RH Draney]

Because only the McIlhenny company can use the name "Tabasco"....r

[Sam Plusnet]

"Product Placement" (to me) involves a company paying to have its
products on view.
If no money changes hands, it's just set dressing.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Tony Cooper]

Not always. Sometimes no money changes hands but the studio gets free
use of props. A studio filming a movie where computers are used would
be glad to have several Apple computers to use without buying or
renting them, and glad to have them sitting on desks with the Apple
logo clearly in view in exchange. I believe that the automobile
manufacturers provide autos for movies just to have their brand
visible.

There is some money that changes hands, though. Product placement is
a profession, and there are people who are paid by the manufacturers
to get their product in as a prop. The money doesn't go to the
studio.

In one of the episodes of the new season of "The Marvelous Mrs Maisel"
Mrs Maisel records a number of radio commercials. She expects to be
paid, but - instead - is given boxes of the product in the commercial.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[charles]

In article <3htm1ftrpf2s4h2so...@4ax.com>,

fine , but she doesn't smoke and the commercials are for cigarettes

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

[Tony Cooper]

I lost track somewhere. What cigarettes? All I see is "Tobasco
Sauce" in the product placement comment.

[Snidely]

After serious thinking Tony Cooper wrote :

Go back to your set ... that's where the ads are.

And how for back does paid product placement go? I'm guessing at least
as early as 1920, but any information about farther back?

/dps

--
Trust, but verify.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:38:07 -0800, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Still not clear. What "set"?

>
>And how for back does paid product placement go? I'm guessing at least
>as early as 1920, but any information about farther back?
>

Wiki has an entire article on this. How about 1896, not 1920.
Sunlight soap in films by Auguste and Louis Lumičre.

[Snidely]

Just this Sunday, Tony Cooper explained that ...

The device that allowed you to watch _The Marvelous Mrs Maisel_.

>> And how for back does paid product placement go? I'm guessing at least
>> as early as 1920, but any information about farther back?
>>
> Wiki has an entire article on this. How about 1896, not 1920.

> Sunlight soap in films by Auguste and Louis Lumière.

Thanks.

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 19:38:49 -0800, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

One of us is totally lost. I can't figure out the "she", or the
reference to cigarettes.

If the "she" is Mrs Maisel, it has nothing to do with product
placement. She was recording radio commercials, and product placement
is the planting of recognizable brand name items in a scene in a
visual medium. Hard to do in radio, doncha think?

Mrs Maisel was doing commercials for tampons and some food product.
Yogurt? She declined to do one for Phyllis Schlafly.

I checked back through the thread and only "Our Gang" and Tabasco
Sauce has been mentioned. Nothing about cigarettes.

What have I missed?

>
>>> And how for back does paid product placement go? I'm guessing at least
>>> as early as 1920, but any information about farther back?
>>>
>> Wiki has an entire article on this. How about 1896, not 1920.

>> Sunlight soap in films by Auguste and Louis Lumičre.
>
>Thanks.
>
>/dps

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2020-01-13 03:16:31 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:38:07 -0800, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>

>> [ … ]

>>
>> And how for back does paid product placement go? I'm guessing at least
>> as early as 1920, but any information about farther back?
>>
> Wiki has an entire article on this. How about 1896, not 1920.

> Sunlight soap in films by Auguste and Louis Lumière.

The Wikiparticle says something I don't believe. At least, it doesn't
correspond with my experience (sample of 1, I know, so no need to point
it out), and I wonder how much research they did, rather than just
stating their prejudice:

> Age
> Chil­dren are usu­ally more eas­ily in­flu­enced than adults.
Once we were spending an extended period in Chile, and so I'm probably
referring to 1986, when our daughter was about 3. One day she asked my
wife if she had realized that all of the brands we bought were for
products heavily advertised on television. She was right, but neither
my wife nor I had noticed, and would probably have said we weren't
influenced by advertisements when deciding what to buy.



--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

Are the radio commercials for cigarette brands that are still sold?
If so, then it was a badly sneaky product placement. (If they're for
made-up brands, no problem.)

> Mrs Maisel was doing commercials for tampons and some food product.
> Yogurt? She declined to do one for Phyllis Schlafly.

I don't find anything in her bio to suggest she was "nationally
prominent" before the Goldwater campaign in 1964. She ran for
Congress in Illinois in '52; isn't that earlier than the show
is set?

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

> I checked back through the thread and only "Our Gang" and Tabasco
> Sauce has been mentioned. Nothing about cigarettes.
>
> What have I missed?

The content of this thread. See top lines above.

[Peter T. Daniels]

How does the fact that children are more easily influenced by advertising
than adults are suggest that adults aren't influenced by advertising?

[Peter Moylan]

> Sunlight soap in films by Auguste and Louis Lumière.

She likes to rub the Sunlight round by Claddagh
And see the suds run down by Galway Bay.

That was two items off my bucket list. I managed to see the sunlight
round by Claddagh, and see the suds run down by Galway Bay. We stayed
not far from Claddagh, with a good view of Galway Bay.

On the same trip, I was roaming in the gloaming by the bonnie (but
somewhat polluted) banks of Clyde, wi a lassie by my side. So in fact
I've ticked off a few items.

Many items, in fact. I've walked along Cannery Row. I've eaten Seoul
food in Korea. I've travelled in a boat out of the Grottes de Han. I've
seen Little Orphan Annie in San Francisco, and other performances in
the Sydney Opera House. I've swum through the tunnel in Caves Beach, and
climbed Munibung Hill. I've taken the Cableway up the mountains near
Cairns, and the funiculaire de Montmartre. I've stood at the top of the
highest mountain in Australia. I've crossed the bridge at the Kyle of
Lochalsh. I've walked through the falling fall leaves in Vermont. I've
counted the Twelve Apostles, and found them wanting. I've taken the
Brisbane Ferry to Bulimba, and the Sydney ferry to Manly. Yea, verily,
I've even taken the Newcastle train to Newcastle, back before the
railway line was cut.

There's nothing left on my list. If Death were to tap on my shoulder
tomorrow, I could honestly say that I could leave with no regrets.

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

[RH Draney]

No interest in seeing the dawn come up like thunder outer China 'crost
the bay?...r

[Sam Plusnet]

Is it a fact, or an assumption? The latter surely.

The assumption is that A is greater than B.
Athol has offered evidence/anecdote which illustrates that B is actually
much greater than most people think.
The information is relevant.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Tony Cooper]

The radio commercials that Mr Maisel did were not for cigarettes.

>
>> Mrs Maisel was doing commercials for tampons and some food product.
>> Yogurt? She declined to do one for Phyllis Schlafly.
>
>I don't find anything in her bio to suggest she was "nationally
>prominent" before the Goldwater campaign in 1964. She ran for
>Congress in Illinois in '52; isn't that earlier than the show
>is set?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

The ad she rejected was Schlafly's as part of her run for President of
the Illinois Federation of Republican Women in 1960. Schlafly won
that election, but I don't know who voted in that election.

I think. You have to have seen the episode. Mrs Maisel didn't get
far enough into the copy to know what the ad was encouraging people to
do, and it wasn't otherwise explained.

>
>> I checked back through the thread and only "Our Gang" and Tabasco
>> Sauce has been mentioned. Nothing about cigarettes.
>>
>> What have I missed?
>
>The content of this thread. See top lines above.

Nothing in this thread about cigarettes until that
seemingly-out-of-the-blue comment.