An interlingual phonetic coincidence

[Bebercito]

Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically differ
only by their first consonants being respectively the unvoiced
and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [ʃ] and [ʒ].

Now, the English counterparts of those two words, "carter" and
"garter", have the same trait with different first consonants, i.e [k]
and [g], where the former is the unvoiced form of the latter.

Isn't that weird?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Not in the slightest. It's called regular sound change.

[Bebercito]

But what were the odds that French and English both had
words that sounded alike for two notions as different as
charretière-carter and jarretière-garter, and that the only
phonetic difference in both cases was the (de)voicing
of their initial consonants? Next to zilch, if you ask me.

[spains...@gmail.com]

That is how randomness works, and why it can never be
simulated by "random numbers".

[Peter T. Daniels]

The odds are enormous, since it's highly likely that English borrowed
both words from French, as it did thousands of words beginning in
1066 (or maybe even before) and continuing to this day.

If you don't like it that French has words that sound similar to each
other, that's not English's problem. It's not French's problem. It's
your problem.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:57:20 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>> Le lundi 9 mai 2022 à 19:32:07 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:22:46 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>
>>> > Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically differ
>>> > only by their first consonants being respectively the unvoiced
>>> > and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [ʃ] and [ʒ].
>>> > Now, the English counterparts of those two words, "carter" and
>>> > "garter", have the same trait with different first consonants, i.e [k]
>>> > and [g], where the former is the unvoiced form of the latter.
>>> > Isn't that weird?
>>> Not in the slightest. It's called regular sound change.
>>
>> But what were the odds that French and English both had
>> words that sounded alike for two notions as different as
>> charretière-carter and jarretière-garter, and that the only
>> phonetic difference in both cases was the (de)voicing
>> of their initial consonants? Next to zilch, if you ask me.
>
> The odds are enormous, since it's highly likely that English borrowed
> both words from French, as it did thousands of words beginning in
> 1066 (or maybe even before) and continuing to this day.

| carter [...]
| from Anglo-Norman careter (compare French charretier)

| garter [...]
| from Old Northern French gartier [...] Cognate with French jarretière.

(Wiktionary)

--
Trans people are scapegoated for the impossibilities of this two-box
system, but the system harms all of us. Most people have felt ashamed
of the ways we don't conform to whatever narrow idea of man or woman
has been prescribed onto our bodies -- H.P.Keenan in Slate

[Bebercito]

Le lundi 9 mai 2022 à 22:17:33 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:57:20 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le lundi 9 mai 2022 à 19:32:07 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:22:46 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>
> > > > Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically differ
> > > > only by their first consonants being respectively the unvoiced
> > > > and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [ʃ] and [ʒ].
> > > > Now, the English counterparts of those two words, "carter" and
> > > > "garter", have the same trait with different first consonants, i.e [k]
> > > > and [g], where the former is the unvoiced form of the latter.
> > > > Isn't that weird?
> > > Not in the slightest. It's called regular sound change.
> >
> > But what were the odds that French and English both had
> > words that sounded alike for two notions as different as
> > charretière-carter and jarretière-garter, and that the only
> > phonetic difference in both cases was the (de)voicing
> > of their initial consonants? Next to zilch, if you ask me.
> The odds are enormous, since it's highly likely that English borrowed
> both words from French, as it did thousands of words beginning in
> 1066 (or maybe even before) and continuing to this day.

No, because that the _two_ words would be borrowed from
French in itself was highly unlikely (10% of all English words
are, which makes a probability of 1% for the two words) and
that they would then be subjected to the same sound change with
different consonants than in French was even more so. If "the odds
are enormous", there should be dozens of other such French-English
pairs of words. Can you name just one?

>
> If you don't like it that French has words that sound similar to each
> other, that's not English's problem. It's not French's problem. It's
> your problem.

What has that to do with anything?

[CDB]

On 5/10/2022 10:03 AM, Bebercito wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>> Bebercito wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>>>> Bebercito wrote:

>>>>> Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically
>>>>> differ only by their first consonants being respectively the
>>>>> unvoiced and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [ʃ] and
>>>>> [ʒ]. Now, the English counterparts of those two words,
>>>>> "carter" and "garter", have the same trait with different
>>>>> first consonants, i.e [k] and [g], where the former is the
>>>>> unvoiced form of the latter. Isn't that weird?
>>>> Not in the slightest. It's called regular sound change.

>>> But what were the odds that French and English both had words
>>> that sounded alike for two notions as different as
>>> charretière-carter and jarretière-garter, and that the only
>>> phonetic difference in both cases was the (de)voicing of their
>>> initial consonants? Next to zilch, if you ask me.
>> The odds are enormous, since it's highly likely that English
>> borrowed both words from French, as it did thousands of words
>> beginning in 1066 (or maybe even before) and continuing to this
>> day.

> No, because that the _two_ words would be borrowed from French in
> itself was highly unlikely (10% of all English words are, which makes
> a probability of 1% for the two words)

That seems to be far too low a figure. Perhaps you found an estimate of
the percentage of use of borrowed words instead of the percentage of
borrowed words in the English vocabulary; all those "the"s, "and"s, and
"are"s tend to mess up the proportions.

[Ross Clark]

On 11/05/2022 2:03 a.m., Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 9 mai 2022 à 22:17:33 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:57:20 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>>> Le lundi 9 mai 2022 à 19:32:07 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:22:46 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>>
>>>>> Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically differ
>>>>> only by their first consonants being respectively the unvoiced
>>>>> and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [ʃ] and [ʒ].
>>>>> Now, the English counterparts of those two words, "carter" and
>>>>> "garter", have the same trait with different first consonants, i.e [k]
>>>>> and [g], where the former is the unvoiced form of the latter.
>>>>> Isn't that weird?
>>>> Not in the slightest. It's called regular sound change.
>>>
>>> But what were the odds that French and English both had
>>> words that sounded alike for two notions as different as
>>> charretière-carter and jarretière-garter, and that the only
>>> phonetic difference in both cases was the (de)voicing
>>> of their initial consonants? Next to zilch, if you ask me.
>> The odds are enormous, since it's highly likely that English borrowed
>> both words from French, as it did thousands of words beginning in
>> 1066 (or maybe even before) and continuing to this day.
>
> No, because that the _two_ words would be borrowed from
> French in itself was highly unlikely (10% of all English words
> are, which makes a probability of 1% for the two words)

This can't be right. If you really want to talk about a "probability" of
a French word being borrowed into English, you would have to divide the
number of words which have actually been borrowed by the total number of
words available. (Both figures likely to be fuzzy in the extreme.) Then
you could square that to get a "probability" of two given words both
being borrowed. But this assumes equi-probability of borrowing for all
words, which is certainly not the case.

and
> that they would then be subjected to the same sound change with
> different consonants than in French was even more so.

In fact it is the French words that have changed. And there is nothing
improbable in the changes of k- > ch- and g- > j- in the same
environment. It's typical regular sound change, which doesn't apply to
words here and there at random.

Now the relation between the French and English words is a little more
complicated than has been recognized here so far.

Old French has both gartier and jartier. Standard French continues the
latter, but English has borrowed from a dialect which has the former.
(The root is apparently Celtic *gar for a part of the leg.)

Charretier* could be directly related to carter, if English had borrowed
from a dialect with ca- corresponding to cha-; and Norman French would
be such a dialect (compare castle/chateau, catch/chase). However, carter
seems to appear earlier in English than chartier does in French, and OED
sees it as formed from cart + er in English (13th century). And "cart"
itself seems to be immediately from Old Norse kart-r. Quite possibly all
these words ultimately go back to Latin carrus or its Celtic antecedent,
but that's where I'll stop.

*You gave us charretière, but that would be a female cart-driver, no?

Oh by the way -- OED online is so full of stuff -- English did actually
borrow both charet(te) for the vehicle and chareter for the driver, from
Standard French, but neither survived into modern times.

If "the odds
> are enormous", there should be dozens of other such French-English
> pairs of words. Can you name just one?

Why should there be dozens? And why should we have to search for them?
How long a list of French ch-/j- pairs do you have?

Summary: Yes, it's a coincidence, but not one I find of any linguistic
interest.

[Bebercito]

I suppose that's how the figure of 10% was obtained.

> (Both figures likely to be fuzzy in the extreme.)

Indeed.

> Then
> you could square that to get a "probability" of two given words both
> being borrowed.

Which I did.

> But this assumes equi-probability of borrowing for all
> words, which is certainly not the case.

Good point - I had overlooked that.

> and
> > that they would then be subjected to the same sound change with
> > different consonants than in French was even more so.
> In fact it is the French words that have changed. And there is nothing
> improbable in the changes of k- > ch- and g- > j- in the same
> environment. It's typical regular sound change, which doesn't apply to
> words here and there at random.
>
> Now the relation between the French and English words is a little more
> complicated than has been recognized here so far.
>
> Old French has both gartier and jartier. Standard French continues the
> latter, but English has borrowed from a dialect which has the former.
> (The root is apparently Celtic *gar for a part of the leg.)
>
> Charretier* could be directly related to carter, if English had borrowed
> from a dialect with ca- corresponding to cha-; and Norman French would
> be such a dialect (compare castle/chateau, catch/chase). However, carter
> seems to appear earlier in English than chartier does in French, and OED
> sees it as formed from cart + er in English (13th century). And "cart"
> itself seems to be immediately from Old Norse kart-r. Quite possibly all
> these words ultimately go back to Latin carrus or its Celtic antecedent,
> but that's where I'll stop.
>
> *You gave us charretière, but that would be a female cart-driver, no?

Yes, I deliberately chose the feminine for a closer match with
"jarretière".

>
> Oh by the way -- OED online is so full of stuff -- English did actually
> borrow both charet(te) for the vehicle and chareter for the driver, from
> Standard French, but neither survived into modern times.
> If "the odds
> > are enormous", there should be dozens of other such French-English
> > pairs of words. Can you name just one?
> Why should there be dozens?

If the odds of something happening are high, shouldn't there exist
numerous instances of it?

> And why should we have to search for them?

Precisely to prove their postulated existence, in this case.

> How long a list of French ch-/j- pairs do you have?

There are hardly any others that I can think of, which makes
the coincidence with English greater.

>
> Summary: Yes, it's a coincidence, but not one I find of any linguistic
> interest.

Yet a stunning, arguably worth mentioning one IMO.

[Snidely]

On Wednesday, Ross Clark pointed out that ...

> On 11/05/2022 2:03 a.m., Bebercito wrote:
>> Le lundi 9 mai 2022 à 22:17:33 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>>> The odds are enormous, since it's highly likely that English borrowed
>>> both words from French, as it did thousands of words beginning in
>>> 1066 (or maybe even before) and continuing to this day.
>>
>> No, because that the _two_ words would be borrowed from
>> French in itself was highly unlikely (10% of all English words
>> are, which makes a probability of 1% for the two words)
>
> This can't be right. If you really want to talk about a "probability" of a
> French word being borrowed into English, you would have to divide the number
> of words which have actually been borrowed by the total number of words
> available. (Both figures likely to be fuzzy in the extreme.) Then you could
> square that to get a "probability" of two given words both being borrowed.
> But this assumes equi-probability of borrowing for all words, which is
> certainly not the case.

AIUI, the chances of a legal or business term being borrowed are
relatively high, while the slang of the carter and the butcher probably
was less often given legs.

/dps

--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-05-12 01:26:43 +0000, Snidely said:

> On Wednesday, Ross Clark pointed out that ...
>> On 11/05/2022 2:03 a.m., Bebercito wrote:
>>> Le lundi 9 mai 2022 à 22:17:33 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
>>>> The odds are enormous, since it's highly likely that English borrowed
>>>> both words from French, as it did thousands of words beginning in
>>>> 1066 (or maybe even before) and continuing to this day.
>>>
>>> No, because that the _two_ words would be borrowed from
>>> French in itself was highly unlikely (10% of all English words
>>> are, which makes a probability of 1% for the two words)
>>
>> This can't be right. If you really want to talk about a "probability"
>> of a French word being borrowed into English, you would have to divide
>> the number of words which have actually been borrowed by the total
>> number of words available. (Both figures likely to be fuzzy in the
>> extreme.) Then you could square that to get a "probability" of two
>> given words both being borrowed. But this assumes equi-probability of
>> borrowing for all words, which is certainly not the case.
>
> AIUI, the chances of a legal or business term being borrowed are
> relatively high, while the slang of the carter and the butcher probably
> was less often given legs.

There are considerable variations even between British and American
English. Words relating to cars (boot/trunk ...) and babies
(diaper/nappy ...) are often different; words in other contexts are
usually the same.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:27:20 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 11 mai 2022 à 13:45:26 UTC+2, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
> > On 11/05/2022 2:03 a.m., Bebercito wrote:

> > Oh by the way -- OED online is so full of stuff -- English did actually
> > borrow both charet(te) for the vehicle and chareter for the driver, from
> > Standard French, but neither survived into modern times.
> > If "the odds
> > > are enormous", there should be dozens of other such French-English
> > > pairs of words. Can you name just one?
> > Why should there be dozens?
>
> If the odds of something happening are high, shouldn't there exist
> numerous instances of it?

How do you know there aren't?

> > And why should we have to search for them?
>
> Precisely to prove their postulated existence, in this case.

But ... who cares??? It's just now language contact works.

> > How long a list of French ch-/j- pairs do you have?
>
> There are hardly any others that I can think of, which makes
> the coincidence with English greater.

Nonsense. It makes the regular relationship with English jusr
about inevitable.

> > Summary: Yes, it's a coincidence, but not one I find of any linguistic
> > interest.
>
> Yet a stunning, arguably worth mentioning one IMO.

There is nothing "stunning" about it at all.

[me:]

> > >> If you don't like it that French has words that sound similar to each
> > >> other, that's not English's problem. It's not French's problem. It's
> > >> your problem.
> > > What has that to do with anything?

You're barking up a very wrong tree.

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 09:32:55 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-05-12 01:26:43 +0000, Snidely said:
>
>> On Wednesday, Ross Clark pointed out that ...
>>> On 11/05/2022 2:03 a.m., Bebercito wrote:
>>>> Le lundi 9 mai 2022 à 22:17:33 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>
>>>>> The odds are enormous, since it's highly likely that English borrowed
>>>>> both words from French, as it did thousands of words beginning in
>>>>> 1066 (or maybe even before) and continuing to this day.
>>>>
>>>> No, because that the _two_ words would be borrowed from
>>>> French in itself was highly unlikely (10% of all English words
>>>> are, which makes a probability of 1% for the two words)
>>>
>>> This can't be right. If you really want to talk about a "probability"
>>> of a French word being borrowed into English, you would have to divide
>>> the number of words which have actually been borrowed by the total
>>> number of words available. (Both figures likely to be fuzzy in the
>>> extreme.) Then you could square that to get a "probability" of two
>>> given words both being borrowed. But this assumes equi-probability of
>>> borrowing for all words, which is certainly not the case.
>>
>> AIUI, the chances of a legal or business term being borrowed are
>> relatively high, while the slang of the carter and the butcher probably
>> was less often given legs.
>
>There are considerable variations even between British and American
>English.

Many people say much the same thing; some even say they are two
different languages.

I disagree. Yes, there are some variations, but far from
"considerable." There's an occasional BrE word used here that I don't
understand, but very few.

To me the bigger difference between AmE and BrE is in pronunciation,
and even that varies with the part of the US or UK. I think I
mentioned here before that when I saw the movie "The Full Monty," I
could understand only every third word (and that word was "fook").

[Bebercito]

Le jeudi 12 mai 2022 à 17:08:49 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:27:20 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mercredi 11 mai 2022 à 13:45:26 UTC+2, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
> > > On 11/05/2022 2:03 a.m., Bebercito wrote:
>
> > > Oh by the way -- OED online is so full of stuff -- English did actually
> > > borrow both charet(te) for the vehicle and chareter for the driver, from
> > > Standard French, but neither survived into modern times.
> > > If "the odds
> > > > are enormous", there should be dozens of other such French-English
> > > > pairs of words. Can you name just one?
> > > Why should there be dozens?
> >
> > If the odds of something happening are high, shouldn't there exist
> > numerous instances of it?
> How do you know there aren't?

Again, name them.

> > > And why should we have to search for them?
> >
> > Precisely to prove their postulated existence, in this case.

> But ... who cares???

This topic is about what I deem to be a rare, improbable occurrence.
Providing examples showing that it's actually common would
therefore seem quite relevant to prove me wrong, as you intend
to.

> It's just now language contact works.

> > > How long a list of French ch-/j- pairs do you have?
> >
> > There are hardly any others that I can think of, which makes
> > the coincidence with English greater.
> Nonsense. It makes the regular relationship with English jusr
> about inevitable.

Wrong, that's basic statistics. The more such pairs of words in
French, the greater the odds of having matches in English.
In this case, I can think of only one pair, and you haven't
been able to find others.

> > > Summary: Yes, it's a coincidence, but not one I find of any linguistic
> > > interest.
> >
> > Yet a stunning, arguably worth mentioning one IMO.
> There is nothing "stunning" about it at all.
>
> [me:]
> > > >> If you don't like it that French has words that sound similar to each
> > > >> other, that's not English's problem. It's not French's problem. It's
> > > >> your problem.
> > > > What has that to do with anything?
> You're barking up a very wrong tree.

?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le jeudi 12 mai 2022 à 17:08:49 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:27:20 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 11 mai 2022 à 13:45:26 UTC+2, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
> > > > On 11/05/2022 2:03 a.m., Bebercito wrote:

> > > > Oh by the way -- OED online is so full of stuff -- English did actually
> > > > borrow both charet(te) for the vehicle and chareter for the driver, from
> > > > Standard French, but neither survived into modern times.
> > > > If "the odds
> > > > > are enormous", there should be dozens of other such French-English
> > > > > pairs of words. Can you name just one?
> > > > Why should there be dozens?
> > > If the odds of something happening are high, shouldn't there exist
> > > numerous instances of it?
> > How do you know there aren't?
> Again, name them.
> > > > And why should we have to search for them?
> > > Precisely to prove their postulated existence, in this case.
> > But ... who cares???
>
> This topic is about what I deem to be a rare, improbable occurrence.
> Providing examples showing that it's actually common would
> therefore seem quite relevant to prove me wrong, as you intend
> to.

What, EXACTLY, do you think is a "rare improbable occurrence"?

That when similar-sounding words are borrowed, the result is
similar-sounding words?

> > It's just now language contact works.
> > > > How long a list of French ch-/j- pairs do you have?
> > > There are hardly any others that I can think of, which makes
> > > the coincidence with English greater.

> > Nonsense. It makes the regular relationship with English just

> > about inevitable.
>
> Wrong, that's basic statistics. The more such pairs of words in
> French, the greater the odds of having matches in English.
> In this case, I can think of only one pair, and you haven't
> been able to find others.

One pair of WHAT? I have no idea what you think is so unusual.

[Ross Clark]

On 13/05/2022 4:01 a.m., Bebercito wrote:
> Le jeudi 12 mai 2022 à 17:08:49 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:27:20 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 11 mai 2022 à 13:45:26 UTC+2, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
>>>> On 11/05/2022 2:03 a.m., Bebercito wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh by the way -- OED online is so full of stuff -- English did actually
>>>> borrow both charet(te) for the vehicle and chareter for the driver, from
>>>> Standard French, but neither survived into modern times.
>>>> If "the odds
>>>>> are enormous", there should be dozens of other such French-English
>>>>> pairs of words. Can you name just one?
>>>> Why should there be dozens?
>>>
>>> If the odds of something happening are high, shouldn't there exist
>>> numerous instances of it?
>> How do you know there aren't?
>
> Again, name them.
>
>>>> And why should we have to search for them?
>>>
>>> Precisely to prove their postulated existence, in this case.
>
>> But ... who cares???
>
> This topic is about what I deem to be a rare, improbable occurrence.

You are working with a very strange concept of "probability".
What is the probability of the French word for dog being "chien"?
Why, it must be hugely improbable -- just think of all the other forms
it might have had! One in a million, surely. Or what about the amazing
fact that "god" is "dog" spelled backwards?

The world is full of extremely "improbable" things like that, whose
improbability is of no interest. They are just facts.

You start with another fact - that the words for "female cart-driver"
and "garter" in French are distinguished only by their initial
consonants -- and in fact just by the feature of voice. Nothing
remarkable in that -- there are lots of minimal pairs in French.
(jarre/carre, jase/case took me about a minute to find in a dictionary,
without straying very far from your example).

But now you find that the words "carter" and "garter" in English are
also a minimal pair, and distinguished by the feature of voice.
If you had found such a corresponding pair in Mongolian or Walbiri, it
would have been a genuine coincidence -- but no more than amusing.
Nothing would follow from it.

But here we're talking about English and French, and (as has been
pointed out) the similarity of form between the two pairs of words, and
the phonological contrast in each pair, is _not_ coincidental. The words
are in fact historically related, and come from roots -- respectively
*kar and *gar -- distinguished by the feature of voice! The initial
consonants have been preserved in the English words, and subject to
regular sound change in the French (still preserving the voice
contrast). Nothing to do with coincidence.

> Providing examples showing that it's actually common would
> therefore seem quite relevant to prove me wrong, as you intend
> to.

How many examples there are is of no more interest than the one example
we have.

[Snidely]

I've been watching various ootewbs and the occasional pronunciation
difference can stand out for me.

One of the Tewbers is an educated Brit (in fact, PhD astrophysics) who
says "distr BEWT" (emm fassis on the last sill labble) compared to my
"dis TRIB bewt". I think our "distr BEWT shun" matches rather.

Another tewber is a [further research needed, but unlikely to be
American] who names the engine [and car] manufacturer as "pack CARD" vs
my "PACK urd", although the quality of the 'a' in "pack" and "PACK"
seems to match.

/dps

--
And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

[Dingbat]

Not if they came from those French words.

This is a curious coincidence:
English DEAR and Russian DOROGOY have the same two meanings:
1) Beloved
2) Expensive

[Snidely]

Remember when Snidely bragged outrageously? That was Thursday:

The second, in yet another narration, described an officer as an "n
SIGN", but another pair of officers as "ensuns".

/dps

--
You could try being nicer and politer
> instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison

[Silvano]

Dingbat hat am 13.05.2022 um 07:08 geschrieben:

The same is true for the Italian CARO and, if my dictionaries are
correct, for the Spanish and Portuguese CARO as well as for the French CHER.

[Peter Moylan]

Meanwhile, Portuguese "obrigado" has the same meaning as Japanese "arigato".

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

[charles]

In article <t5l8ln$ghl$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Silvano <Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
> Dingbat hat am 13.05.2022 um 07:08 geschrieben:
> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:
> >> Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically differ
> >> only by their first consonants being respectively the unvoiced

> >> and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [#] and [#].

> >>
> >> Now, the English counterparts of those two words, "carter" and
> >> "garter", have the same trait with different first consonants, i.e [k]
> >> and [g], where the former is the unvoiced form of the latter.
> >>
> >> Isn't that weird?
> >
> > Not if they came from those French words.
> >
> > This is a curious coincidence:
> > English DEAR and Russian DOROGOY have the same two meanings:
> > 1) Beloved
> > 2) Expensive

> The same is true for the Italian CARO and, if my dictionaries are
> correct, for the Spanish and Portuguese CARO as well as for the French CHER.

It's always possible that having a beloved is expensive.

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

[CDB]

On 5/12/2022 9:27 PM, Snidely wrote:
> Ken Blake wrote on 5/12/2022 :

>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>> Snidely said:
>>>> Ross Clark pointed out that:

[carters and garters]

>>> There are considerable variations even between British and
>>> American English.

>> Many people say much the same thing; some even say they are two
>> different languages.

>> I disagree. Yes, there are some variations, but far from
>> "considerable." There's an occasional BrE word used here that I
>> don't understand, but very few.

>> To me the bigger difference between AmE and BrE is in
>> pronunciation, and even that varies with the part of the US or UK.
>> I think I mentioned here before that when I saw the movie "The Full
>> Monty," I could understand only every third word (and that word was
>> "fook").

> I've been watching various ootewbs and the occasional pronunciation
> difference can stand out for me.

> One of the Tewbers is an educated Brit (in fact, PhD astrophysics)
> who says "distr BEWT" (emm fassis on the last sill labble) compared
> to my "dis TRIB bewt". I think our "distr BEWT shun" matches
> rather.

> Another tewber is a [further research needed, but unlikely to be
> American] who names the engine [and car] manufacturer as "pack CARD"
> vs my "PACK urd", although the quality of the 'a' in "pack" and
> "PACK" seems to match.

Primary stress on the first syllable and secondary stress on the last
would be a common BrE pattern: ['g&,rA:Z], ['m&,lA:d]; ['p&,kA:d]?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:27:31 PM UTC-4, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Blake wrote on 5/12/2022 :
> > On Thu, 12 May 2022 09:32:55 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> > <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> >> There are considerable variations even between British and American
> >> English.
> > Many people say much the same thing; some even say they are two
> > different languages.

Not surprisingly, Churchill said it better. (Or Shaw, Or Wilde.)

> > I disagree. Yes, there are some variations, but far from
> > "considerable." There's an occasional BrE word used here that I don't
> > understand, but very few.
> > To me the bigger difference between AmE and BrE is in pronunciation,
> > and even that varies with the part of the US or UK. I think I
> > mentioned here before that when I saw the movie "The Full Monty," I
> > could understand only every third word (and that word was "fook").
>
> I've been watching various ootewbs and the occasional pronunciation
> difference can stand out for me.
>
> One of the Tewbers is an educated Brit (in fact, PhD astrophysics) who
> says "distr BEWT" (emm fassis on the last sill labble) compared to my
> "dis TRIB bewt". I think our "distr BEWT shun" matches rather.

On the Beeb they routinely say "CON-tri-byoot" for "con-TRIB-yoot."
Anglists might be able to tell you what happened, but it's pervasive.
(Odds are the AmE version is older and the BrE version is innovative,
because of the "center - periphery" phenomenon -- peripheral dialects
are less likely to host changes. Loss of post-vocalic r is a great
example. Never caught on here.)

> Another tewber is a [further research needed, but unlikely to be
> American] who names the engine [and car] manufacturer as "pack CARD" vs
> my "PACK urd", although the quality of the 'a' in "pack" and "PACK"
> seems to match.

Remember, they also think "Chrysler" has a /z/ in the middle.

[Bebercito]

[ʒ] and [k] pairs are indeed easier to find, but my point was about
French [ʃ] / [ʒ] pairs. On second thoughts, there are some indeed,
such as "chatte"/"jatte", "chute"/"jute", "shit"/"gîte", but with no
matches in English.

>
> But now you find that the words "carter" and "garter" in English are
> also a minimal pair, and distinguished by the feature of voice.
> If you had found such a corresponding pair in Mongolian or Walbiri, it
> would have been a genuine coincidence -- but no more than amusing.
> Nothing would follow from it.
>
> But here we're talking about English and French, and (as has been
> pointed out) the similarity of form between the two pairs of words, and
> the phonological contrast in each pair, is _not_ coincidental. The words
> are in fact historically related, and come from roots -- respectively
> *kar and *gar -- distinguished by the feature of voice! The initial
> consonants have been preserved in the English words, and subject to
> regular sound change in the French (still preserving the voice
> contrast).

The regular sound change in the French is from [ʒ] to [j], but what I find
stunning is that the initial English pair of [k] / [g] gave way to the [ʒ] / [j]
pair in French, which is phonetically unrelated to it but does retain the
voice contrast. Whether the retention was intentional or fortuitous is
beyond my grasp, though.

[Peter T. Daniels]

French CHER as well. It's beginning to look non-coincidental, no?

[Quinn C]

* Snidely:

> One of the Tewbers is an educated Brit (in fact, PhD astrophysics) who
> says "distr BEWT" (emm fassis on the last sill labble) compared to my
> "dis TRIB bewt". I think our "distr BEWT shun" matches rather.

I'm aware of the dis-TRI-bute stress, but was still working from the
assumption that my DIS-tri-bute is the most standardy standard.

There seems to be some confusion about that - Collins marks the second
syllable as stressed in writing, as the only option, but the recording
has stress on the first syllable (the very first speaker symbol):

<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/distribute>

Following are DIS-tri-butes, but dis-TRI-buting and dis-TRI-buted.

First syllable stress not in AmE, apparently.
--
Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct
in which the score is kept.
-- Doug Larson

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-05-13 10:14, Quinn C wrote:
> * Snidely:
>
>> One of the Tewbers is an educated Brit (in fact, PhD astrophysics) who
>> says "distr BEWT" (emm fassis on the last sill labble) compared to my
>> "dis TRIB bewt". I think our "distr BEWT shun" matches rather.
>
> I'm aware of the dis-TRI-bute stress, but was still working from the
> assumption that my DIS-tri-bute is the most standardy standard.
>
> There seems to be some confusion about that - Collins marks the second
> syllable as stressed in writing, as the only option, but the recording
> has stress on the first syllable (the very first speaker symbol):
>
> <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/distribute>
>
> Following are DIS-tri-butes, but dis-TRI-buting and dis-TRI-buted.
>
> First syllable stress not in AmE, apparently.

Nor is it in my English.
This is the first time I have heard (or read about) anyone stressing the
first syllable.

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-05-13 10:14, Quinn C wrote:

> * Snidely:
>
>> One of the Tewbers is an educated Brit (in fact, PhD astrophysics) who
>> says "distr BEWT" (emm fassis on the last sill labble) compared to my
>> "dis TRIB bewt". I think our "distr BEWT shun" matches rather.
>
> I'm aware of the dis-TRI-bute stress, but was still working from the
> assumption that my DIS-tri-bute is the most standardy standard.
>
> There seems to be some confusion about that - Collins marks the second
> syllable as stressed in writing, as the only option, but the recording
> has stress on the first syllable (the very first speaker symbol):
>
> <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/distribute>
>
> Following are DIS-tri-butes, but dis-TRI-buting and dis-TRI-buted.
>
> First syllable stress not in AmE, apparently.

Nor is it in my English.
This is the first time I have heard (or read about) anyone stressing the
first syllable.

--
Do illiterate people get the full effect of Alphabet soup?

[Adam Funk]

FSVO "here"! You know there are non-rhotic regional accents in the
USA.

>> Another tewber is a [further research needed, but unlikely to be
>> American] who names the engine [and car] manufacturer as "pack CARD" vs
>> my "PACK urd", although the quality of the 'a' in "pack" and "PACK"
>> seems to match.
>
> Remember, they also think "Chrysler" has a /z/ in the middle.

--
Cats don't have friends. They have co-conspirators.
http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2015/05/31

[Bebercito]

Correction: "[g] and [k] pairs"

> are indeed easier to find, but my point was about
> French [ʃ] / [ʒ] pairs. On second thoughts, there are some indeed,
> such as "chatte"/"jatte", "chute"/"jute", "shit"/"gîte",

Also, "shoot"/"joute".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:45:09 PM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2022-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:27:31 PM UTC-4, snide...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> One of the Tewbers is an educated Brit (in fact, PhD astrophysics) who
> >> says "distr BEWT" (emm fassis on the last sill labble) compared to my
> >> "dis TRIB bewt". I think our "distr BEWT shun" matches rather.
> > On the Beeb they routinely say "CON-tri-byoot" for "con-TRIB-yoot."
> > Anglists might be able to tell you what happened, but it's pervasive.
> > (Odds are the AmE version is older and the BrE version is innovative,
> > because of the "center - periphery" phenomenon -- peripheral dialects
> > are less likely to host changes. Loss of post-vocalic r is a great
> > example. Never caught on here.)
>
> FSVO "here"! You know there are non-rhotic regional accents in the
> USA.

They didn't "catch on." Non-rhotacism has not spread -- westward,
for instance, with the general westward movement of the regional
dialects -- from the few places where it was introduced by migration
(Boston, parts of the coastal South; NYC's has been said to reflect
the Dutch substratum but I don't know what that's based on).

[Ross Clark]

On 14/05/2022 12:51 a.m., Stefan Ram wrote:

> Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>> What is the probability of the French word for dog being "chien"?
>

> Of course, the question is too vague.
>
> But, one may be able to say that "dog" could be
>
> a (male) /Canis familiaris/: Fr "chien"
> a female /Canis familiaris/: Fr "chienne"
> a male /Canidae/: Fr "mâle"
> a person: for example, "lucky dog" -> Fr "veinard(e)"
> a person regarded as unattractive: Fr "moche"
> a clamp: Fr "crampon"
> ...
>
> And one may ask, "When taken from a given collection of
> English texts, what is the probability that this instance
> (work token) of 'dog' will be translated with 'chien'?".
>

Yes, that is one way in which the notion of "probability" could be made
operational. I was thinking more along the lines of:
If you picked a language (from the world) at random, what is the
probability that its word for dog would be "chien"? (Answer: about
1/7000, I guess.)
or:
If you were inventing a new language, and needed to make up a word for
dog (without being influenced by any existing language), what is the
probability that you would come up with "chien"? (Answer: much smaller,
I guess)

But my larger point was that linguistic facts -- simple ones like this,
or more complex ones like carter/garter -- even if highly improbable by
some such measure, are not therefore interesting.

[Ross Clark]

Oops, sorry, my mind wandered. But are they really easier? You don't
have complete lists, any more than I do.

but my point was about
> French [ʃ] / [ʒ] pairs. On second thoughts, there are some indeed,
> such as "chatte"/"jatte", "chute"/"jute", "shit"/"gîte", but with no
> matches in English.
>
>>
>> But now you find that the words "carter" and "garter" in English are
>> also a minimal pair, and distinguished by the feature of voice.
>> If you had found such a corresponding pair in Mongolian or Walbiri, it
>> would have been a genuine coincidence -- but no more than amusing.
>> Nothing would follow from it.
>>
>> But here we're talking about English and French, and (as has been
>> pointed out) the similarity of form between the two pairs of words, and
>> the phonological contrast in each pair, is _not_ coincidental. The words
>> are in fact historically related, and come from roots -- respectively
>> *kar and *gar -- distinguished by the feature of voice! The initial
>> consonants have been preserved in the English words, and subject to
>> regular sound change in the French (still preserving the voice
>> contrast).
>
> The regular sound change in the French is from [ʒ] to [j],

Huh?

but what I find
> stunning is that the initial English pair of [k] / [g] gave way to the [ʒ] / [j]
> pair in French, which is phonetically unrelated to it but does retain the
> voice contrast.

I think you are confused here. The sound changes are [k] > [ʃ] (Latin
cattus > French chat) and [g] > [ʒ] (Latin gamba > French jambe). Velar
stops become palatal fricatives; voicing contrast remains.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 13 May 2022 20:44:33 +1000: Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:

>On 13/05/22 19:33, Silvano wrote:
>> Dingbat hat am 13.05.2022 um 07:08 geschrieben:
>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:
>>>> Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically differ
>>>> only by their first consonants being respectively the unvoiced

>>>> and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [?] and [?].

>>>>
>>>> Now, the English counterparts of those two words, "carter" and
>>>> "garter", have the same trait with different first consonants, i.e [k]
>>>> and [g], where the former is the unvoiced form of the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that weird?
>>>
>>> Not if they came from those French words.
>>>
>>> This is a curious coincidence:
>>> English DEAR and Russian DOROGOY have the same two meanings:
>>> 1) Beloved
>>> 2) Expensive
>>
>> The same is true for the Italian CARO and, if my dictionaries are
>> correct, for the Spanish and Portuguese CARO as well as for the French CHER.
>
>Meanwhile, Portuguese "obrigado" has the same meaning as Japanese "arigato".

Unrelated, coincidence. The Japanese word predates first contact.

[Ross Clark]

Indeed. The English seems to be two directions of development from an
original meaning something like "precious, valuable, worthy". I feel
them as quite separate now; I knew the "beloved" one from childhood, but
only encountered the "expensive" one in adolescence from British sources
(spoken and written), and found it surprising.

I wonder if all these words have undergone independent parallel
development, or whether it's a series of interlingual calques?

[CDB]

On 5/13/2022 5:42 PM, Ross Clark wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> Dingbat wrote:
>>> Bebercito wrote:

>>>> Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically
>>>> differ only by their first consonants being respectively the
>>>> unvoiced and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [ʃ] and
>>>> [ʒ]. Now, the English counterparts of those two words, "carter"
>>>> and "garter", have the same trait with different first
>>>> consonants, i.e [k] and [g], where the former is the unvoiced
>>>> form of the latter. Isn't that weird?

>>> Not if they came from those French words.

>>> This is a curious coincidence: English DEAR and Russian DOROGOY
>>> have the same two meanings: 1) Beloved 2) Expensive

>> French CHER as well. It's beginning to look non-coincidental, no?

> Indeed. The English seems to be two directions of development from an
> original meaning something like "precious, valuable, worthy". I feel
> them as quite separate now; I knew the "beloved" one from childhood,
> but only encountered the "expensive" one in adolescence from British
> sources (spoken and written), and found it surprising.

> I wonder if all these words have undergone independent parallel
> development, or whether it's a series of interlingual calques?

It seems to me that it must be a very old development, maybe before
there was a lot to be parallel with. A Polish-Canadian room-mate once
told me that the word for "whore" in his ancestral language was the
"cher"-cognate "kurwa".

WP says it's from Proto-Slavic "kury", and adds 'According to Vasmer,
related to Proto-Slavic *kurъ (“cock, rooster”). Alternatively, from
Proto-Indo-European *kéh₂ros (“loved”), from *keh₂-. If so, cognate with
Latin cārus (“dear, beloved”), Latvian kārs (“craving, covetous”), and
English whore.'

I note that "cock" sometimes used in Southern American English to mean
the female genitalia (no written source, but I heard the usage from a
Kentuckian I worked with at one time).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/kury

No idea what all that says about the price in town.

[Quinn C]

* Ross Clark:

The German cognate "teuer" had the opposite development: it now normally
means "expensive", and the "beloved" meaning is old-fashioned and
stilted.

--
There is a whole cottage industry devoted to people who are
upset by the idea of others being outraged.
-- Washington Post 2019-09-18

[Peter T. Daniels]

Interesting. It was my grandmother's (b. 1891, Brooklyn) regular
word for 'expensive'.

> I wonder if all these words have undergone independent parallel
> development, or whether it's a series of interlingual calques?

Or just the ordinary development from 'precious, valuable, worthy' that
you suggested? Lakoff might even call it "metaphor."

[Bebercito]

I don't, but a simple, easily verifiable fact is that far fewer French
words begin with [ʃ] than with [k] and with [ʒ] than with [g], making
the number of [g] / [k] pairs potentially much greater than the number
of [ʃ] / [ʒ] pairs.

I was indeed, thanks.

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:43:06 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On 14/05/2022 2:36 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:08:22 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> > >> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:
>
> > >>> Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically differ
> > >>> only by their first consonants being respectively the unvoiced

> > >>> and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [?] and [?].

> > >>> Now, the English counterparts of those two words, "carter" and
> > >>> "garter", have the same trait with different first consonants, i.e [k]
> > >>> and [g], where the former is the unvoiced form of the latter.
> > >>> Isn't that weird?
> > >> Not if they came from those French words.
> > >> This is a curious coincidence:
> > >> English DEAR and Russian DOROGOY have the same two meanings:
> > >> 1) Beloved
> > >> 2) Expensive
> > > French CHER as well. It's beginning to look non-coincidental, no?
> >
> > Indeed. The English seems to be two directions of development from an
> > original meaning something like "precious, valuable, worthy". I feel
> > them as quite separate now; I knew the "beloved" one from childhood, but
> > only encountered the "expensive" one in adolescence from British sources
> > (spoken and written), and found it surprising.
>
> Interesting. It was my grandmother's (b. 1891, Brooklyn) regular
> word for 'expensive'.

If Brooklyn from Dutch 'duur', perhaps,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Uh, no.

Dutch was very long dead by the time her ancestors (probably her parents,
but we don't know) iommigrated from Eastern Europe (perhaps in the 1850s,
as we recently learned of her husband's, our grandfather). She seems to have
grown up, an orphan, in Rockland County, NY. (Her two older sisters were
sent to an orphanage in Fall River, Massachusetts. They had an older brother.
We do not know how or when he ended up in Memphis, Tennessee.)

Useful would be information as to whether Du. "duur" also has the other
meaning of the English, Russian, French, and (marginally) German words
that have been mentioned.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 14 May 2022 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>Useful would be information as to whether Du. "duur" also has the other
>meaning of the English, Russian, French, and (marginally) German words
>that have been mentioned.

Dutch duur mean expensive, costly, not dear.
But we also have dierbaar, which means dear, close to someone's heart.
They are indeed related: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dierbaar
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-05-14 13:45, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 14 May 2022 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> Useful would be information as to whether Du. "duur" also has the other
>> meaning of the English, Russian, French, and (marginally) German words
>> that have been mentioned.
>
> Dutch duur mean expensive, costly, not dear.

Hmmm... since 'dear' (in English), is a synonym of 'costly' and
'expensive', doesn't that mean that 'duur' is also a synonym of 'dear'?

[Bebercito]

Le samedi 14 mai 2022 à 21:52:37 UTC+2, lar3ryca a écrit :
> On 2022-05-14 13:45, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Sat, 14 May 2022 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >
> >> Useful would be information as to whether Du. "duur" also has the other
> >> meaning of the English, Russian, French, and (marginally) German words
> >> that have been mentioned.
> >
> > Dutch duur mean expensive, costly, not dear.
> Hmmm... since 'dear' (in English), is a synonym of 'costly' and
> 'expensive', doesn't that mean that 'duur' is also a synonym of 'dear'?

No, the implication is "expensive" as opposed to "dear" meaning
"cherished".

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 14 May 2022 13:52:31 -0600, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2022-05-14 13:45, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 14 May 2022 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>> Useful would be information as to whether Du. "duur" also has the other
>>> meaning of the English, Russian, French, and (marginally) German words
>>> that have been mentioned.
>>
>> Dutch duur mean expensive, costly, not dear.
>
>Hmmm... since 'dear' (in English), is a synonym of 'costly' and
>'expensive', doesn't that mean that 'duur' is also a synonym of 'dear'?
>
>
>
>> But we also have dierbaar, which means dear, close to someone's heart.

Sounds like a place that sells expensive liquor.

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-05-14 14:34, Bebercito wrote:
> Le samedi 14 mai 2022 à 21:52:37 UTC+2, lar3ryca a écrit :
>> On 2022-05-14 13:45, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Sat, 14 May 2022 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> Useful would be information as to whether Du. "duur" also has the other
>>>> meaning of the English, Russian, French, and (marginally) German words
>>>> that have been mentioned.
>>>
>>> Dutch duur mean expensive, costly, not dear.
>> Hmmm... since 'dear' (in English), is a synonym of 'costly' and
>> 'expensive', doesn't that mean that 'duur' is also a synonym of 'dear'?
>
> No, the implication is "expensive" as opposed to "dear" meaning
> "cherished".

But 'cherished' is only one definition of the word 'dear' in English. It
also means expensive or costly.

[Ken Blake]

For some reason, I am reminded of

I hold your hand in mine, dear
I press it to my lips
I take a healthy bite from
Your dainty fingertips

My joy would be complete, dear
If you were only here
But still I keep your hand
As a precious souvenir

[J. J. Lodder]

Usages may last,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 3:52:37 PM UTC-4, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 13:45, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Sat, 14 May 2022 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >> Useful would be information as to whether Du. "duur" also has the other
> >> meaning of the English, Russian, French, and (marginally) German words
> >> that have been mentioned.
> > Dutch duur mean expensive, costly, not dear.
>
> Hmmm... since 'dear' (in English), is a synonym of 'costly' and
> 'expensive', doesn't that mean that 'duur' is also a synonym of 'dear'?

And that's why newbies should not parachute into discussions without
having read what led up to any particular message.

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/05/22 03:53, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:43:06 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>> On 14/05/2022 2:36 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:08:22 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

>>>>> English DEAR and Russian DOROGOY have the same two meanings:
>>>>> 1) Beloved
>>>>> 2) Expensive
>>>> French CHER as well. It's beginning to look non-coincidental, no?
>>>
>>> Indeed. The English seems to be two directions of development from an
>>> original meaning something like "precious, valuable, worthy". I feel
>>> them as quite separate now; I knew the "beloved" one from childhood, but
>>> only encountered the "expensive" one in adolescence from British sources
>>> (spoken and written), and found it surprising.
>>
>> Interesting. It was my grandmother's (b. 1891, Brooklyn) regular
>> word for 'expensive'.
>
> If Brooklyn from Dutch 'duur', perhaps,

Unlikely, because dear=expensive can be found all over the
English-speaking world, and most of us have never been to Brooklyn.

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

[Hibou]

Le 12/05/2022 à 08:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>
> There are considerable variations even between British and American

> English. Words relating to cars (boot/trunk ...) and babies
> (diaper/nappy ...) are often different; words in other contexts are
> usually the same.

There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
subway-?, railway-station-train-station, points-switch,
engine-driver-engineer.... In other fields too: biscuit-cookie,
post-mail, bill-check, flat-apartment, torch-flashlight, coffin-casket,
crisps-chips, rubbish-garbage, angry-mad....

It doesn't stop with vocabulary, though. Formal English and formal
American are often very close, barring the odd spelling difference; but
in everyday speech it seems there's hardly a sentence that is the same
in Eastpondia and Westpondia. Take verb use, for instance: I've eaten vs
I ate already etc.. Or the question "How are you?", to which the answer
is either an adverb ("Fine") or an adjective ("Good").

Is a language a dialect with an army? I'm inclined to say it's the
expression of, and the vehicle for, a culture, and Britain and America
have quite different cultures.

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/05/22 15:29, Hibou wrote:
> Le 12/05/2022 à 08:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>
>> There are considerable variations even between British and American
>> English. Words relating to cars (boot/trunk ...) and babies
>> (diaper/nappy ...) are often different; words in other contexts are
>> usually the same.
>
> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
> subway-?

Underpass, I think. Or possibly tunnel.

, railway-station-train-station, points-switch,
> engine-driver-engineer.... In other fields too: biscuit-cookie,
> post-mail, bill-check, flat-apartment, torch-flashlight, coffin-casket,
> crisps-chips, rubbish-garbage, angry-mad....
>
> It doesn't stop with vocabulary, though. Formal English and formal
> American are often very close, barring the odd spelling difference; but
> in everyday speech it seems there's hardly a sentence that is the same
> in Eastpondia and Westpondia. Take verb use, for instance: I've eaten vs
> I ate already etc.. Or the question "How are you?", to which the answer
> is either an adverb ("Fine") or an adjective ("Good").
>
> Is a language a dialect with an army? I'm inclined to say it's the
> expression of, and the vehicle for, a culture, and Britain and America
> have quite different cultures.

[Dingbat]

My Malayalam speaking paternal grandmother spoke little English
but used cypher to mean zero. I haven't heard any English speaker
in India or elsewhere use cypher with that meaning. So, I can't
imagine where she borrowed it from;.

zero is one of the meanings listed here for cypher
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/cypher

Patricia Louise says here that her grandmother used it when
teaching math. Cyphering can mean calculating. Louise
doesn't say what her grandmother meant by cypher.

Patricia Louise
5 March, 2022

Grandma used this term when she helped us do math.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cypher

[Hibou]

Le 15/05/2022 à 07:10, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 15/05/22 15:29, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
>> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
>> subway-?
>
> Underpass, I think. Or possibly tunnel.

Usage is a bit fluid here in GB. In general, I would associate a subway
with pedestrians and an underpass with vehicles.

The Underground in London is definitely the Underground (made up of the
Tube plus the original cut-and-cover lines), even though much of it runs
above ground; but the 'system' (one line) in Glasgow is usually called
the Subway.

[Madhu]

* Dingbat <9faea7b7-e622-4e82...@googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Sun, 15 May 2022 00:01:36 -0700 (PDT):

> My Malayalam speaking paternal grandmother spoke little English
> but used cypher to mean zero. I haven't heard any English speaker
> in India or elsewhere use cypher with that meaning. So, I can't
> imagine where she borrowed it from;.

very common in the civil-servant class of the erstwhile madras state the
late 19th and 20th centuries. (and perhaps elsewhere)

Even in the mid 20th centuries in educational contexts it was the
opposite of centum (100 "marks" in an exam) (a cipher was a score of 0)

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/05/22 18:17, Hibou wrote:
> Le 15/05/2022 à 07:10, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>> On 15/05/22 15:29, Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in
>>> transport-transportation: lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk,
>>> give-way-yield, underground-subway, subway-?
>>
>> Underpass, I think. Or possibly tunnel.
>
> Usage is a bit fluid here in GB. In general, I would associate a
> subway with pedestrians and an underpass with vehicles.

So would I, but I thought you were looking for the AmE term. As far as I
know a pedestrian underpass is not called a subway in the US.

[Hibou]

Le 15/05/2022 à 11:25, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 15/05/22 18:17, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 15/05/2022 à 07:10, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>> On 15/05/22 15:29, Hibou wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in
>>>> transport-transportation: lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk,
>>>> give-way-yield, underground-subway, subway-?
>>>
>>> Underpass, I think. Or possibly tunnel.
>>
>> Usage is a bit fluid here in GB. In general, I would associate a
>> subway with pedestrians and an underpass with vehicles.
>
> So would I, but I thought you were looking for the AmE term.

Not really, having already drawn the distinction between subway as an
underground railway and subway as a way of crossing a road. My focus was
on the existence of many differences between BrE and AmE, rather than
the details.

> As far as I
> know a pedestrian underpass is not called a subway in the US.

Wikipedia suggests it's 'subway' in some places and 'pedestrian
underpass' in others:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway_(underpass)#Terminology>

[Peter Moylan]

I should have guessed that Wikipedia had it covered.

The small town I grew up in had just one thing called "the subway". It
was the pedestrian access to the two platforms at the railway station,
but it also served as one of the few places pedestrians could get to the
other side of the railway line. It was a real hazard for cyclists,
because the entrance on one side was a steep down-ramp terminating in a
right-angle turn. Failing to make the turn was a common cause of accidents.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 09:17:53 +0100, Hibou <h...@b.ou> wrote:

In Chicago, you can board the "El" at a station that is above ground
or at a station that is below ground. It is still the El when it runs
underground.

The El is operated by the Chicago Transit Authority, and is officially
named the 'L'. Many Chicagoans, though, write it as "El" on the basis
that it's short for Elevated. I am of this group.




--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Dingbat]

A bicycle underpass is called that, never a subway.

In places where a subway is an underground railroad,
a subway can also mean an underground walkway from
one underground railroad platform to another.

So, one can walk through a subway from one *underground
railroad subway to another!

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
> Le 12/05/2022 à 08:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

> > There are considerable variations even between British and American
> > English. Words relating to cars (boot/trunk ...) and babies
> > (diaper/nappy ...) are often different; words in other contexts are
> > usually the same.
>
> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
> subway-?,

We don't have those weird underground pervy toilets.

> railway-station-train-station, points-switch,
> engine-driver-engineer.... In other fields too: biscuit-cookie,
> post-mail, bill-check, flat-apartment, torch-flashlight, coffin-casket,
> crisps-chips, rubbish-garbage, angry-mad....
>
> It doesn't stop with vocabulary, though. Formal English and formal
> American are often very close, barring the odd spelling difference; but
> in everyday speech it seems there's hardly a sentence that is the same
> in Eastpondia and Westpondia. Take verb use, for instance: I've eaten vs
> I ate already etc.. Or the question "How are you?", to which the answer
> is either an adverb ("Fine") or an adjective ("Good").

Your notions of American English are not based on experience with
actual American English. Gangster movies, maybe?

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 12/05/2022 à 08:32, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>
>>> There are considerable variations even between British and American
>>> English. Words relating to cars (boot/trunk ...) and babies
>>> (diaper/nappy ...) are often different; words in other contexts are
>>> usually the same.
>>
>> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
>> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
>> subway-?,
>
> We don't have those weird underground pervy toilets.

More likely, just like anywhere else, you don't have them any more.

--
There is no freedom for men unless there is freedom for women.
If women mustn't bring their will to the fore, why should men
be allowed to?
-- Hedwig Dohm (1876), my translation

[Ken Blake]

You are correct. In AmE a "subway" is what BrE calls "tube" or
"underground."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 11:15:48 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:

[BrE/AmE]

> >> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
> >> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
> >> subway-?,
> > We don't have those weird underground pervy toilets.
>
> More likely, just like anywhere else, you don't have them any more.

I doubt it. Where would they have been?

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 09:14:06 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 May 2022 09:17:53 +0100, Hibou <h...@b.ou> wrote:
>

>>Le 15/05/2022 à 07:10, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>> On 15/05/22 15:29, Hibou wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
>>>> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
>>>> subway-?
>>>
>>> Underpass, I think. Or possibly tunnel.
>>
>>Usage is a bit fluid here in GB. In general, I would associate a subway
>>with pedestrians and an underpass with vehicles.
>>
>>The Underground in London is definitely the Underground (made up of the
>>Tube plus the original cut-and-cover lines), even though much of it runs
>>above ground; but the 'system' (one line) in Glasgow is usually called
>>the Subway.
>
>In Chicago, you can board the "El" at a station that is above ground
>or at a station that is below ground. It is still the El when it runs
>underground.
>
>The El is operated by the Chicago Transit Authority, and is officially
>named the 'L'.

I'm certainly familiar with "El, "but I've never seen it called "L."

> Many Chicagoans, though, write it as "El" on the basis
>that it's short for Elevated. I am of this group.

So am I, even though I'm not a Chicagoan.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 08:57:51 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 15 May 2022 09:14:06 -0400, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2022 09:17:53 +0100, Hibou <h...@b.ou> wrote:
>>
>>>Le 15/05/2022 à 07:10, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>>> On 15/05/22 15:29, Hibou wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
>>>>> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
>>>>> subway-?
>>>>
>>>> Underpass, I think. Or possibly tunnel.
>>>
>>>Usage is a bit fluid here in GB. In general, I would associate a subway
>>>with pedestrians and an underpass with vehicles.
>>>
>>>The Underground in London is definitely the Underground (made up of the
>>>Tube plus the original cut-and-cover lines), even though much of it runs
>>>above ground; but the 'system' (one line) in Glasgow is usually called
>>>the Subway.
>>
>>In Chicago, you can board the "El" at a station that is above ground
>>or at a station that is below ground. It is still the El when it runs
>>underground.
>>
>>The El is operated by the Chicago Transit Authority, and is officially
>>named the 'L'.
>
>I'm certainly familiar with "El, "but I've never seen it called "L."

Not only does the CTA use 'L', but they insist on the single ' on each
side of the L.

https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/ctamap_Lsystem.png

>
>> Many Chicagoans, though, write it as "El" on the basis
>>that it's short for Elevated. I am of this group.
>
>So am I, even though I'm not a Chicagoan.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 11:57:55 AM UTC-4, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2022 09:14:06 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >In Chicago, you can board the "El" at a station that is above ground
> >or at a station that is below ground. It is still the El when it runs
> >underground.

Except when the two relevant lines are called the subway (one under
State Street, one under Dearborn one block to the west). I never heard
the brief portion of the Blue Line that runs beneath Logan Square called
a subway. (In your day it may not yet have replaced the "L" tracks.)

> >The El is operated by the Chicago Transit Authority, and is officially
> >named the 'L'.
>
> I'm certainly familiar with "El, "but I've never seen it called "L."
>
> > Many Chicagoans, though, write it as "El" on the basis
> >that it's short for Elevated. I am of this group.
>
> So am I, even though I'm not a Chicagoan.

"_The_" book on the history of the "L" uses that form and explains why.

[Ken Blake]

I have. I lived in NYC for about 14 years of my life. I was born in
Brooklyn, and lived there until I was three. Since then, I've been in
Brooklyn about seven times (three marathons that went through
Brooklyn, the wedding of my sister-in-law, two parties of friends who
lived there, and one visit with my in-laws to their friends who lived
there.

Despite the above, I remember nothing about Brooklyn.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 11:15:48 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
>
> [BrE/AmE]
>>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
>>>> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
>>>> subway-?,
>>> We don't have those weird underground pervy toilets.
>>
>> More likely, just like anywhere else, you don't have them any more.
>
> I doubt it. Where would they have been?

How would I know? But an online search quickly yields:

<https://www.richlandsource.com/area_history/the-famous-central-park-underground-restrooms/article_16b1c4d2-c503-11e5-890c-6360a850aa28.html>

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[charles]

In article <of828h99kbr4tejqb...@4ax.com>,

Unless the "subway" is a sort of sandwich

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

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 17:28:34 +0100, charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

"Subway" is the name of a chain of sandwich shops, but I wouldn't call
what they sell subways. Calling what Subways sells "subways" is like
calling what McDonalds sells "McDonalds."

Are you hungry? Would you rather have a McDonald or a Subway?

[lar3ryca]

obSemantic-quibble.

There is no 'subway sandwich'. There are "Subway sandwiches", because it
is the name of a place that sells sandwiches that happen to be known as
submarine sandwiches because of their shape.

--
If you sat on your voodoo doll, you wouldn't be able get back up.

[charles]

In article <dpb28ht8vv5hsohdt...@4ax.com>, Ken Blake

<K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2022 17:28:34 +0100, charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
> wrote:

> >In article <of828h99kbr4tejqb...@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
> > <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 May 2022 20:25:01 +1000, Peter Moylan
> >> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> >On 15/05/22 18:17, Hibou wrote:

> >> >> Le 15/05/2022 ą 07:10, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> >> >>> On 15/05/22 15:29, Hibou wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in
> >> >>>> transport-transportation: lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk,
> >> >>>> give-way-yield, underground-subway, subway-?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Underpass, I think. Or possibly tunnel.
> >> >>
> >> >> Usage is a bit fluid here in GB. In general, I would associate a
> >> >> subway with pedestrians and an underpass with vehicles.
> >> >
> >> >So would I, but I thought you were looking for the AmE term. As far
> >> >as I know a pedestrian underpass is not called a subway in the US.
> >
> >> You are correct. In AmE a "subway" is what BrE calls "tube" or
> >> "underground."
> >
> >Unless the "subway" is a sort of sandwich


> "Subway" is the name of a chain of sandwich shops, but I wouldn't call
> what they sell subways. Calling what Subways sells "subways" is like
> calling what McDonalds sells "McDonalds."

> Are you hungry? Would you rather have a McDonald or a Subway?

neither, thanks you; I've recently been diagnosed as diabetic - white bread
is off the menu. but it appeasrs that the company 'Subway'call their main
product "Sub" rather as McDonald refer to a "Mac".

[Tony Cooper]

The Subway chain outlets (that I have been in in this area) all have
wallpaper that depicts NYC subway scenes. The chain, though, started
in Connecticut selling "submarine sandwiches" or "subs". The chain
name, obviously, was a play on "sub" and not a reference to the
subway. The first location was called "Pete's Subway".

It was several years before they opened stores in NYC.

[GordonD]

They do in the UK as well - maps, anyway.

--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 14 May 2022 13:52:31 -0600: lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> scribeva:

>On 2022-05-14 13:45, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 14 May 2022 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>>
>>> Useful would be information as to whether Du. "duur" also has the other
>>> meaning of the English, Russian, French, and (marginally) German words
>>> that have been mentioned.
>>

>> Dutch duur mean expensive, costly, not dear.
>
>Hmmm... since 'dear' (in English), is a synonym of 'costly' and
>'expensive',

But an unusual one, then. Not one that I knew about. Or that I have
learnt to avoid as a potential false friend. Does this now me dearly?

>doesn't that mean that 'duur' is also a synonym of 'dear'?

No. I meant only the most frequent senses of the English word.

>> But we also have dierbaar, which means dear, close to someone's heart.
>> They are indeed related: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dierbaar

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dear
Sense 9, [mainly British, informal, disapproval].

==
5. high-priced; expensive
The silk dress was too dear
6. charging high prices
That shop is too dear for my budget
==

Never heard or read anything like that before. Dutch influence in
America? Or German influence, teuer?

Well, 2000 and 3000 years there were already both senses:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/diurijaz
dear, precious
expensive


--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sun, 15 May 2022 20:06:03 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Well, 2000 and 3000 years there were already both senses:
>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/diurijaz
> dear, precious
> expensive

That cognates in two languages can have the same meaning or meanings,
does not mean they are interchangeable. For example, Dutch inderdaad
is the same as English indeed, but often you can't translate one by
the other, nor vice versa. Sometimes you can. The meanings are largely
the same.

Many Dutch speakers don't know this and make mistakes with it. I do
know, and nevertheless also find it difficult.

Many more such examples exist.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sun, 15 May 2022 20:10:03 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>That cognates in two languages can have the same meaning or meanings,
>does not mean they are interchangeable. For example, Dutch inderdaad
>is the same as English indeed, but often you can't translate one by
>the other, nor vice versa. Sometimes you can. The meanings are largely
>the same.
>
>Many Dutch speakers don't know this and make mistakes with it. I do
>know, and nevertheless also find it difficult.
>
>Many more such examples exist.

This morning I heard a silly ad on Youtube, in which an English
expression was translated literally. It was wrong, because the same
expression exists in Dutch, but slightly different, minus one word.

Now I wish I could remember what the expression was. But I can't.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 14 May 2022 23:16:00 +0200: nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) scribeva:

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

>> On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:43:06 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> > > > On 14/05/2022 2:36 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > > > > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:08:22 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

>> > > > >> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:
>>
>> > > > >>> Two French words, "charretière" and "jarretière" phonetically differ
>> > > > >>> only by their first consonants being respectively the unvoiced
>> > > > >>> and voiced forms of the same consonant, i.e [?] and [?].
>> > > > >>> Now, the English counterparts of those two words, "carter" and
>> > > > >>> "garter", have the same trait with different first consonants,
>> > > > >>> i.e [k] and [g], where the former is the unvoiced form of the
>> > > > >>> latter.
>> > > > >>> Isn't that weird?
>> > > > >> Not if they came from those French words.
>> > > > >> This is a curious coincidence:

>> > > > >> English DEAR and Russian DOROGOY have the same two meanings:
>> > > > >> 1) Beloved
>> > > > >> 2) Expensive
>> > > > > French CHER as well. It's beginning to look non-coincidental, no?
>> > > > Indeed. The English seems to be two directions of development from an
>> > > > original meaning something like "precious, valuable, worthy". I feel
>> > > > them as quite separate now; I knew the "beloved" one from childhood, but
>> > > > only encountered the "expensive" one in adolescence from British sources
>> > > > (spoken and written), and found it surprising.
>> > > Interesting. It was my grandmother's (b. 1891, Brooklyn) regular
>> > > word for 'expensive'.
>> >
>> > If Brooklyn from Dutch 'duur', perhaps,
>>

>> Uh, no.
>
>Usages may last,

Usage may persist.

Better English, I think.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sun, 15 May 2022 00:01:36 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:

>My Malayalam speaking paternal grandmother spoke little English
>but used cypher to mean zero. I haven't heard any English speaker
>in India or elsewhere use cypher with that meaning. So, I can't
>imagine where she borrowed it from;.

The little of Arabic I learnt in the 1970 from radio programs for
foreign workers: sifr ashrá, 010, the telephone prefix of Rotterdam.

>zero is one of the meanings listed here for cypher
>https://www.thefreedictionary.com/cypher

It is the original meaning.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cijfer#Etymology_1
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cifra#Latin
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%B1#Arabic

But
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%B1#Etymology_5
suggests that the original original is in Sanskrit! Or was the
Sanskrit from Semitic, the loaned back into Arabic? This make isn't
quite clear, or I don't understand it.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#semantic_loan
That probably explains it.

So the original meaning is not zero, but empty or void.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 15-May-22 17:58, lar3ryca wrote:

> There is no 'subway sandwich'. There are "Subway sandwiches", because it
> is the name of a place that sells sandwiches that happen to be known as
> submarine sandwiches because of their shape.

It's not the most convincing comparison.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Paul Wolff]

On Sun, 15 May 2022, at 08:55:00, Ken Blake posted:

>On Sun, 15 May 2022 20:25:01 +1000, Peter Moylan

>>On 15/05/22 18:17, Hibou wrote:

>>> Le 15/05/2022 ą 07:10, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>>> On 15/05/22 15:29, Hibou wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in
>>>>> transport-transportation: lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk,
>>>>> give-way-yield, underground-subway, subway-?
>>>>
>>>> Underpass, I think. Or possibly tunnel.
>>>
>>> Usage is a bit fluid here in GB. In general, I would associate a
>>> subway with pedestrians and an underpass with vehicles.
>>
>>So would I, but I thought you were looking for the AmE term. As far as I
>>know a pedestrian underpass is not called a subway in the US.
>
>You are correct. In AmE a "subway" is what BrE calls "tube" or
>"underground."

That is why my wife and I didn't get lunch in Anaheim, a suburb of Los
Angeles, after a business meeting. We were told we could get it at a
subway, which was [in a given direction]. We couldn't find the subway.
In the end, we gave up, and found a fast sandwich place instead.
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

On Sun, 15 May 2022, at 10:58:45, lar3ryca posted:

>On 2022-05-15 10:28, charles wrote:
>> In article <of828h99kbr4tejqb...@4ax.com>,
>> Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 20:25:01 +1000, Peter Moylan
>>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 15/05/22 18:17, Hibou wrote:

>>>>> Le 15/05/2022 ą 07:10, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>>>>> On 15/05/22 15:29, Hibou wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in
>>>>>>> transport-transportation: lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk,
>>>>>>> give-way-yield, underground-subway, subway-?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Underpass, I think. Or possibly tunnel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Usage is a bit fluid here in GB. In general, I would associate a
>>>>> subway with pedestrians and an underpass with vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> So would I, but I thought you were looking for the AmE term. As far as I
>>>> know a pedestrian underpass is not called a subway in the US.
>>
>>> You are correct. In AmE a "subway" is what BrE calls "tube" or
>>> "underground."
>> Unless the "subway" is a sort of sandwich
>
>obSemantic-quibble.
>
>There is no 'subway sandwich'. There are "Subway sandwiches", because
>it is the name of a place that sells sandwiches that happen to be known
>as submarine sandwiches because of their shape.
>

I've never found the conning tower. Torpedo, on the other hand, would do
nicely.
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

On Sun, 15 May 2022, at 12:05:04, Tony Cooper posted:

Putin insists that Finland and Sweden shouldn't join NATO. Who wields
more power? Who gets more attention? And which needs to face reality?
>
>https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/ctamap_Lsystem.png
(Haven't been to look: left undisturbed for politeness' sake.)
--
Paul

[J. J. Lodder]

I guess the answers turn out to be Erdogan, Erdogan, and Erdogan,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 12:15:46 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 11:15:48 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >>> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:

> > [BrE/AmE]
> >>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
> >>>> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
> >>>> subway-?,
> >>> We don't have those weird underground pervy toilets.
> >> More likely, just like anywhere else, you don't have them any more.
> > I doubt it. Where would they have been?
>
> How would I know? But an online search quickly yields:
>
> <https://www.richlandsource.com/area_history/the-famous-central-park-underground-restrooms/article_16b1c4d2-c503-11e5-890c-6360a850aa28.html>

Evidently someplace called Mansfield has a park called Central Park.

Mansfield seems to be in Richland County. There's an ad for a Miss
Ohio pageant, which might be a clue to its state. Or not.

[Peter T. Daniels]

The Subway chain sells submarine sandwiches (so called, in some
places, because of the shape of the bread).

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 1:25:20 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> The Subway chain outlets (that I have been in in this area) all have
> wallpaper that depicts NYC subway scenes.

Long gone, alas. It was in the Formica tabletops, too.

[lar3ryca]

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

Thick amidships, tapering at bow and stern.

[Tony Cooper]

You didn't read the entire page if you need a clue. There's a photo
of newspaper clipping with the headline "Hidden Camera Traps Mansfield
Sex Deviates" and the location is revealed as Mansfield, Ohio.

"The Shawshank Redemption" was filmed in Mansfield and at the nearby
Ohio State Reformatory.

[Tony Cooper]

That should be an entry into one of those books that feature Funny
Tourist Experiences.

[Sam Plusnet]

I think it lacks many important features.

(Trying hard to avoid remarks about not containing any seamen.)

--
Sam Plusnet

[Quinn C]

Fine. I wrongly thought I had a New York example after spending 30
seconds, but it was a US example, and thereby already contradicts your
statement. And, if one US city had them, it's likely others had them,
too. If New York had no room for it, then that's not a perviness issue.

[Sam Plusnet]

He does seem to drone on.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/05/22 02:53, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2022 17:28:34 +0100, charles
> <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>> In article <of828h99kbr4tejqb...@4ax.com>,

>>> You are correct. In AmE a "subway" is what BrE calls "tube" or
>>> "underground."
>>
>> Unless the "subway" is a sort of sandwich
>
> "Subway" is the name of a chain of sandwich shops, but I wouldn't
> call what they sell subways. Calling what Subways sells "subways" is
> like calling what McDonalds sells "McDonalds."
>
> Are you hungry? Would you rather have a McDonald or a Subway?

I would phrase that last question as "Would you rather have a McDonald's
or a Subway".

My youngest granddaughter calls the hamburger place "Old McDonald".

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

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/05/22 05:02, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2022, at 08:55:00, Ken Blake posted:

>> You are correct. In AmE a "subway" is what BrE calls "tube" or
>> "underground."
>
> That is why my wife and I didn't get lunch in Anaheim, a suburb of
> Los Angeles, after a business meeting. We were told we could get it
> at a subway, which was [in a given direction]. We couldn't find the
> subway. In the end, we gave up, and found a fast sandwich place
> instead.

Unfamiliar terminology can be a real trap for travellers.

I was once having lunch somewhere in Califormia, and realised that I had
forgotten how to get back to the SF Bay area, so I asked how to get
there. Somebody said "Take the 5" (or it might have been a different
number), and I didn't have a clue what they meant. Luckily I got a
better answer when I rephrased my question as "Where can I find a
freeway entrance?"

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/05/22 01:57, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 11:15:48 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
>
> [BrE/AmE]

>>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in
>>>> transport-transportation: lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk,

>>>> give-way-yield, underground-subway, subway-?,
>>> We don't have those weird underground pervy toilets.
>>
>> More likely, just like anywhere else, you don't have them any
>> more.
>
> I doubt it. Where would they have been?

When I lived in Melbourne, the underground toilets in the middle of the
city had become controversial. Women were complaining that they had to
pay a penny but men didn't have to pay. (Unless they needed to sit
down.) The city eventually eliminated the controversy by closing the
toilets. I'm not sure where people go now if caught short. Perhaps a
railway station.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 20:18:53 -0400, Quinn C
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 12:15:46 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 11:15:48 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 1:29:26 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
>>
>>>> [BrE/AmE]
>>>>>>> There are certainly a lot of differences in transport-transportation:
>>>>>>> lorry-truck, pavement-sidewalk, give-way-yield, underground-subway,
>>>>>>> subway-?,
>>>>>> We don't have those weird underground pervy toilets.
>>>>> More likely, just like anywhere else, you don't have them any more.
>>>> I doubt it. Where would they have been?
>>>
>>> How would I know? But an online search quickly yields:
>>>
>>> <https://www.richlandsource.com/area_history/the-famous-central-park-underground-restrooms/article_16b1c4d2-c503-11e5-890c-6360a850aa28.html>
>>
>> Evidently someplace called Mansfield has a park called Central Park.
>>
>> Mansfield seems to be in Richland County. There's an ad for a Miss
>> Ohio pageant, which might be a clue to its state. Or not.
>
>Fine. I wrongly thought I had a New York example after spending 30
>seconds, but it was a US example, and thereby already contradicts your
>statement. And, if one US city had them, it's likely others had them,
>too. If New York had no room for it, then that's not a perviness issue.

I'm at a loss, here. What is more "pervy" about a men's toilet when
it's underground than if it's at ground level?

Every city I've ever lived in has had a public park or other place
with public toilets. Every city I've ever lived in has had some park,
with a public toilet where men of a certain persuasion hang out and
use the public toilets for a purpose other than using the toilet
facilities.

They are are often revealed in a newspaper article about arrests being
made or neighborhood citizens complaining.

What is different about underground facilities?