Why *pair* of pliers, scissors etc.
JWISNIA
Since these things *always* sem to be used in pairs to accomplish their
intended purpose, why do they get referred to as *pairs* anyway? A spring
loaded clamp or clothespin isn't referred to as "a pair of clamps", so
why are pliers? Was there ever a single plier, used to "ply" something?
I think I heard somewhere long ago that pants (trousers) are referred to
as pairs because they were originally two *separate* leg coverings
(pantaloons?), and it is conceivable that a one legged person could make
use of only *one*, but I can't envison the appropriate usage of half of a
pair of pliers or scissors to grasp or shear something.
Help please...carbons by email appreciated too.
Jeff Wisnia W1BSV
Winchester, MA.
"Common sense isn't very common..."
Gregory Resch
jwi...@aol.com (JWISNIA) writes:
> Since these things *always* seem to be used in pairs to accomplish their
> intended purpose, why do they get referred to as *pairs* anyway?...Was
> there ever a single plier, used to "ply" something?...
No, of course not. There was never such a word as "ply" (I'll just check
these three dictionaries... Nope, not in there at all) nor therefore
could there possibly have been such an instrument as a "plier", not even
going back to the dawn of recorded history--when AOL was founded.
> Jeff Wisnia W1BSV
> Winchester, MA.
> "Common sense isn't very common..."
You said it.
--
Philippa Hogben
re...@cpcug.org (Gregory Resch) wrote:
>jwi...@aol.com (JWISNIA) writes:
>> Since these things *always* seem to be used in pairs to accomplish their
>> intended purpose, why do they get referred to as *pairs* anyway?...Was
>> there ever a single plier, used to "ply" something?...
>
>No, of course not. There was never such a word as "ply" (I'll just check
>these three dictionaries... Nope, not in there at all)
There is such a word as "ply" as in "4-ply wool" made of four strands twisted
together. Then of course, somebody can "ply" their trade. What this has to do
with the origin of "pliers", I don't know.
Philippa Hogben
>--
Donald Martinich
JWISNIA (jwi...@aol.com) wrote:
: Since these things *always* sem to be used in pairs to accomplish their
: intended purpose, why do they get referred to as *pairs* anyway? A spring
: loaded clamp or clothespin isn't referred to as "a pair of clamps", so
:
This reminds me of the New Orleans usage: "pair of beads". During Carnival
season there are many parades with lots of floats carrying costumed revelers
throwing out cheap souvenirs, the most common being plastic beads. They
are not called strings or necklaces but "pairs". The thrown souvenirs, in-
cluding aluminum coins (doubloons), painted coconuts (ouch), beads, and other
things are called, collectively, "throws".
Don "T'row me sumpin' mistuh" Martinich
Rainer Thonnes
In article <4rq4ue$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jwi...@aol.com (JWISNIA) writes:
> Since these things *always* sem to be used in pairs to accomplish their
> intended purpose, why do they get referred to as *pairs* anyway? A spring
> loaded clamp or clothespin isn't referred to as "a pair of clamps", so
> why are pliers? Was there ever a single plier, used to "ply" something?
>
> as pairs because they were originally two *separate* leg coverings
> (pantaloons?), and it is conceivable that a one legged person could make
> use of only *one*, but I can't envison the appropriate usage of half of a
> pair of pliers or scissors to grasp or shear something.
Although you could conceivably use half a pair of glasses (spectacles) as
a monocle, there is no implication in the use of the term "pair" that any
of its halves is necessarily going to be useful on its own.
English does have a propensity for using "pair of X" when the whole object
consists of (or simply contains) two similar matched items. So German
"eine Brille/Schere/Hose/Zange" becomes English "a pair of glasses/scissors/
trousers/pliers". In those cases the components actually form one physical
item. Compare "ein Paar Socken/Schuhe/Handschuhe" - "a pair of socks/shoes/
gloves", where each matched pair consists of two physically detached objects.
The apparent anomaly you mention, the clothespin, arises because the
spring-loaded ones are a new-fangled modern invention. The term was
coined before they existed. Old-fashioned clothespegs are one-piece
objects, each cut from a single piece of wood, hence no temptation to
use "pair". They have nice rounded tops or heads, which is why they were
(and are) used to make peg-dolls.
> carbons by email appreciated too.
(done)
Mark Cunningham
In article <4rtb3c$o...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>, Philippa Hogben
<p...@eee.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> There is such a word as "ply" as in "4-ply wool" made of four strands twisted
> together. Then of course, somebody can "ply" their trade. What this has to do
> with the origin of "pliers", I don't know.
>
> Philippa Hogben
>
> p...@eee.nott.ac.uk
In my youth many people called them "wire pliers." Their original(?) use
was to twist strands of wire, perhaps in erecting fences, perhaps in
repairing things. In the old days, bailing wire was used to put most
anything back together.
--
Mark Cunningham, Ph.D. Crofter Publishing
m...@netline.net 6947 Brentford Road
http://www.netline.net/~mc Sarasota, FL 34241
Gregory Resch
Philippa Hogben <p...@eee.nott.ac.uk> writes:
> re...@cpcug.org (Gregory Resch) wrote:
> >
> >jwi...@aol.com (JWISNIA) writes:
> >> ...Was there ever a single plier, used to "ply" something?...
> >
> > No, of course not. There was never such a word as "ply" (I'll just
> > check these three dictionaries... Nope, not in there at all)....
>
> There is such a word as "ply" as in "4-ply wool" made of four strands twisted
> together. Then of course, somebody can "ply" their [*sic*] trade. What
> this has to do with the origin of "pliers", I don't know.
Good God.
--
Mark Odegard
Posted to alt.usage.english & e-mailed.
On 9 Jul 1996 10:08:44 GMT Philippa Hogben
<p...@eee.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>re...@cpcug.org (Gregory Resch) wrote:
>>jwi...@aol.com (JWISNIA) writes:
>>> Since these things *always* seem to be used in pairs to accomplish their
>>> intended purpose, why do they get referred to as *pairs* anyway?...Was
>>> there ever a single plier, used to "ply" something?...
>>
>>No, of course not. There was never such a word as "ply" (I'll just check
>>these three dictionaries... Nope, not in there at all)
>There is such a word as "ply" as in "4-ply wool" made of four strands twisted
>together. Then of course, somebody can "ply" their trade. What this has to do
>with the origin of "pliers", I don't know.
"Pliers" comes ultimately from the same Latin root as
"plicate", "fold" (c.f. duplicate, replicate). Pliers are "a
pair of (not necessarily symmetrically) matching parts that
fold together to grasp an object". One of these parts is not
a plier, but two of them make a pair of pliers.
English long ago lost the dual, but retains the idea in
"pair of", where something is *necessarily* matched (e.g.,
shoes, glasses). The hinged parts of pliers are
*necessarily* paired; it's a "paired thing" that lacks
functionality without its other.
A pair of wire cutters is descriptive NOT of two tools for
cutting wire[s], but of a paired-thing tool that does this
job, basically something that looks a lot like a pair of
pliers. "A wire cutter" could describe the same thing, but
could also describe a non-paired-thing tool for cutting
wire.
--
Mark Odegard. Ode...@ptel.net
John Davies
r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
(snip)
>English does have a propensity for using "pair of X" when the whole object
>consists of (or simply contains) two similar matched items. So German
>"eine Brille/Schere/Hose/Zange" becomes English "a pair of glasses/scissors/
>trousers/pliers". In those cases the components actually form one physical
>item. Compare "ein Paar Socken/Schuhe/Handschuhe" - "a pair of socks/shoes/
>gloves", where each matched pair consists of two physically detached objects.
(snip)
It's odd that in this respect English follows French rather than
German - indeed goes further than French, in which "pantalon"
(trousers) is singular. One would normally expect such deeply
underlying features of the language to originate in German rather than
French. Why is this? Is it because most of these objects came into
use after the Norman conquest?
So far as I can recall, all the German nouns which are singular where
English uses the plural, are feminine and end in e. Does anyone in
alt.german.usage (to which (I'm cross-posting) know why?
John Davies
Mark Odegard
Posted to alt.usage.english ONLY & e-mailed.
>r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
>(snip)
>>English does have a propensity for using "pair of X" when the whole object
>>consists of (or simply contains) two similar matched items. So German
>>"eine Brille/Schere/Hose/Zange" becomes English "a pair of glasses/scissors/
>>trousers/pliers". In those cases the components actually form one physical
>>item. Compare "ein Paar Socken/Schuhe/Handschuhe" - "a pair of socks/shoes/
>>gloves", where each matched pair consists of two physically detached objects.
>(snip)
>It's odd that in this respect English follows French rather than
>German - indeed goes further than French, in which "pantalon"
>(trousers) is singular. One would normally expect such deeply
>underlying features of the language to originate in German rather than
>French. Why is this? Is it because most of these objects came into
>use after the Norman conquest?
Consider: "jeans", "trousers", "pants", "briefs", "boxers",
"shorts", "cutoffs" and "trunks" (there may be more
examples). All of these words, even when left unpaired with
"pair" are always spelled with a final 's' and are
considered plural, yet *all* of them are a single garment.
Why? While the matched tubes of fabric are the most obvious
features of such garments and while they indeed come in
pairs, *why* is the *whole* garment referred to in the
plural?
What makes this interesting is that you cannot have a jean
or a short *leg*, it's a jeans leg or a shorts leg. You can
have one glove, one sock, one shoe or one ear muff. Why not
one jean leg?
In English, we *can* count things as "one-of-something,
a-pair-of-something, two-or-more-of-something", or, "one,
pair, two-or-more" with "pair" semantically being somewhere
between singular and plural.
--
Mark Odegard. Ode...@ptel.net
Frank Cole
In article <4s024n$6...@cronkite.polaristel.net>
Ode...@ptel.net "Mark Odegard" writes:
<snip>
> Consider: "jeans", "trousers", "pants", "briefs", "boxers",
> "shorts", "cutoffs" and "trunks" (there may be more
> examples). All of these words, even when left unpaired with
> "pair" are always spelled with a final 's' and are
> considered plural, yet *all* of them are a single garment.
> Why? While the matched tubes of fabric are the most obvious
> features of such garments and while they indeed come in
> pairs, *why* is the *whole* garment referred to in the
> plural?
<snip>
Well analyzed. Yep, I can wear "a pair of shorts" or "some shorts",
in each case one garment. BTW, above, I would have said, "... yet
*each* of them *is* a single garment." -- but then, I'm a Merkin.
--
Frank Cole
Earle D. Jones
In article <4rtb3c$o...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>, Philippa Hogben
<p...@eee.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> re...@cpcug.org (Gregory Resch) wrote:
> >jwi...@aol.com (JWISNIA) writes:
===========Clipalittle Here============
> There is such a word as "ply" as in "4-ply wool" made of four strands twisted
> together. Then of course, somebody can "ply" their trade. What this has to do
> with the origin of "pliers", I don't know.
=============
Philippa:
You may be confusing pliers with *priers*, which are Japanese pliers.
As for pants, we say *a pair of pants*. Pants are singular at the top and
plural at the bottom.
earle
=====
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Gregory Resch
Ethnic slurs aren't welcome in a.u.e .
You probably should c)ancel or s)upersede your article.
Or don't come back.
Your choice!
____________________________________________
ejo...@hooked.net (Earle D. Jones) writes:
> In article <4rtb3c$o...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>, Philippa Hogben
> <p...@eee.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> > re...@cpcug.org (Gregory Resch) wrote:
> > >jwi...@aol.com (JWISNIA) writes:
> ===========Clipalittle Here============
> > There is such a word as "ply" as in "4-ply wool" made of four strands twisted
> > together. Then of course, somebody can "ply" their trade. What this has to do
> > with the origin of "pliers", I don't know.
> =============
> Philippa:
> You may be confusing pliers with *priers*, which are Japanese pliers....
--
JWISNIA
Since I started this thread, it may be time to end it now, however I think
you are miles off base if you think that Phil was really making a racist
slur. I for one don't think that finding humor in a non-native speaker's
accent causing a word to be mispronounced is very much of a slur, it's too
commonplace and universal, and it cuts all ways too.
Roy, my favorite Chinese food waiter, would probably refer to you as a
"plick", particularly if you left a lousy tip.
Earle D. Jones
> re...@cpcug.org (Gregory Resch) wrote:
> >jwi...@aol.com (JWISNIA) writes:
===========Clipalittle Here============
> There is such a word as "ply" as in "4-ply wool" made of four strands twisted
> together. Then of course, somebody can "ply" their trade. What this has to do
> with the origin of "pliers", I don't know.
=============
Philippa:
You may be confusing pliers with *priers*, which are Japanese pliers.
Gregory Resch
jwi...@aol.com (JWISNIA) writes:
> Since I started this thread, it may be time to end it now, however I think
> you are miles off base if you think that Phil was really making a
> racist slur.... ^^^^
*Who's* off base?
--
Henry Law
I remember going, as a boy, into a particularly high-class shop in
Belfast, populated by sales assistants who were encouraged to convert
their normal accents and manners of speech into something more
appropriate to their superior calling, and encountering the deathless
phrase
"... they're a very nice trouser!"
It's mumblemumble years ago but I've never forgotten it.
--
Henry Law <>< h...@thelaws.demon.co.uk
Manchester, England
Markus Laker
re...@cpcug.org (Gregory Resch):
> Ethnic slurs aren't welcome in a.u.e .
No, that's probably true. But it is risky, and remarkably difficult, to
predict what other people will find offensive. As an example of this
I'll mention a headline in a recent Daily Star article that I saw in the
Chinese take-away this evening. (The Daily Star is Fleet Street's way
of making the rest of the British tabloid press look respectable.) From
the first two paragraphs (i.e. about nine words) it seems that the story
concerned a German who was making a nuisance of himself around young
women, and who was kept from a housing estate by vigilantes. The
headline? KRAUT PERV BAN. It's nice to know one's prejudices are
entirely justified -- the ones about the tabloid press, that is.
I think it was the Briton Mike Barnes who, in the mispelling thread,
mentioned 'color'. It was a joke. Earle Jones made another joke about
orientals' frequent inability to distinguish /r/ from /l/. It would be
hard to convince a sceptical audience that Earl is racist, however weak
his joke, while Mike is not.
> You probably should c)ancel or s)upersede your article.
On Usenet one has the right to say more or less anything one wants.
Only once have I contacted a person's ISP other than because of
commercial postings, and it was because he was making repeated and
unwanted postings on uk.misc inciting racial hatred. If you want to see
a real racist at work, spend five minutes on DejaNews looking at Duncan
Macmillan's output over the last year or so. The ISP refused to sever
Macmillan's Internet connection, by the way, and may well have been
right to do so.
Another example: I can /ask/ you to stop attempting to police the
newsgroup, and I can try to persuade you that it will do more harm than
good, but I can't demand or force you to stop. You have the right to
say whatever you wish.
> Or don't come back.
> Your choice!
Now that really /is/ offensive.
--
Markus Laker.
Keith C. Ivey
Henry Law <h...@thelaws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I remember going, as a boy, into a particularly high-class
>shop in Belfast, populated by sales assistants who were
>encouraged to convert their normal accents and manners of
>speech into something more appropriate to their superior
>calling, and encountering the deathless phrase
> "... they're a very nice trouser!"
Somethings similar seems to have become standard in US clothing
stores and catalogs, where a pair of trousers is often called a
pant.
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
Donnah Dunthorn
Keith C. Ivey (kci...@cpcug.org) wrote:
: Somethings similar seems to have become standard in US clothing
: stores and catalogs, where a pair of trousers is often called a
: pant.
Standard and often? This mighty shopper has never heard
it outside this thread. I've got catalogs galore here,
and still no pant in sight.
d.
Colin Fine
In article <566667...@thelaws.demon.co.uk>, Henry Law
<h...@thelaws.demon.co.uk> writes
>I remember going, as a boy, into a particularly high-class shop in
>Belfast, populated by sales assistants who were encouraged to convert
>their normal accents and manners of speech into something more
>appropriate to their superior calling, and encountering the deathless
>phrase
>
> "... they're a very nice trouser!"
I was thinking of mentioning this. 'A trouser' seems to be common in
menswear shops. Not so sure about the 'they' - I'll listen out for it
next time I go shopping for clothes.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK |
| Tel: 01274 592696 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk |
| "Losing is a state of mind, not a fact of life." -K.B.Brown |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel P. B. Smith
In article <4s7cfe$s...@news3.digex.net>,
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> wrote:
>Henry Law <h...@thelaws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Somethings similar seems to have become standard in US clothing
>stores and catalogs, where a pair of trousers is often called a
>pant.
Not often. Not to _my_ knowledge.
Now, analyse the phrase "As if this earth in fast thick pants were
breathing." Did the author mean to say "those earth?" Is it solid earth,
or sullied? Does fast mean rapid, or permanent, or starving? Or is it a
misprint for "fat thick pants?" Should it be "were" or "was?" And why
doesn't he say "pair of pants?" (Naturally, everyone recognizes this as a
line from a song by the immortal Anglo-African composer, Samuel
Coleridge-Taylor 1875-1912). :-)
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbs...@world.std.com
Earle D. Jones
> Henry Law <h...@thelaws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I remember going, as a boy, into a particularly high-class
> >shop in Belfast, populated by sales assistants who were
> >encouraged to convert their normal accents and manners of
> >speech into something more appropriate to their superior
> >calling, and encountering the deathless phrase
>
> > "... they're a very nice trouser!"
>
==========
Re: Phillippa's recent note about the words *ply* and *pry*:
*Priers* refer to Japanese *Pliers*.
ref: A pair of pliers.
With regard to *a pair of pants*:
Mark Odegard
Posted to alt.usage.english & e-mailed.
Mueller) wrote:
>While I was reading the instructions for installing my new ceiling fan, I
>saw the list of required tools:
> One Phillips head screwdriver
> One blade screwdriver
> *One pliers*
>
>See? Apparently, it doesn't always have to be a *pair of pliers*.
But, *see*, it *still* requires a pluralizing "s", "one
pliers",
--
Mark Odegard. Ode...@ptel.net
Wendy Mueller
While I was reading the instructions for installing my new ceiling fan, I
saw the list of required tools:
One Phillips head screwdriver
One blade screwdriver
*One pliers*
See? Apparently, it doesn't always have to be a *pair of pliers*.
Wendy Mueller
Colin Fine
In article <4sdf4o$g...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
dag...@usa.pipeline.com writes
John Davies
Here is a copy of a posting by Christian Weisberger, from
alt.usage.german, in response to an earlier cross-posting of mine
> r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
> >English does have a propensity for using "pair of X" when the whole object
> >consists of (or simply contains) two similar matched items. So German
> >"eine Brille/Schere/Hose/Zange" becomes English "a pair of glasses/scissors/
> >trousers/pliers". [...]
There is also the obsolescent term "Augengläser" for eyeglasses, and
"ein Paar Hosen" for a pair of pants (trousers) is common usage. This
defeats the proposed systematic difference between the two languages.
> It's odd that in this respect English follows French rather than
> German - [...] One would normally expect such deeply underlying
> features of the language to originate in German rather than French.
I don't think that these are "deeply underlying features" of the
respective languages. These plurals are found in many European
languages, e.g. Russian "nozhnitsy" [pl] scissors, though probably not
always for the same words.
> So far as I can recall, all the German nouns which are singular where
> English uses the plural, are feminine and end in e. Does anyone in
> alt.german.usage (to which (I'm cross-posting) know why?
Most German words ending in "-e" are feminine, so this correlation
isn't
surprising. I think there are instances of words ending in "-e" that
originally had a different gender but later became feminine due to
assimilation. This might play into the first two of the subsequent
etymologies, the last two are plain regular feminine nouns that passed
from OHG to MHG.
"Brille": late MHG "b[e]rille"
< MHG "berillus", "berille", "barille" beryl
The identical plural form was reverted to a singular for
naming the eyeglasses.
"Schere": MHG "schære"
< OHG "scari", plural of "scar" knife
(cf. English "shears")
"Hose": MHG "hose" < OHG "hosa"
(various cognates in other old Germanic languages)
"Zange": MHG "zange" < OHG "zanga"
(cf. Dutch "tang", English "tongs" [pl.], Swedish "tång")
Condensed from "Duden Band 7: Herkunftswörterbuch", where the
derivations are given back to the IE roots.
--
Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber
na...@mips.pfalz.de
See another pointless homepage at
<URL:http://home.pages.de/~naddy/>.
Keith C. Ivey
don...@shadow.net (Donnah Dunthorn) wrote:
>Keith C. Ivey (kci...@cpcug.org) wrote:
>: Somethings similar seems to have become standard in US clothing
>: stores and catalogs, where a pair of trousers is often called a
>: pant.
> Standard and often? This mighty shopper has never heard
> it outside this thread. I've got catalogs galore here,
> and still no pant in sight.
What can I say? You obviously need to shop more and get more
catalogs. I didn't make it up. I don't even like it.
Since you and Daniel P. B. Smith both seemed to think I was
living on a different planet, I decided to search for singular
"pant" on the Web. I thought I might have trouble and that most
of my hits would relate to heavy breathing, but no. I typed
"pant" into the Alta Vista search form and the very first page
in the results was one of many from Red the Uniform Tailor
selling trousers. And Red is not the only clothing retailer
using the word on the Web. Further down in the results are
pages from many other Web catalogs, including Spiegel.
A HotBot search gave similar results. See
http://www.ctme.com/fashion/attributes/p4.html for a picture of
"Our Best Twill Pant" from Clothestime.
Matthew Rabuzzi
Mark Odegard <Ode...@ptel.net> writes:
: >
: > *One pliers*
: >See? Apparently, it doesn't always have to be a *pair of pliers*.
: But, *see*, it *still* requires a pluralizing "s", "one pliers",
Some more trenchant remarks on plural cutting instruments:
Scissors, chisel, concise, incise, caesar, czar, tsar -- all come from
Latin "caesorium"="knife" from "caedere"="to cut,hew,kill".
Compare French "ciseler"="to chisel",
"le ciseau"="the chisel",
"les ciseaux"="the scissors (literally, plural chisels)",
"les cisailles"="the shears".
(Alouette, gentille alouette, Alouette, je te couperai:
on va utiliser les ciseaux sur les oiseaux, les cisailles sur les ailes!)
English "shears" are akin to Latine "cernere"="to separate"
and Greek "kerein"="to cut".
........................
Ectasia leads to ecstasy
Matthew Rabuzzi
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <31EE7CC6...@loc251.tandem.com>, Matthew Rabuzzi
<rab...@loc251.tandem.com> wrote:
> Some more trenchant remarks on plural cutting instruments:
>
> Scissors, chisel, concise, incise, caesar, czar, tsar -- all come from
> Latin "caesorium"="knife" from "caedere"="to cut,hew,kill".
No - most of them come from "caedere"; none of them comes from
"caesorium"; "scissors" comes from "scindere", to cut, whence we also have
"rescind", to cut back.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Mark Odegard
Posted to alt.usage.english & e-mailed.
(John Davies) wrote:
>Before anyone jumps to conclusions, "scar" (as in wound) does not come
>from Old German, but via Latin and Old French from the Greek
>"eschara", meaning hearth, brazier, burn, scar.
"Eschar" exists in English. It's a scab, often one resulting
from a surgical procedure, or a scab resulting from a burn.
The word has been around a long time (Middle English).
As I write this, I forget the term for the procedure
surgeons once did, whereby deep wounds were seared shut with
red hot pokers (this prevented infection). This resulted in
an eschar that later sloughed off, leaving an ugly,
permanent scar.
Surgeons still create such eschars when chemically burning
off plantar (underside of the foot) warts.
--
Mark Odegard. Ode...@ptel.net
David Read
>> Scissors, chisel, concise, incise, caesar, czar, tsar -- all come from
>> Latin "caesorium"="knife" from "caedere"="to cut,hew,kill".
>No - most of them come from "caedere"; none of them comes from
>"caesorium"; "scissors" comes from "scindere", to cut, whence we also have
>"rescind", to cut back.
My scissors comes from "supermarket", to rip off, whence we also
have "shoplift", to cut back on living expenses.
Matthew Rabuzzi
Aaron J. Dinkin <r...@usa1.com> writes:
: Matthew Rabuzzi <rab...@loc251.tandem.com> wrote:
:
: > Some more trenchant remarks on plural cutting instruments:
: > Scissors, chisel, concise, incise, caesar, czar, tsar -- all come from
: > Latin "caesorium"="knife" from "caedere"="to cut,hew,kill".
:
: No - most of them come from "caedere"; none of them comes from
: "caesorium"; "scissors" comes from "scindere", to cut, whence we also have
: "rescind", to cut back.
above). W3NI derives "schism", "schizophrenia", "rescind" from
Latin "scindere"="to split", Greek "schizein" ditto.
What's your source for the etyma?
...............
Huron drugs
Matthew Rabuzzi
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <31EFD70F...@loc251.tandem.com>, Matthew Rabuzzi
<rab...@loc251.tandem.com> wrote:
> Aaron J. Dinkin <r...@usa1.com> writes:
> : Matthew Rabuzzi <rab...@loc251.tandem.com> wrote:
> :
> : > Some more trenchant remarks on plural cutting instruments:
> : >
> : > Scissors, chisel, concise, incise, caesar, czar, tsar -- all come from
> : > Latin "caesorium"="knife" from "caedere"="to cut,hew,kill".
> :
> : No - most of them come from "caedere"; none of them comes from
> : "caesorium"; "scissors" comes from "scindere", to cut, whence we also have
> : "rescind", to cut back.
>
> That's interesting, because it contradicts W3NI (which gives what I report
> above).
Sorry. I was deceived by he fact that "scissors" is spelled _exactly_ as
it would be if it came from "scindere", and by the fact that William
Safire said it did. My dictionary says it does come from "caedere". (There
is in fact a Latin word "scissor", from "scindere", and it means "one who
carves meat".) How often do you suppose that happens, though - one word
from Latin comes through sound and spelling changes to seem as though it
came from a different Latin word of the same meaning? It's bizarre.
> W3NI derives "schism", "schizophrenia", "rescind" from Latin "scindere"="to
> split", Greek "schizein" ditto.
I understand what you mean here, but you've phrased it confusingly - you
make it sound as though you mean that "schizein" is from "scindere". To
rephrase: "resdind" is from Latin "scindere", to split, and "schism" and
"schizophrenia" are from Greek "schizein", with the same meaning.
> What's your source for the etyma?
William Safire, who seems not to be too trustworthy (though you can't
blame him; it is the logical conclusion).
Bill Fisher
In article <4sdf4o$g...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>, dag...@usa.pipeline.com(Wendy Mueller) writes:
> While I was reading the instructions for installing my new ceiling fan, I
> saw the list of required tools:
> One Phillips head screwdriver
> One blade screwdriver
>
> See? Apparently, it doesn't always have to be a *pair of pliers*.
>
Yeah, but ... I wouldn't take instructions as real evidence. I
wish I'd saved some of the wacky turns of phrase I've run across in
these things over the years. Anybody got any good examples?
- billf
Bob Cunningham
bi...@osi.ncsl.nist.gov (Bill Fisher) wrote:
[...]
> Yeah, but ... I wouldn't take instructions as real evidence. I
>wish I'd saved some of the wacky turns of phrase I've run across in
>these things over the years. Anybody got any good examples?
"Knife is sharp. Keep out of children."
John Lawler
[most of the discussion on the etymology of "scissors" snipped]
>> What's your source for the etyma?
>William Safire, who seems not to be too trustworthy (though you can't
>blame him; it is the logical conclusion).
You can too blame him. Someone who publishes uninformed
speculations and labels them facts, and in a privileged
publication (The New York Times) at that, is definitely
wide open to blame. Not to put too fine a point on it,
Safire doesn't know what he's talking about, but after
all, he was a speechwriter for Nixon and Agnew, and that
gives him all the qualifications Americans need.
As to "the logical conclusion", that's no excuse at all.
Logic has nothing to do with etymology. "Logic" is a
word used to refer to whatever particular set of prejudices
and assumptions one has used to arrive at a conclusion,
regardless of objective reality, and it is not to be
trusted when an objective description is available.
It would be "logical" but false, for instance, to relate
Latin "deus" and Greek "theos", both meaning 'god' (but
unrelated), or Latin "habere" and English "have" (also
synonymous but unrelated).
Get the facts, when they're findable, and let the logic
take care of itself. And for God's sake, would you buy
a used word from the man who coined "nattering nabobs of
negativism"?
- John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)