Coop's Use of Positive Anymore
Salvatore Volatile
evidence that Tony Cooper uses "positive anymore":
From a posting by Tony Cooper dated November 9, 2002:
Cashing a check anymore is very difficult.
From a posting by Tony Cooper dated November 28, 2004:
The businesses that I've owned since have been sole employee businesses.
Partially, because having employees is a pain in the ass anymore.
Tony Cooper
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>I haven't done an exhaustive search of the Archives
You've been gone for almost two days. Not exhaustive, my ass.
I can smell the Visene.
> but there is indeed
>evidence that Tony Cooper uses "positive anymore":
>
>From a posting by Tony Cooper dated November 9, 2002:
>
> Cashing a check anymore is very difficult.
>
>From a posting by Tony Cooper dated November 28, 2004:
>
> The businesses that I've owned since have been sole employee businesses.
> Partially, because having employees is a pain in the ass anymore.
>
I think you've spotted a trend here.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
John O'Flaherty
There's sort of a negative flavor to those 'anymores'- you can't cash a
check easily anymore... it's not worth having employees anymore. The
AHD usage note about 'anymore' has an example of a really positive one-
"We use a gas stove anymore".
--
john
Salvatore Volatile
Perhaps. But the uses of "anymore" in those sentences of Coop's would be
impermissible in my dialect -- how 'bout yours?
Maybe Coop's usage is more properly labelled "near-positive anymore".
Tony Cooper
"Impermissible"? You do not allow this usage? If you do not allow
it, you evidently feel that there is some way to prevent its entry
into your sight or hearing. How do you do that?
My parents and my teachers often exclaimed "I don't want to hear any
more ..." in an attempt to deny permission to make excuses or offer
additional reasons for something, but it rarely worked. I have also
been told "Don't let me see you..." by people who felt that certain
things were Impermissible. I always took that to mean that the
speaker was suggesting that the action or usage could be done, but
done in such a way that the speaker was unaware of it.
I would think that you should deign the usage "unacceptable" rather
than "Impermissible". You can refuse to accept something as proper
usage, but I don't think you can deny permission to use something in
speech or writing.
You have said "in my dialect", but dialect is not one's personal
vocabulary or style of speech and writing. It is the variety of
language or pronunciation of an area or group. In your personal
usage, you can eschew certain usage, but you have no ability to deny
usage to the others in your group or region. You can clap your hands
over your eyes or ears so the unacceptable does not reach you, but you
can't cut it off by denying permission to others to use it.
Jim Lawton
wrote:
>John O'Flaherty wrote:
The former (check) is OK for me, the latter would be OK if the "anymore" came
after the word "employees".
The further example "We use a gas stove anymore" conveys no discernable meaning
of which I could be confident
Yorkshire.
--
Jim
the polymoth
R J Valentine
...
} I would think that you should deign the usage "unacceptable" rather
} than "Impermissible".
Oy!
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@theWorld.com>
Will
Jim Lawton wrote:
[...]
> The former (check) is OK for me, the latter would be OK if the "anymore" came
> after the word "employees".
Neither sounds *right* to me, though I'd doubtless get the gist.
> The further example "We use a gas stove anymore" conveys no discernable meaning
> of which I could be confident
I'm with you on that, Jim.
>
> Yorkshire.
Glarstershireshire
Will.
John O'Flaherty
I agree, I wouldn't usually say it, but almost nothing's impermissible
for me (to say, I mean).
--
john
Maria Conlon
> I would think that you should deign the usage "unacceptable" rather
> than "Impermissible".
Not saying it's wrong, but I've never encountered this particular usage
of "deign" before.
M-W Online:
Main Entry: deign
Pronunciation: 'dAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French deignier, from Latin dignare,
dignari, from dignus worthy -- more at DECENT
intransitive senses : to condescend reluctantly and with a strong sense
of the affront to one's superiority that is involved
transitive senses : to condescend to give or offer
(I've just now noticed that Arjay OY!d your usage, but I'm sending this
post anyway because I've quoted the dictionary entry for "deign." Why
waste a lookup?)
--
Maria Conlon
Salvatore Volatile
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:48:20 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>John O'Flaherty wrote:
>>>
>>> Salvatore Volatile wrote:
>>>> I haven't done an exhaustive search of the Archives, but there is indeed
>>>> evidence that Tony Cooper uses "positive anymore":
>>>>
>>>> From a posting by Tony Cooper dated November 9, 2002:
>>>>
>>>> Cashing a check anymore is very difficult.
>>>>
>>>> From a posting by Tony Cooper dated November 28, 2004:
>>>>
>>>> The businesses that I've owned since have been sole employee businesses.
>>>> Partially, because having employees is a pain in the ass anymore.
>>>
>>> There's sort of a negative flavor to those 'anymores'- you can't cash a
>>> check easily anymore... it's not worth having employees anymore. The
>>> AHD usage note about 'anymore' has an example of a really positive one-
>>> "We use a gas stove anymore".
>>
>>Perhaps. But the uses of "anymore" in those sentences of Coop's would be
>>impermissible in my dialect -- how 'bout yours?
>>
> The former (check) is OK for me, the latter would be OK if the "anymore" came
> after the word "employees".
Okay, so I'd just conclude from that that you, like Coop, speak a dialect
that accepts "positive anymore".
I'd ask Tootsie Conlon to say whether Coop's sentences would work in
TootsE.
> The further example "We use a gas stove anymore" conveys no discernable meaning
> of which I could be confident
>
> Yorkshire.
Now that's interesting. Maybe "positive anymore" has Northern Englandish
roots rather than Ulsterian ones.
R J Valentine
} Tony Cooper wrote, in part:
}
}> I would think that you should deign the usage "unacceptable" rather
}> than "Impermissible".
}
} Not saying it's wrong, but I've never encountered this particular usage
} of "deign" before.
[Lookup wasted.]
} (I've just now noticed that Arjay OY!d your usage, but I'm sending this
} post anyway because I've quoted the dictionary entry for "deign." Why
} waste a lookup?)
He of course was hinting at "deem". The question is whether it was an
on-purpose substitution or a by-accident one. The subquestion to the
latter is whether he will admit it.
My guess is that it was a thinko and that he'll admit it, but [ObSkitt]
I've been wrong before.
Tony Cooper
Hmmmm. Dictionary.com says "deign" (v int) means "To think it
appropriate to one's dignity". That seems to fit with my usage since
it suggests that Areff should consider a different word to use
considering his dialect standards.
I'll not retract or admit error until the play has been reviewed. No
points on the board in the meantime.
Tony Cooper
No, it was there by choice and intent. When I saw your post, and
Maria's, I wondered if "deem" would have been a better choice because
it is less controversial, but - right or wrong - I chose "deign".
"Deem" seems rather insipid even if it is the better choice. Deeming
is a rather pedestrian way to offer an opinion. Areff doesn't just
"deem" something acceptable or unacceptable any more than the Queen
deems a particular protocol acceptable or not acceptable. There's an
off-to-the-Tower aspect to Areff's pronouncements.
There was, by the way, a brief thought given to using "anymore" in the
above. Wheels within wheels, you know.
Maria Conlon
The refs have reviewed the play and consulted the appropriate rule book
regarding "v int"; a penalty has been slapped on #21 (Cooper) for
illegal use of an object.
[Pause for beer commercial]
Okay, folks, we're back to the AUE field. Because of the penalty, Coach
Valentine has benched "Coop" for the remaining time on the clock. He'll
probably hitting the showers soon.
--
Maria Conlon
Mike Lyle
[...]
> The refs have reviewed the play and consulted the appropriate rule
> book regarding "v int"; a penalty has been slapped on #21 (Cooper)
for
> illegal use of an object.
>
> [Pause for beer commercial]
>
> Okay, folks, we're back to the AUE field. Because of the penalty,
> Coach Valentine has benched "Coop" for the remaining time on the
> clock. He'll probably hitting the showers soon.
ObFooter: BrE "taking an early bath". Connoisseurs -- indeed, all but
the invincibly iggerant -- pronounce "bath" in this expression with a
short "a", regardless of their pronunciation in other contexts.
--
Mike.
Tony Cooper
#21, eh? The most famous bearer of #21 in (American) football was Jim
Thorpe. Jersey numbers 20-29 are designated to defensive backs,
cornerbacks, some safeties and some running backs.
If Arjay is benching me, I'm playing out my option and telling
soc.culture.irish that I'm a free agent.
Maria Conlon
> I'd ask Tootsie Conlon to say whether Coop's sentences would work in
> TootsE.
Since you would ask me, I'll save you the trouble and answer before
asking becomes necessary:
I don't think so. I tend to be a bit "literal" and formal.
Dressing up for every AUE posting session,
Maria (Tootsie) Conlon
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:02:18 GMT, "Maria Conlon"
> <mari...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
[ ... ]
> >Okay, folks, we're back to the AUE field. Because of the penalty, Coach
> >Valentine has benched "Coop" for the remaining time on the clock. He'll
> >probably hitting the showers soon.
>
> #21, eh? The most famous bearer of #21 in (American) football was Jim
> Thorpe. Jersey numbers 20-29 are designated to defensive backs,
> cornerbacks, some safeties and some running backs.
John Hadl of the San Diego Chargers, a quarterback who posted some
pretty fair numbers in his era, wore #21. This was well after
standardization of jersey numbers.[1] See
<http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/HadlJo00.htm> for his
statistics and
<http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/HadlJo00.htm> (scroll
down) for a picture of him in a Chargers uniform wearing #21.
Keyshawn Johnson, formerly of the Jets and now of the Cowboys, is a
wide receiver and wears #19. I have no idea why he's allowed to do
so.
[1] As but a couple of examples of how things used to be, Red Grange
wore 77 and Tom Harmon wore 98, and both were running backs.
--
Bob Lieblich
A big zero
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> Maria Conlon wrote:
>>>> Tony Cooper wrote, in part:
>>>>
>>>>> I would think that you should deign the usage "unacceptable"
>>>>> rather than "Impermissible".
>>>>
>>>> Not saying it's wrong, but I've never encountered this particular
>>>> usage of "deign" before.
[snip M-W definition]
>>>> (I've just now noticed that Arjay OY!d your usage, but I'm sending
>>>> this post anyway because I've quoted the dictionary entry for
>>>> "deign." Why waste a lookup?)
>>>
>>> Hmmmm. Dictionary.com says "deign" (v int) means "To think it
>>> appropriate to one's dignity". That seems to fit with my usage
>>> since it suggests that Areff should consider a different word to use
>>> considering his dialect standards.
>>>
>>> I'll not retract or admit error until the play has been reviewed.
>>> No points on the board in the meantime.
>>
>> The refs have reviewed the play and consulted the appropriate rule
>> book regarding "v int"; a penalty has been slapped on #21 (Cooper)
>> for illegal use of an object.
>>
>> [Pause for beer commercial]
>>
>> Okay, folks, we're back to the AUE field. Because of the penalty,
>> Coach Valentine has benched "Coop" for the remaining time on the
>> clock. He'll probably hitting the showers soon.
>
> #21, eh? The most famous bearer of #21 in (American) football was Jim
> Thorpe. Jersey numbers 20-29 are designated to defensive backs,
> cornerbacks, some safeties and some running backs.
I used #21 because #213 (the number in your email address) was too long.
I don't know from numbers for the various kinds of backs.
> If Arjay is benching me, I'm playing out my option and telling
> soc.culture.irish that I'm a free agent.
"Free"? That's not good. The very *least* you should be is "reasonable."
--
Maria Conlon
Tony Cooper
<robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:02:18 GMT, "Maria Conlon"
>> <mari...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> >Okay, folks, we're back to the AUE field. Because of the penalty, Coach
>> >Valentine has benched "Coop" for the remaining time on the clock. He'll
>> >probably hitting the showers soon.
>>
>> #21, eh? The most famous bearer of #21 in (American) football was Jim
>> Thorpe. Jersey numbers 20-29 are designated to defensive backs,
>> cornerbacks, some safeties and some running backs.
>
>John Hadl of the San Diego Chargers, a quarterback who posted some
>pretty fair numbers in his era, wore #21.
Are you telling me that John Hadl is mentionable in the same breath as
Jim Thorpe? Hadl was more productive for the Chargers than was Ryan
Leaf, but....
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:11:57 -0400, Robert Lieblich
> <robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:02:18 GMT, "Maria Conlon"
> >> <mari...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >
> >[ ... ]
> >
> >> >Okay, folks, we're back to the AUE field. Because of the penalty, Coach
> >> >Valentine has benched "Coop" for the remaining time on the clock. He'll
> >> >probably hitting the showers soon.
> >>
> >> #21, eh? The most famous bearer of #21 in (American) football was Jim
> >> Thorpe. Jersey numbers 20-29 are designated to defensive backs,
> >> cornerbacks, some safeties and some running backs.
> >
> >John Hadl of the San Diego Chargers, a quarterback who posted some
> >pretty fair numbers in his era, wore #21.
>
> Are you telling me that John Hadl is mentionable in the same breath as
> Jim Thorpe? Hadl was more productive for the Chargers than was Ryan
> Leaf, but....
You're the one who allocated numbers in the twenties to
non-quarterbacks. I noted an exception. My post would have been
equally valid if Hadl had worn 22 or 23, etc.
Anyway, there's no denying that both Thorpe and Hadl wore 21. Many
other players also did. They are all mentionable in the same breath
as athletes who wore 21. If I had worn 23 when I played basketball,
that would make me mentionable in the same breath as Michael Jordan --
for that reason, if no other.
And believe me, there would be no other. -- Whoops! Watch out for
that Offutt fellow.
--
Bob Lieblich
And I was once age 23 (when McKinley was president); does that count?
Tony Cooper
<robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:11:57 -0400, Robert Lieblich
>> <robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:02:18 GMT, "Maria Conlon"
>> >> <mari...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> >
>> >[ ... ]
>> >
>> >> >Okay, folks, we're back to the AUE field. Because of the penalty, Coach
>> >> >Valentine has benched "Coop" for the remaining time on the clock. He'll
>> >> >probably hitting the showers soon.
>> >>
>> >> #21, eh? The most famous bearer of #21 in (American) football was Jim
>> >> Thorpe. Jersey numbers 20-29 are designated to defensive backs,
>> >> cornerbacks, some safeties and some running backs.
>> >
>> >John Hadl of the San Diego Chargers, a quarterback who posted some
>> >pretty fair numbers in his era, wore #21.
>>
>> Are you telling me that John Hadl is mentionable in the same breath as
>> Jim Thorpe? Hadl was more productive for the Chargers than was Ryan
>> Leaf, but....
>
>You're the one who allocated numbers in the twenties to
>non-quarterbacks. I noted an exception. My post would have been
>equally valid if Hadl had worn 22 or 23, etc.
The numbering scheme above was adopted in 1973 by the NFL. Hadl
started playing in the 60s. Since Maria assigned me the number in
2005, I didn't see a need to say when the current numbering agreement
was initiated, and I used "are" and not "always has been".
Your statement is valid, but the association of Hadl and "most famous
bearer of #21" leaves me breathless.
>Anyway, there's no denying that both Thorpe and Hadl wore 21. Many
>other players also did. They are all mentionable in the same breath
>as athletes who wore 21. If I had worn 23 when I played basketball,
>that would make me mentionable in the same breath as Michael Jordan --
>for that reason, if no other.
Not the "most famous" breath, though.
>And believe me, there would be no other. -- Whoops! Watch out for
>that Offutt fellow.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL