Re: FYI: "... and what have you."

[CDB]

On 8/3/2021 12:20 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Sorry, but the recent subject "you who have" triggered some
> association in me, and now I have to write this:

> ... and what have you. Example:

> |And we've seen new collaborations between clinical labs, |public
> health labs, screening laboratories, epidemiology, |and what have
> you.

> . It means "etcetera".

> It uses inversion to pose a rhetoric question. Usually in today's
> English one uses other means to formulate questions. It was first
> observed in an issue of the New Yorker from 1925.

I'm not sure that the pronoun (fide Onelook) "what have you" was ever a
question. It looks to me more like "what[ever] you [may] have".

Merriam-Webster links it to "whatnot", which is probably not a question
either.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whatnot#synonyms

[Jack]

That link shows an etymology for "whatnot" as "What not?", which makes
sense as a question.

--
Jack

[Tony Cooper]

On 4 Aug 2021 00:25:56 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

>Jack <quia...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 15:15:39 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 8/3/2021 12:20 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:

>...

>>>>It uses inversion to pose a rhetoric question. Usually in today's
>>>>English one uses other means to formulate questions. It was first
>>>>observed in an issue of the New Yorker from 1925.
>>>I'm not sure that the pronoun (fide Onelook) "what have you" was ever a
>>>question. It looks to me more like "what[ever] you [may] have".
>>>Merriam-Webster links it to "whatnot", which is probably not a question
>>>either.
>>>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whatnot#synonyms
>>That link shows an etymology for "whatnot" as "What not?", which makes
>>sense as a question.
>

> I cannot decide this question, but add a quotation from the OED:
>
>|what have you: anything else (similar) that there may be, or
>|that one can think of. originally U.S.
>|1925   New Yorker 10 Oct. 28/2   New Yorker, Newarker, or
>|what have you?
>
> The later quotations following below the quotation from 1925
> do not include a question mark.
>
> FWIW:
>
> Now I am association other (colloquial) closing devices:
>
> ... to boot.
>
> Example:
>
> "Seriously, it's not easy finding a '41 in working condition,
> and with matching serial numbers to boot."
>
> It puts special emphasis on that which precedes it. Above
> in the sense of:
>
> "Seriously, it's not easy finding a '41 in working condition,
> /even more so/ with matching serial numbers."
>
I am familiar with "to boot" used with the meaning of "something extra
that adds to the value or desirability".

The above example fits that usage. The fact that the serial numbers
match adds to the value or desirability.


--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[Mark Brader]

Stefan Ram:

>> "Seriously, it's not easy finding a '41 in working condition,

>> and with matching serial numbers to boot."...

Tony Cooper:

> I am familiar with "to boot" used with the meaning of "something extra
> that adds to the value or desirability".

It *refers* to the something extra, but it's used as an adverb (as in
Stefan's example) not a noun (as Tony seems to imply).
--
Mark Brader "Update Notes... v6.8.14
Toronto Introduced bugs and degraded performance"
m...@vex.net --Randall Munroe

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 03 Aug 2021 19:58:00 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Stefan Ram:
>>> "Seriously, it's not easy finding a '41 in working condition,
>>> and with matching serial numbers to boot."...
>
>Tony Cooper:
>> I am familiar with "to boot" used with the meaning of "something extra
>> that adds to the value or desirability".
>
>It *refers* to the something extra, but it's used as an adverb (as in
>Stefan's example) not a noun (as Tony seems to imply).

Am I? I didn't intend to.

The noun would be the added extra item.

"When he sold me the boat, he added a pair of water skis to boot."

The implication was that the price of the boat did not include the
water skis, but the seller added them at no extra charge.

[Lewis]

In message <sec4ku$5b1$1...@gioia.aioe.org> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 12:20 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:

>> Sorry, but the recent subject "you who have" triggered some
>> association in me, and now I have to write this:

>> ... and what have you. Example:

>> |And we've seen new collaborations between clinical labs, |public
>> health labs, screening laboratories, epidemiology, |and what have
>> you.

>> . It means "etcetera".

>> It uses inversion to pose a rhetoric question. Usually in today's
>> English one uses other means to formulate questions. It was first
>> observed in an issue of the New Yorker from 1925.

> I'm not sure that the pronoun (fide Onelook) "what have you" was ever a
> question. It looks to me more like "what[ever] you [may] have".

Yes, that is my take as well.

--
"A politician is a man who approaches every problem with an open
mouth."

[Lewis]

In message <closing-devices...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> Stefan Ram <r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Jack <quia...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 15:15:39 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 8/3/2021 12:20 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:

> ...

>>>>It uses inversion to pose a rhetoric question. Usually in today's
>>>>English one uses other means to formulate questions. It was first
>>>>observed in an issue of the New Yorker from 1925.
>>>I'm not sure that the pronoun (fide Onelook) "what have you" was ever a
>>>question. It looks to me more like "what[ever] you [may] have".
>>>Merriam-Webster links it to "whatnot", which is probably not a question
>>>either.
>>>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whatnot#synonyms
>>That link shows an etymology for "whatnot" as "What not?", which makes
>>sense as a question.

> I cannot decide this question, but add a quotation from the OED:

>|what have you: anything else (similar) that there may be, or
>|that one can think of. originally U.S.
>|1925   New Yorker 10 Oct. 28/2   New Yorker, Newarker, or
>|what have you?

> The later quotations following below the quotation from 1925
> do not include a question mark.

the quote is a question, not the "what have you" alone.

In "American, Canadian, etc?" etc is not a question, the whole statement
is a question.

--
"He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to
the dictionary." - William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway).

[Lewis]

In message <Yoednc0nVISFe5T8...@giganews.com> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> Stefan Ram:
>>> "Seriously, it's not easy finding a '41 in working condition,
>>> and with matching serial numbers to boot."...

> Tony Cooper:
>> I am familiar with "to boot" used with the meaning of "something extra
>> that adds to the value or desirability".

> It *refers* to the something extra, but it's used as an adverb (as in
> Stefan's example) not a noun (as Tony seems to imply).

You are misunderstanding what Tony said. His note matches the proper use
of "to boot" exactly. The "something of value" is the thing referred to
previously, and to boot makes it clear that that thing (the noun in
question) increases the value in some way.


--
"I hope someday you know the indescribable joy of having children,
and of paying someone else to raise them."

[Janet]

In article <what-have-you-...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de says...

>
> Sorry, but the recent subject "you who have" triggered some
> association in me, and now I have to write this:
>
> ... and what have you.
>
> Example:
>
> |And we've seen new collaborations between clinical labs,
> |public health labs, screening laboratories, epidemiology,
> |and what have you.
>
> . It means "etcetera".
>

> It uses inversion to pose a rhetoric question.

I don't think "what have you" is any kind of question.
It's just a vague catch-all term (for unlisted laboratories)

Janet

[CDB]

On 8/3/2021 7:57 PM, Jack wrote:

That's why I said "probably". I said "not" because it feels more like a
shortening of "what is not mentioned" to me.

Feelages vary, of course.

[Peter Moylan]

I once performed in a short play that had been translated from English
to Esperanto. The phrase "wicker whatnot" (an item of furniture) was
translated as "kana kielmidiru". The word "kielmidiru" is hard to
express in English, but the meaning is something like "how should I say".

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

[CDB]

On 8/4/2021 5:54 AM, Lewis wrote:
> Jack <quia...@yahoo.com> writes:

>>> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Stefan Ram wrote:

>> ...
>>>>> It uses inversion to pose a rhetoric question. Usually in
>>>>> today's English one uses other means to formulate questions.
>>>>> It was first observed in an issue of the New Yorker from
>>>>> 1925.
>>>> I'm not sure that the pronoun (fide Onelook) "what have you"
>>>> was ever a question. It looks to me more like "what[ever] you
>>>> [may] have". Merriam-Webster links it to "whatnot", which is
>>>> probably not a question either.
>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whatnot#synonyms
>>> That link shows an etymology for "whatnot" as "What not?", which
>>> makes sense as a question.

>> I cannot decide this question, but add a quotation from the OED:

>> |what have you: anything else (similar) that there may be, or |that
>> one can think of. originally U.S. |1925 New Yorker 10 Oct. 28/2
>> New Yorker, Newarker, or |what have you?

>> The later quotations following below the quotation from 1925 do not
>> include a question mark.

> the quote is a question, not the "what have you" alone.

Gooboo has it as a headline, in all-caps; so it was probably intended as
a question. One does not hesitate to disagree with some dude who wrote
a headline in 1928. Ey's probably dead, anyway.

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_New_Yorker/dlo6AQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22New+Yorker,+Newarker,+or+what+have+you%3F%22&dq=%22New+Yorker,+Newarker,+or+what+have+you%3F%22&printsec=frontcoverhttps://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_New_Yorker/dlo6AQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22New+Yorker,+Newarker,+or+what+have+you%3F%22&dq=%22New+Yorker,+Newarker,+or+what+have+you%3F%22&printsec=frontcover

https://tinyurl.com/57j8xtw2

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 7:40:29 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> I once performed in a short play that had been translated from English
> to Esperanto. The phrase "wicker whatnot" (an item of furniture) was
> translated as "kana kielmidiru". The word "kielmidiru" is hard to
> express in English, but the meaning is something like "how should I say".

Whatchamacallit?

[Ken Blake]

I may have said this here once before: I never understand why anybody
learns Esperanto. Although I think having a universal language is a
great idea, Esperanto has never caught on. Of all the many thousands of
people I've met over the years, I only knew one person who I knew spoke
Esperanto. It was about 30 years ago. And since he has next to nobody to
speak it to, he's probably forgotten almost all of it by now.


--
Ken

[Quinn C]

* Peter Moylan:

> I once performed in a short play that had been translated from English
> to Esperanto. The phrase "wicker whatnot" (an item of furniture) was
> translated as "kana kielmidiru". The word "kielmidiru" is hard to
> express in English, but the meaning is something like "how should I say".

Isn't it almost literally "whatchamacallit"?

At the Romance language department of my university, there was a student
paper called "Le Vasistas".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vasistas#French
--
Statler: I was just thinking, apropos of nothing, but is it
pronounced tomayto or tomahto?
Waldorf: Is what pronounced tomayto or tomahto?

[Quinn C]

* Stefan Ram:

> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>|And we've seen new collaborations between clinical labs,
>>|public health labs, screening laboratories, epidemiology,
>>|and what have you.
>

> Of course this is somewhat similar to "you name it",
> "and whatnot", "and everything", "and all that jazz",
> "and stuff", and "that sort of thing".

Whatever, dude.
--
I found the Forshan religion restful. I found the Forshan
religious war less so.
-- J. Scalzi, Redshirts

[Mark Brader]

Ken Blake:

> I may have said this here once before: I never understand why anybody
> learns Esperanto. Although I think having a universal language is a

> great idea, Esperanto has never caught on. ...

ObXkcd: 927.
--
Mark Brader | "The dream of a common standard is er... enhanced
Toronto | by the diversity of a myriad of national rules..."
m...@vex.net | --Ian Walmsley

[Sam Plusnet]

On 04-Aug-21 12:21, CDB wrote:

> That's why I said "probably".  I said "not" because it feels more like a
> shortening of "what is not mentioned" to me.
>
> Feelages vary, of course.
>

But feeler gauges do not.


--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Lewis]

It also is not actually a universal language. The story I recall from a
friend of my fathers who had been very interested in it was that he
gave it up when he met some people who spoke Esperanto, but whose native
language was not in the Indo-European family (I forget the details, but
I think it was a South Pacific language) and he was not able to talk to
them effectively at all. As he described it the limited word choice in
Esperanto meant that too much of the language had to be adopted to fit
the concepts and idioms of the native speaker's own language.

He related this to the "invisible idiot" problem of translation¹ and
said that Esperanto merely amplified that issue such that communication
didn't work at a level to consider it really a language. Now, that is
one person's story and it was close to 50 years ago, but I've heard
similar, if less detailed, comments from other people, though mostly
30-40 years ago when Esperanto seemed slightly more popular than it is
now.

¹ The story goes that early efforts at computerized translation were
done by the US government to try to translate Russian, and the testing
involved taking something in English and translating it ti Russian and
then back to English, The phrase "out of sight, out of mind" came back
as "invisible idiot". Probably not a real event, but running your text
through google translate twice is still a very good idea that would
save a lot of people a lot of embarrassment. We've probably all seem
the various pictures of menus around the world where the English
translation is "translation failed" or "server unavailable" or some
such.

--
'They're the cream!' Rincewind sighed. 'Cohen, they're the cheese.'

[Peter T. Daniels]

It was fairly popular in China, where for several decades it was probably
difficult to attract teachers of commonly spoken Western languages.

(There were rumors that pinyin spelling is based on Albanian orthography
because Albania was the only Communist country that didn't automatically
do whatever Stalin told them to do. But it isn't.)

[Quinn C]

* Ken Blake:

> Although I think having a universal language is a
> great idea, Esperanto has never caught on. Of all the many thousands of
> people I've met over the years, I only knew one person who I knew spoke
> Esperanto.

I recently heard an interview with linguist Arika Okrent. Apparently no
relationship to Marc Okrand, but she lists Klingon as one of the
languages she "can communicate in". For Esperanto, "good passive
command", but that seems like a low bar.

--
The least questioned assumptions are often the most questionable
-- Paul Broca
... who never questioned that men are more intelligent than women

[CDB]

On 8/4/2021 4:53 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> CDB wrote:

>> That's why I said "probably". I said "not" because it feels more
>> like a shortening of "what is not mentioned" to me.

>> Feelages vary, of course.
> But feeler gauges do not.

They contain multitudes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Ken Blake:

> > Although I think having a universal language is a
> > great idea, Esperanto has never caught on. Of all the many thousands of
> > people I've met over the years, I only knew one person who I knew spoke
> > Esperanto.
>
> I recently heard an interview with linguist Arika Okrent. Apparently no
> relationship to Marc Okrand, but she lists Klingon as one of the
> languages she "can communicate in". For Esperanto, "good passive
> command", but that seems like a low bar.

She says that they realized that some ancestors came from the same
village or shtetl somewhere in the East.