let alone
andrew
Bishops shouldn't be having sex at all, let alone gay sex.
This turn of phrase is very common where I live, but I can't parse it. Is
"let" a verb here? Subjunctive maybe?
John O'Flaherty
From AHD (under 'let'):
--idioms. let alone. Not to mention; much less: “Their ancestors had
been dirt poor and never saw royalty, let alone hung around with them”
(Garrison Keillor).
It may not be fruitful to try to parse an idiom, but what the heck-
'let' could be seen as an imperative verb, or a participle, and
'alone' an adjective meaning 'without even mentioning...'.
--
john
Matti Lamprhey
It's a verb of the exhortative type. Here, "let alone" is no idiom,
because the words bear their natural meanings, more or less.
Matti
John Lawler
"Let" is a verb, but since this is an idiom, details of its precise usage
are hard to determine. Perhaps it's enough to point out that one ordinary
meaning of "to let alone" is "to not mention", or, with unsplit infinitive,
"not to mention", and that's the sense of the idiom.
If you want to call it subjunctive, nobody can stop you.
If you want to call it aquamarine, nobody can stop you either.
In both cases, the characteristic would be invisible and inaudible.
See Fillmore, C., Kay, P., and O'Connor, M.C. (1988). "Regularity and
idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone."
Language 64.3, 501-538.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man does not know what he is saying until he knows what he
is not saying." -- G.K. Chesterton, 1936, "As I Was Saying"
John Hall
(John Lawler) wrote:
>andrew <and...@wicked.as> writes:
>
>>What exactly does "let alone" mean in this example?
>
>> Bishops shouldn't be having sex at all, let alone gay sex.
>
>>This turn of phrase is very common where I live, but I can't parse it.
>>Is "let" a verb here? Subjunctive maybe?
>
>"Let" is a verb, but since this is an idiom, details of its precise usage
>are hard to determine. Perhaps it's enough to point out that one ordinary
>meaning of "to let alone" is "to not mention", or, with unsplit infinitive,
>"not to mention", and that's the sense of the idiom.
Perhaps this lack of clarity accounts for some people hearing it as
"little own", and subsequently writing that (see Google).
--
John W Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net>
Cochrane, Alberta, Canada.
"Helping People Prosper in the Information Age"
Donna Richoux
[snip discussion of "let alone"]
>
> Perhaps this lack of clarity accounts for some people hearing it as
> "little own", and subsequently writing that (see Google).
That's a good one. You got me to start updating my list of those sort of
change-mistakes, like "hare's breath" for "hair's breadth," but,
actually, while looking for examples of your suggestion, "little own," I
got waylaid by something else. There are some nonsensical pages that
I've never seen before, a sort of spam that redirects you to advertising
material. The original page (which vanishes) has ordinary words but in
nonsensical order.
Look at these listings in Google. The first line is the document title,
then the text that actually contains "little own" disintegrates:
Buy Acyclovir Online next day delivery - order online without a ...
... Found winter perscription distribution left since we mother and
saw, treatment knew wellness resources question fire little own
found. ... www.noprescriptionmeds.com/buy-Acyclovir-online.html -
Similar pages
Order Cheap Estradiol next day delivery - order online without a
... ... numbers. Mother dr pharmacist might amex such mother black
little own, beginning looking line four problem plan semen sounds
she. ... www.noprescriptionmeds.com/order-cheap-Estradiol.html -
Similar pages [ More results from www.noprescriptionmeds.com ]
Instant Arizona Home Mortgage Loan With No Obligation!!! ...
important little either. Own great state little own land ever girl,
said shows four life given before also knew. Another money probably
... www.quickloanapplications.com/ arizona-home-mortgage-loan.html
- Similar pages
Instant Washington Mutual Home Loans Rate With No Obligation!!! ...
Sound point door about onnline sound under law family little, own
coming vary the page started change beautiful little beginning. ...
www.quickloanapplications.com/
washington-mutual-home-loans-rate.html - Similar pages
I've seen a sort of random assortment of words with porn sites (when we
were searching for "ninety piece," I think it was), but for it to be for
medicine and loans is new to me.
Pity. I suppose it's some sort of sheltering device, so the site won't
be eliminated by filters.
When I kept looking, I saw many legimate uses of "little own," but there
were also some like you describe, such as:
unable to support ourselves little own others
Back in Sept. 1998, I had no idea what a Home page was, little own
what html coding was.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
John Hall
wrote:
>That's a good one. You got me to start updating my list of those sort of
>change-mistakes, like "hare's breath" for "hair's breadth," ...
Hi Donna,
does your list have:
'tact' for 'tack' ("We'll try another tact")
'interm' for 'interim', though 'interm' may have become acceptable in
some circles (not mine) by now
?
J. W. Love
>That's a good one. You got me to start updating
>my list of those sort of change-mistakes, like
>"hare's breath" for "hair's breadth."
Duck tape!
Matti Lamprhey
Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
Matti
Skitt
> "J. W. Love" wrote...
>> Donna wrote:
>>> That's a good one. You got me to start updating
>>> my list of those sort of change-mistakes, like
>>> "hare's breath" for "hair's breadth."
>>
>> Duck tape!
>
> Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
Looks that way.
See: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ducttape.htm
Some of it is still sold that way:
http://www.divernet.com/bubbling/pics/0800duck.jpg
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Ray Heindl
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>> Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
>
> Looks that way.
>
> See: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ducttape.htm
Confusingly, <http://www.gale-edit.com/products/volumes/duct_tape.htm>
has this:
"Some say this early product was nicknamed "duct tape"
because it repelled water like the bird's feathers or because the
fabric mesh was made from duck cloth."
But I wonder if the "duct" is a typo, since it doesn't a lot of make
sense to call a water-repelling product "duct tape". Or one made from
duck, for that matter.
> Some of it is still sold that way:
> http://www.divernet.com/bubbling/pics/0800duck.jpg
Or maybe, it's *again* sold that way. Manco's registration of the Duck
trademark dates to only 1985, so it probably wasn't sold as "duck tape"
until then. I would guess that Manco couldn't have registered the mark
if it were already in common use, though I am not a trademark lawyer,
and I don't play one on TV.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)
Richard Maurer
Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
<< [Skitt ]
Looks that way.
See: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ducttape.htm
Some of it is still sold that way:
http://www.divernet.com/bubbling/pics/0800duck.jpg
[end quote] >>
"Duck" is my new word for the day.
It appears that the word was just sitting there for hundreds of years,
waiting for the right type of adhesive to be invented.
AmHer1(1969) duck: A very durable, closely woven
heavy cloth or linen fabric. [Dutch doek...]
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Skitt
> << [Matti Lamprhey]
> Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
> [end quote] >>
>
> << [Skitt ]
> Looks that way.
>
> See: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ducttape.htm
>
> Some of it is still sold that way:
> http://www.divernet.com/bubbling/pics/0800duck.jpg
> [end quote] >>
>
> "Duck" is my new word for the day.
> It appears that the word was just sitting there for hundreds of years,
> waiting for the right type of adhesive to be invented.
>
> AmHer1(1969) duck: A very durable, closely woven
> heavy cloth or linen fabric. [Dutch doek...]
Here's a better date (329 years better):
Main Entry: 4duck
Function: noun
Etymology: Dutch doek cloth; akin to Old High German tuoh cloth
Date: 1640
1 : a durable closely woven usually cotton fabric
2 plural : light clothes and especially trousers made of duck
andrew
"Ray Heindl" <rahe...@xnccwx.net> wrote in message
news:Xns944AA0BC...@216.168.3.44...
> Confusingly, <http://www.gale-edit.com/products/volumes/duct_tape.htm>
> has this:
> "Some say this early product was nicknamed "duct tape"
> because it repelled water like the bird's feathers or because the
> fabric mesh was made from duck cloth."
>
> But I wonder if the "duct" is a typo, since it doesn't a lot of make
> sense to call a water-repelling product "duct tape". Or one made from
> duck, for that matter.
>
I learned that it was called "duck tape" because it makes a quacking sound
as you peel it off the roll. That seems more logical than the "waterproof"
explanation.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>> "J. W. Love" wrote...
>>> Donna wrote:
>
>>>> That's a good one. You got me to start updating
>>>> my list of those sort of change-mistakes, like
>>>> "hare's breath" for "hair's breadth."
>>>
>>> Duck tape!
>>
>> Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
Not an "error", should anyone care.
>Looks that way.
Not if a high percentage of people call it duct tape, not the earlier
Duck Tape. Importance factor? Approaching zero, and at the speed of
light too.
Since many of us have used it to wrap both pipes and ducts, the second
version makes perfect sense. Much to-do over nothing, I say again,
especially since this is the umpteenth time the same trivial
observation has been made by one bozo or another, this time by the
Welsh one.
--
Charles Riggs
Correct the stuff that demands correction,
leave the rest be.
John O'Flaherty
My tape doesn't do that. Do you have that insurance?
--
john
andrew
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:9068tvgn97k06hhfq...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
>
> Not an "error", should anyone care.
>
> >Looks that way.
>
> Not if a high percentage of people call it duct tape, not the earlier
> Duck Tape. Importance factor? Approaching zero, and at the speed of
> light too.
>
If the original was "duck tape", then "duct tape" will always be the error.
The matter is not open to descriptivism.
> Since many of us have used it to wrap both pipes and ducts, the second
> version makes perfect sense. Much to-do over nothing, I say again,
It's "much ado about nothing". This is the sort of error that Fowler called
"cheap originality":
http://www.bartleby.com/116/307.html#3
Donna Richoux
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> > Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
>
> Looks that way.
>
> See: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ducttape.htm
I see what they say, but I sure wish they pointed to some supporting
evidence. Even manufacturers fall victim to passing along mistaken
information abour their own industry, sometimes. It sounds like some
people called it one thing, other people called it another, and who
knows what Johnson & Johnson, who invented it in 1942, called it.
"Metallicized strapping tape" or something...
M-W doesn't find any mention of "duct tape" until 1970, and has no entry
for "duck tape" at all.
TESS (trademark database) shows someone trademarked "The Original Duck"
for their brand of duct tape in 1981, but later abandoned it, and the
same year filed for "Duck Tape" which is still in force. Nothing
earlier.
Following the name of the company -- Manco -- and brand back to its
website, and wading through a lot of irrelevant garbage, I get:
1940 Duct tape is invented during World War II.
American G.I.s use the strong, versatile adhesive
for everything from repairing broken windows to
makeshift bandages.
1950 The Melvin A. Anderson company, a tiny
industrial tape supplier, is founded in Cleveland,
Ohio.
1966 Jack Kahl joins the Melvin Anderson Company and
raises sales from $80,000 to $800,000.
1971 Jack Kahl buys the Melvin A. Anderson company,
renames it Manco, and begins selling to retail
markets.
1985 Jack Kahl officially re-names duct tape "Duck
Tape" and creates Manco T. Duck, Manco´s mascot and
ambassador of good will.
So, there you go. The company that sells "Duck (brand) Tape" says they
re-named it that in 1985, and they called the stuff that was invented
forty years before, "duct tape".
Fist-fights should take place out in the hall.
Dr Robin Bignall
>"Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>>> Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
>>
>> Looks that way.
>>
>> See: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ducttape.htm
>
>Confusingly, <http://www.gale-edit.com/products/volumes/duct_tape.htm>
>has this:
>"Some say this early product was nicknamed "duct tape"
>because it repelled water like the bird's feathers or because the
>fabric mesh was made from duck cloth."
>
>But I wonder if the "duct" is a typo, since it doesn't a lot of make
>sense to call a water-repelling product "duct tape". Or one made from
>duck, for that matter.
>
The old saying "(Whatever) runs off me like water off a duck's back" seems
to indicate that ducks, or at least their backs, are waterproof. The first
time I bought this product (I didn't see it in the UK until relatively
recent years) it was called "Duct Tape", but "Duck Tape" for something that
resists water seems to be a good name.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Donna Richoux
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
> >That's a good one. You got me to start updating my list of those sort of
> >change-mistakes, like "hare's breath" for "hair's breadth," ...
>
> does your list have:
>
> 'tact' for 'tack' ("We'll try another tact")
No, I didn't. I had "intact/in tact/in tack/in tacked," but that's
different.
> 'interm' for 'interim', though 'interm' may have become acceptable in
> some circles (not mine) by now
I'm hunting for evidence that that is used. I found a great many hits
for "interm," but they seem to be academic terms, short for
"intermediate" or they're used in financial circles (I can't be sure if
those mean "intermediate" or something else).
Oh, wait, here are some, found by searching on "in the interm":
This means that you will not have any build options, but this
situation will work in the interm, until you have time to build and
install PHP yourself. ...
TMN standards can take too long. in the interm proprietary
solutions become available.
After six years Marine Service and having assumed family
responsabilities in the interm, Dudlt joined the school on the 13th
October 1947.
----
All right, let me finish pasting the list together. As I said, I don't
quite know what to call them (I file them under "Change-Mistakes"), and
I don't quite know how to define them, but here they are:
another tack/another tact
a fly in the ointment/a flaw in the ointment
another think coming/another thing coming
bald-faced/boldfaced (lies)
beck and call/beckon call
defuse/diffuse (tension, a crisis)
for all intents and purposes / for all intensive purposes /
for all extents and purposes
free rein/free reign
get on track/get untracked
hair's breadth/hare's breath (also other combos)
home in on/hone in on
incidents/incidence/instance
intact/ in tact /in tack/ in tacked.
in the interim/in the interm
let alone/little own
party hearty/party hardy (Nearly even in usage)
piqued my curiosity/peaked my curiosity (ratio 6660:1620)
prima donna/pre-madonna (deliberate? Album title)
still and all/still in all
toe the line/tow the line
------
My thanks to everyone who has contributed over the years.
Things I'm not putting on this list:
Dictionary-accepted spelling variants.
Single occurrences; I'm looking for a degree of wide-spreadness.
Donna Richoux
After I posted that, I realized I had a few more that I kept separate
because they were older. Also the historical association is not always
certain:
nip it in the bud/nip it in the butt
not by a long chalk / not by a long shot
off one's own bat/off one's own back
palm off/pawn off/(pass off)
spitting image / spit and image / spirit and image / split and image
strait and narrow (from Bible) --> straight and narrow (used since 1930)
John Hall
wrote:
>...
>All right, let me finish pasting the list together.
Whoa! Not so fast, lady.
Doesn't "a moot point/a mute point" belong in there also?
DOYLE60
kick that ball, you minus well put on your cleats." And I still catch myself
saying it.
Matt
Donna Richoux
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:08:44 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> wrote:
> >...
> >All right, let me finish pasting the list together.
>
> Whoa! Not so fast, lady.
> Doesn't "a moot point/a mute point" belong in there also?
Don't worry, I save these things, so it will show up next time.
While I was checking to see how much "mute point" is used, I noticed
this list of similar blunders:
Phrases in Print
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~mcm/phrases.html
I especially like:
an old wise tale
a new, clear war
under-line meaning
don't take a fence
AND I'm uphauled
--
Uphauled, I tell you -- Donna Richoux
Donna Richoux
That one's new to me, but you're not alone. I find examples such as:
I guess I minus well shut this club down!
you minus well be running no firewall at all
you minus well take off that first post on top!
If you asks me one thing about her you minus well asks me
everything else
I didn't get a sense of numbers right away, because so many of the hits
were coincidental uses of "minus" next to "well". Let me try a phrase:
"I might as well" 237,000
"I minus well" 200
It's not common, but it exists.
Opus the Penguin
> Things I'm not putting on this list:
>
> Dictionary-accepted spelling variants.
> Single occurrences; I'm looking for a degree of wide-spreadness.
I thought "another thing coming" was "Dictionary-accepted" by now. I
don't have my American Heritage Dictionary in front of me, but didn't a
majority of their usage panel prefer the variant?
Here are other suggestions:
buck naked/butt naked
beggars can't be choosers/beggars can't be choosy
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
Donna Richoux
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
> > Things I'm not putting on this list:
> >
> > Dictionary-accepted spelling variants.
> > Single occurrences; I'm looking for a degree of wide-spreadness.
>
> I thought "another thing coming" was "Dictionary-accepted" by now.
Well, "thing" is not an accepted variant spelling of the word "think".
That's what I was getting at.
I have a stronger personal opinion about that phrase than I do the
others. Tolerance only goes so far.
>I
> don't have my American Heritage Dictionary in front of me, but didn't a
> majority of their usage panel prefer the variant?
You'll have to find it to convince me. And even then I might say they
must have been joking, or they had a bad day.
>
> Here are other suggestions:
>
> buck naked/butt naked
> beggars can't be choosers/beggars can't be choosy
Thanks.
I'm not sure about the last one, though. Isn't that just an alternate
wording? Proverbs can have more than one wording, to convey the same
message. Does "being choosy" change the meaning in any strongly
significant way from "be choosers"?
(I know the list is rather fuzzy on qualifications, so I hope you'll
bear with me as I make this up as I go along.)
--
Best - Donna Richoux
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>> I thought "another thing coming" was "Dictionary-accepted" by
>> now.
>
> Well, "thing" is not an accepted variant spelling of the word
> "think". That's what I was getting at.
>
> I have a stronger personal opinion about that phrase than I do the
> others. Tolerance only goes so far.
You're screeching to the prior on that one. (Ok, I made that up; but
it's growing on me.) I've never quite gotten over finding out that so
many people--a majority I believe--were saying "thing" when I was
hearing "think" and vice versa.
>>I
>> don't have my American Heritage Dictionary in front of me, but
>> didn't a majority of their usage panel prefer the variant?
>
> You'll have to find it to convince me. And even then I might say
> they must have been joking, or they had a bad day.
I'll look for it when I get home and publish the cite or a sheepish
retraction.
>> Here are other suggestions:
>>
>> buck naked/butt naked
>> beggars can't be choosers/beggars can't be choosy
>
> Thanks.
>
> I'm not sure about the last one, though. Isn't that just an
> alternate wording? Proverbs can have more than one wording, to
> convey the same message. Does "being choosy" change the meaning in
> any strongly significant way from "be choosers"?
You're right. The phrases are synonymous. Nevertheless, I believe
"beggars can't be choosers" is the original, canonical cliché. I can
see how it wouldn't quite fit your criteria, though.
> (I know the list is rather fuzzy on qualifications,
I think I more or less get what you're after. It's definitely an "I
know it when I see it" sort of thing, which can be difficult to pin
down.
> so I hope
> you'll bear with me as I make this up as I go along.)
Please! I'm a married penguin. Oh ... you said "BEAR with me." Never
mind.
R F
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Donna Richoux wrote:
> After I posted that, I realized I had a few more that I kept separate
> because they were older. Also the historical association is not always
> certain:
[...]
> not by a long chalk / not by a long shot
[...]
> palm off/pawn off/(pass off)
These two seem to assume a CIC dialect if the assumption is that an older
term was misunderstood as the second, younger term. "Not by a long shot"
is, however, so much more common in AmE than "not by a long chalk", that I
would be skeptical about any causal relationship there. "Chalk" has the
"caught" vowel, and "shot" has the "cot" vowel -- two very different
vowels for *some* (indeed, most) Americans. (And "palm" and "pawn"
similarly have different vowels, even in the Sheepshead Bay idiolect of
Mr. Michael Hamm.)
Is there any real evidence that "chalk" is older than "shot"? I gather
that "chalk" is the British term, but they generally speak a newfangled
form of Englisc.
Skitt
> (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>> I thought "another thing coming" was "Dictionary-accepted" by
>>> now.
>>
>> Well, "thing" is not an accepted variant spelling of the word
>> "think". That's what I was getting at.
>>
>> I have a stronger personal opinion about that phrase than I do the
>> others. Tolerance only goes so far.
>
> You're screeching to the prior on that one. (Ok, I made that up; but
> it's growing on me.) I've never quite gotten over finding out that so
> many people--a majority I believe--were saying "thing" when I was
> hearing "think" and vice versa.
>
>>> I don't have my American Heritage Dictionary in front of me, but
>>> didn't a majority of their usage panel prefer the variant?
>>
>> You'll have to find it to convince me. And even then I might say
>> they must have been joking, or they had a bad day.
>
> I'll look for it when I get home and publish the cite or a sheepish
> retraction.
Oh, oh -- now you've done it. Start practicing your bleating.
J. W. Love
stay on course / stay the course.
The latter---Ronald Reagan's great gift to the English language---seems to have
obliterated its own previous manifestation, when it meant "check, restrain,
curb, stop, halt the course; change direction; do anything but what you're
doing now."
(Reagan's <stay> once had a little-used sense like 'to last [something] out',
so maybe this pair is like <flammable/inflammable>.)
J. W. Love
stay on course / stay the course.
The latter---Ronald Reagan's great gift to the English language---has mostly
replaced the former while obliterating its own previous manifestation, which
meant "check, restrain, curb, stop, halt the course; change direction; do
anything but what you're doing now."
(Reagan's <stay> once had the little-used sense 'to last [something] out', so
maybe the defeated <stay the course> and the victorious <stay the course> were
formerly an idiom capable of dancing back & forth like the word <flammable /
inflammable>.)
K. Edgcombe
>
>> Things I'm not putting on this list:
>>
>> Dictionary-accepted spelling variants.
>> Single occurrences; I'm looking for a degree of wide-spreadness.
>
On a quick skim I didn't see "with baited breath" - was it there?
Katy
Donna Richoux
> These two seem to assume a CIC dialect if the assumption is that an older
> term was misunderstood as the second, younger term. "Not by a long shot"
> is, however, so much more common in AmE than "not by a long chalk", that I
> would be skeptical about any causal relationship there. "Chalk" has the
> "caught" vowel, and "shot" has the "cot" vowel -- two very different
> vowels for *some* (indeed, most) Americans. (And "palm" and "pawn"
> similarly have different vowels, even in the Sheepshead Bay idiolect of
> Mr. Michael Hamm.)
>
> Is there any real evidence that "chalk" is older than "shot"? I gather
> that "chalk" is the British term, but they generally speak a newfangled
> form of Englisc.
It's all rather muddled to me. Expressions with "chalk" go way back, and
OED dates "a long chalk" as 1837. But taking a shot is as old, or older
than, chalk. Take a look at these posts:
Subject: Re: not by a long chalk [WAS: thou and thee]
From: Shakib Otaqui <$news$007$@alquds.uk.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 14:37:03 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: not by a long chalk [WAS: thou and thee]
From: Ettore <ett...@cosa.nostra.it>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:32:01 -0000
Aha! I just checked on of the reference books I didn't own back in 1999,
"Early American Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases" (Whiting, 1977) and it
has an American reference for "a long shot" dated 1763 -- that's before
the OED's "long chalk"!
1763 Laurens /Papers/ 3.353; I thought at the time
that this was a long shot.
I would be happy to chalk it up to coincidental similarity.
Opus the Penguin
> palm off/pawn off/(pass off)
Dictionary.com (AH4) lists both the first two without any comment about
correctness. I would understand either but tend to use "pawn off." In
order to remain suitably snooty, I shall begin using "palm off" at
once.
John Hall
wrote:
>...
>> I don't quite know how to define them, but here they are:...
I think we should all pour over your list for a while.
John Dean
> ambassador of good will.
>
> So, there you go. The company that sells "Duck (brand) Tape" says they
> re-named it that in 1985, and they called the stuff that was invented
> forty years before, "duct tape".
>
> Fist-fights should take place out in the hall.
Don't forget the 'other' names :
http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/duckvsduct.html
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Charles Riggs
>
>"Charles Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
>news:9068tvgn97k06hhfq...@4ax.com...
>
>> >>
>> >> Isn't "Duck Tape" the original, and "duct tape" the error?
>>
>> Not an "error", should anyone care.
>>
>> >Looks that way.
>>
>> Not if a high percentage of people call it duct tape, not the earlier
>> Duck Tape. Importance factor? Approaching zero, and at the speed of
>> light too.
>>
>If the original was "duck tape", then "duct tape" will always be the error.
>The matter is not open to descriptivism.
Two matters I won't take time to discuss is the matter of your degree
of understanding of how words change, or the matter of your
suitability for this group at your present stage of development. Words
evolve, my struggling young friend, is the clue you're missing this
time out.
>> Since many of us have used it to wrap both pipes and ducts, the second
>> version makes perfect sense. Much to-do over nothing, I say again,
>
>It's "much ado about nothing". This is the sort of error that Fowler called
>"cheap originality":
And you're the sort of whippersnapper I call a royal pain in the ass,
as would anyone else with sense. So adieu, ado, poo-poo, and let's
hear nothing more from you today.
Matti Lamprhey
>
> After I posted that, I realized I had a few more that I kept separate
> because they were older. Also the historical association is not always
> certain:
>
> nip it in the bud/nip it in the butt
> not by a long chalk / not by a long shot
> off one's own bat/off one's own back
> palm off/pawn off/(pass off)
> spitting image / spit and image / spirit and image / split and image
> strait and narrow (from Bible) --> straight and narrow (used since
> 1930)
My ODoP&F says that "spitting image" is an alteration of "spitten
image", which is itself an alteration of "spit and image". If that's
right, shouldn't your line there be rearranged?
Matti
Donna Richoux
I knew in a vague way that posting those particular items was going to
raise a bunch of questions, all that the same time. Reference sources
don't always agree. I don't have time to look into all of them right
now. Can we take a raincheck? Or maybe someone else would like to look
into the details.
--
Dodging -- Donna Richoux
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> > "Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote...
> > >
> > > nip it in the bud/nip it in the butt
> > > not by a long chalk / not by a long shot
> > > off one's own bat/off one's own back
> > > palm off/pawn off/(pass off)
> > > spitting image / spit and image / spirit and image / split and
> > > image
> > > strait and narrow (from Bible) --> straight and narrow (used since
> > > 1930)
> >
> > My ODoP&F says that "spitting image" is an alteration of "spitten
> > image", which is itself an alteration of "spit and image". If
> > that's right, shouldn't your line there be rearranged?
> >
> I knew in a vague way that posting those particular items was going to
> raise a bunch of questions, all that the same time. Reference sources
> don't always agree. I don't have time to look into all of them right
> now. Can we take a raincheck? Or maybe someone else would like to look
> into the details.
I think we only have to look as far as our very own FAQ, which gives
good references on the topic.
Matti
Donna Richoux
No, it wasn't yet. Do you know what's interesting about that one? The
Google ratio is getting extremely low:
"with bated breath" 27,100
"with baited breath" 18,500 ratio 1.5:1
Dictionaries, here it comes.
Donna Richoux
This one took some thought. There seems to me too much going on,
involving changed meanings, archaic senses, quotations, and different
intentions, to be the kind of spelling mistake that I've been putting on
the list.
When people write "for all intensive purposes" they are using in the
exact overall semantic sense as "for all intents and purposes." But it
would be hard to argue that everyone who says "stay the course" really
would have spelled it "stay on course" if they had only been more
knowledgeable.
For one thing, "stay on course" sounds more like "steer straight, don't
deviate, don't wobble" than it does "to perservere."
It's not as if people hear "on" and spell it "the." It's more like, they
say and spell what they mean to spell, "stay the course," but they're
wrong about its true meaning. (According to you -- I haven't verified
all the details. I agree about "check, restrain" when it's transitive,
but I still wonder if there was an intransitive command, like "Helmsman,
stay the course!")
I'm sure we've seen others in *that* category -- expressions and
quotations where people misunderstand the meaning and use them to mean
something else. "Hoist with his own petard," probably. "Wherefore art
thou Romeo?" Others, people argue about whether the original meaning was
one thing or another.
I think expressons whose overall intended meanings are misunderstood
form a different category, although there may be some overlap.
Matti Lamprhey
"Stay the course" is not an alteration of "stay on course", and neither
is it due to Reagan.
It, and its sibling "stay the distance", mean:
a) hold out to the end of a race, boxing match, etc.;
b) (fig.) pursue a course of action or endure a difficult situation to
the end.
These are from NSOED and match my own interpretation of the phrase.
Where do you get your opposite interpretation from?
The difference between "stay the course" and "stay on course" is that
the former deprecates giving up, the latter deviation.
Matti
J. W. Love
>It's not as if people hear "on" and spell it "the." It's more like,
>they say and spell what they mean to spell, "stay the course,"
>but they're wrong about its true meaning. (According to you -- I
>haven't verified all the details. I agree about "check, restrain"
>when it's transitive, but I still wonder if there was an intransitive
>command, like "Helmsman, stay the course!")
Looks transitive to me!
J. W. Love
>The difference between "stay the course" and
>"stay on course" is that the former deprecates
>giving up, the latter deviation.
Fair enough, but the former also means, or at least meant, "stop, halt, change
the course," and that's the problem.
Donna Richoux
> Donna wrote
>> I agree about "check, restrain"
> >when it's transitive, but I still wonder if there was an intransitive
> >command, like "Helmsman, stay the course!")
>
> Looks transitive to me!
All right, I guess so. Wrong label. But I'm imagining an expression --
not to say that it ever existed, for maybe it didn't -- where "stay"
would be quite different in its nature from the other. "Keep steady on
the desired route," not something like "Fasten down (stay) that gizmo
(the course)."
Bartleby's Quotations has one item showing the "check, halt" sense of
"stay" near to "course":
AUTHOR: Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)
QUOTATION: Hast thou a charm to stay the morning star
In his steep course?
ATTRIBUTION: Hymn in the Vale of Chamouni.
And I spotted this one in Shakespeare's "King John," III i:
To solemnize this day the glorious sun
Stays in his course and plays the alchemist,
Turning with splendor of his precious eye
The meagre cloddy earth to glittering gold
I think we can safely conclude that "to stay something in its course"
has existed as an expression.
So far, I'm not having any luck finding anything historical on "stay the
course." Dictionary.com defines it as an idiom meaning "To hold out or
persevere to the end of a race or challenge" without any citations.
Has someone got a big dic of nautical terms?
Matti Lamprhey
Perhaps that's why you think it once meant "stop the course", then, on
the pattern of "stay your hand" -- which IS transitive.
In fact, "stay the course" is an intransitive form, a longer form of
which might be "stay with the course".
Matti
J. W. Love
>So far, I'm not having any luck finding anything
>historical on "stay the course." Dictionary.com
>defines it as an idiom meaning "To hold out or
>persevere to the end of a race or challenge" without
>any citations.
That's the sense that (whatever its origins) became famous after Ronald Reagan
uttered it. The formerly prevailing use of <stay> is still seen in newspapers
and heard on television when judges stay orders, or condemned felons appeal to
governors to stay their executions. Stay the order, stay the execution, stay
the course.
"To hold out or persevere to the end of a race or challenge" doesn't seem to be
how "stay the course" is ordinarily used. About fifteen minutes ago, a reporter
on CNBC said a corporation, despite suffering unexpected reverses, has
announced that it's going to stay the course, i.e., stay _on_ course with its
current policies---with no hint about persevering to the end of the capitalist
world as we know it.
J. W. Love
>In fact, "stay the course" is an intransitive form, a
>longer form of which might be "stay with the course".
Hear it as you will, I hear it as transitive:
stay an order
stay an execution
stay a course
"I'll stay thee with my kisses."---Tennyson.
Not "I'll stay with thee with my kisses."
J. W. Love
>So far, I'm not having any luck finding anything
>historical on "stay the course." Dictionary.com
>defines it as an idiom meaning "To hold out or
>persevere to the end of a race or challenge" without
>any citations.
That's almost the sense that (whatever its origins) became famous after Ronald
Opus the Penguin
> I thought "another thing coming" was "Dictionary-accepted" by now.
> I don't have my American Heritage Dictionary in front of me, but
> didn't a majority of their usage panel prefer the variant?
I hereby tender my sheepish retraction. I couldn't find any usage note
on the subject at all. I'm not sure what I'm (mis)remembering. At this
point, I can't discount the possibility that this memory is an artefact
of powerful hallucinogens. I have never to my knowledge taken powerful
hallucinogens, of course. But then maybe I wouldn't.
Matti Lamprhey
These are different constructions! There is no such meaningful phrase
as "stay a course" -- the idiom is to "stay the course", meaning to
"stay with the course until its end". I can see how easy it is to
confuse this with the other, transitive, examples you gave, but it would
be quite wrong to do so.
Matti
Alan Jones
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
news:br4rjh$28asg9$1...@ID-103223.news.uni-berlin.de...
Googling for "stayED the course" gives many examples of Matti's sense,
which is also the only sense I know. It can refer to an actual race, as in
athletics, or to any lengthy commitment from which one might be tempted to
resign. I thought it might be Biblical, but the AV/KJV citation turns out to
be "I have fought a good fight, I have *finished* my course ... (2 Timothy).
I've perhaps sung it as "stayed" in a Bruhns cantata, where the translator
needed a monosyllable. (Bruhns is not a mistype. He was a German composer
working just before Bach; this Bible passage is set in his beautiful "Die
Zeit meines Abschieds ist vorhanden", but I can't find the score in the
attic to check how "finished" is rendered.)
The construction is also common in e.g. "We stayed a week with my parents" /
"I stayed there a little while", at least in BrE. It may be colloquial, but
doesn't feel so to me.
Alan Jones
rzed
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in
> message news:br4rjh$28asg9$1...@ID-103223.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> "J. W. Love" <lov...@aol.comma.net> wrote...
>>> Matti wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact, "stay the course" is an intransitive form, a
>>>> longer form of which might be "stay with the course".
>>>
>>> Hear it as you will, I hear it as transitive:
>>>
>>> stay an order
>>> stay an execution
>>> stay a course
>>>
>>> "I'll stay thee with my kisses."---Tennyson.
>>>
>>> Not "I'll stay with thee with my kisses."
>>
>> These are different constructions! There is no such meaningful
>> phrase as "stay a course" -- the idiom is to "stay the course",
>> meaning to "stay with the course until its end". I can see how
>> easy it is to confuse this with the other, transitive, examples
>> you gave, but it would be quite wrong to do so.
>
> Googling for "stayED the course" gives many examples of Matti's
> sense, which is also the only sense I know.
Matti's sense being to stay with the course until it is ended, right?
The word "course" is the cause of confusion here, I think. If it's
regarded as the path taken (a cross-country race course, for
instance), then the apparent "keep on until the end" meaning could be
derived from "stay the course." I would suppose this is the origin of
the idiomatic use that Matti is talking about.
If "course" is regarded as the running that takes place during the
race, which ceases (or stays) at the end, then the "cease running"
meaning comes from the same phrase.
> It can refer to an
> actual race, as in athletics, or to any lengthy commitment from
> which one might be tempted to resign. I thought it might be
> Biblical, but the AV/KJV citation turns out to be "I have fought a
> good fight, I have *finished* my course ... (2 Timothy). I've
> perhaps sung it as "stayed" in a Bruhns cantata, where the
> translator needed a monosyllable. (Bruhns is not a mistype. He was
> a German composer working just before Bach; this Bible passage is
> set in his beautiful "Die Zeit meines Abschieds ist vorhanden", but
> I can't find the score in the attic to check how "finished" is
> rendered.)
>
> The construction is also common in e.g. "We stayed a week with my
> parents" / "I stayed there a little while", at least in BrE. It may
> be colloquial, but doesn't feel so to me.
>
--
rzed
Donna Richoux
The Biblegateway.com site has the Bible in many languages. They show
that passage in the Luther 1545 bible as:
7 Ich habe einen guten Kampf gekämpfet; ich habe
den Lauf vollendet; ich habe Glauben gehalten.
My German is minuscule. Do you see "stayed" there?
What must be a more modern version (Hoffnung fur Alle) has:
7 Doch ich habe mit vollem Einsatz gekämpft;
jetzt ist das Ziel erreicht, und ich bin Christus im
Glauben treu geblieben.
Now, geblieben, that might be "stayed," right? "Gebleven" in Dutch. But
isn't it in the wrong place?
The corresponding King James:
7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my
course, I have kept the faith:
I was intrigued enough by what you said to look all that up, because the
only other literary reference I could find to "stay the course" related
to a German work, Thomas Mann's "Death in Venice." Maybe there is some
German idiom, I thought. Unfortunately the citation appeared to be
mangled, and I couldn't find it anywhere else, so I didn't pursue it.
But now I see it just has an M where a period should be. Please see:
http://www.bartleby.com/66/64/37764.html
>
> The construction is also common in e.g. "We stayed a week with my parents" /
> "I stayed there a little while", at least in BrE. It may be colloquial, but
> doesn't feel so to me.
It's perfectly natural to describe how long you stayed somewhere. But a
"course" isn't a period of time, at least only in a way. Maybe in
academic circles, and possibly in medical (a course of treatment).
Ray Heindl
> K. Edgcombe <ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On a quick skim I didn't see "with baited breath" - was it there?
>
> No, it wasn't yet. Do you know what's interesting about that one? The
> Google ratio is getting extremely low:
>
> "with bated breath" 27,100
> "with baited breath" 18,500 ratio 1.5:1
>
> Dictionaries, here it comes.
Here's one I ran across yesterday; I probably wouldn't have noticed it
if it weren't for this thread: "predominate" as an adjective meaning
"predominant". This one has a google ratio of about 15:1. Of my usual
set of dictionaries, only m-w.com acknowledges that "predominate" can
be an adjective. WordNet also has the adjective use, but their example
is "the predominant mood among policy-makers is optimism", so they
don't seem too sure about it.
Dominate doesn't seem to be much used as a synonym for dominant; the
google ratio is around 80:1.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)
Donna Richoux
Another one I just thought of, while reading your post -- "an intricate
part of," where "an integral part of" is meant. I am sure there are
people who would swear it's supposed to be "intricate".
Robert Lieblich
>
> Ray Heindl <rahe...@xnccwx.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Dominate doesn't seem to be much used as a synonym for dominant; the
> > google ratio is around 80:1.
Some of us call that the Richoux Ratio. Even if Donna didn't invent
the process, she certainly deserves her own Ratio every much as bit
as Skitt deserves his Law.
> Another one I just thought of, while reading your post -- "an intricate
> part of," where "an integral part of" is meant. I am sure there are
> people who would swear it's supposed to be "intricate".
There are also plenty of people who say "intrical" (or is that
"intrigle"?) I'll wager most of them also say "nucular."
--
Bob Lieblich
Hi, Donna
Don Aitken
wrote:
>DOYLE60 <doy...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> When I was a kid, I said "minus well" for "might as well." "If you're gonna
>> kick that ball, you minus well put on your cleats." And I still catch myself
>> saying it.
>>
>That one's new to me, but you're not alone. I find examples such as:
>
> I guess I minus well shut this club down!
>
> you minus well be running no firewall at all
>
> you minus well take off that first post on top!
>
> If you asks me one thing about her you minus well asks me
> everything else
>
>I didn't get a sense of numbers right away, because so many of the hits
>were coincidental uses of "minus" next to "well". Let me try a phrase:
>
>"I might as well" 237,000
>"I minus well" 200
>
>It's not common, but it exists.
Once you start looking for these things, you see them everywhere. From
other newsgroups, in the past hour or so:
"Low and behold". Google: 48,100
"Another tact" (for "tack"). Google: 1,140 plus another 3,250 for
"different tact", of which the first
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/tact.html is from a "list of
errors".
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Opus the Penguin
somewhat common.
Matti Lamprhey
> Just today I saw the phrase "ever so often." I think this is becoming
> somewhat common.
Perhaps you saw something like this:
"When she lived the other side of the village I hardly ever bumped into
her, but now I see her ever so often."
In this example, "ever so" is a simple intensifier, and is strongly
emphasized.
Matti
Matti Lamprhey
> Alan Jones <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
> > > "J. W. Love" <lov...@aol.comma.net> wrote...
> > > > Matti wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >In fact, "stay the course" is an intransitive form, a
> > > > >longer form of which might be "stay with the course".
> > > >
> > > > Hear it as you will, I hear it as transitive:
> > > >
> > > > stay an order
> > > > stay an execution
> > > > stay a course
> > > >
> > > > "I'll stay thee with my kisses."---Tennyson.
> > > >
> > > > Not "I'll stay with thee with my kisses."
> > >
> > > These are different constructions! There is no such meaningful
> > > phrase as "stay a course" -- the idiom is to "stay the course",
> > > meaning to "stay with the course until its end". I can see how
> > > easy it is to confuse this with the other, transitive, examples
> > > you gave, but it would be quite wrong to do so.
> >
> > Googling for "stayED the course" gives many examples of Matti's
> > sense, which is also the only sense I know. It can refer to an
> > actual race, as in athletics, or to any lengthy commitment from
> > which one might be tempted to resign.
>
> > The construction is also common in e.g. "We stayed a week with my
> > parents" / "I stayed there a little while", at least in BrE. It may
> > be colloquial, but doesn't feel so to me.
>
> It's perfectly natural to describe how long you stayed somewhere. But
> a "course" isn't a period of time, at least only in a way. Maybe in
> academic circles, and possibly in medical (a course of treatment).
On reflection, my use of "with" to amplify the phrase was wrong. I
should have chosen "for", and this helps resolve your query, I think.
"Stay" is being used in its (intransitive) sense of "remain" rather than
(the transitive) "hold fast", and one remains for a period or for a task
of some kind. So these all follow that pattern:
I stayed [with a host] for a week
I stayed [with a fellow runner] for a mile
I stayed [in hospital] for the course of treatment
In the first two it's natural to drop the "for", and perhaps it once was
for the last as well.
Matti
Opus the Penguin
I'm familiar with that usage. And while I find it somewhat precious--
Shirley Temple-ish really--I know it's not a mistaken locution for some
other phrase.
In this case, the phrase was used to tell us the Internet might be down
"ever so often" at work today. The context suggested that this
occurrence would be intermittent and infrequent.
Don Aitken
wrote:
>"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
There was a vogue for "Ta, ever so", meaning "thank you" in, I think,
the forties. It was used as the title of a song in the 1952 musical
"Bet Your Life" (see
http://www.musicalheaven.com/b/bet_your_life.shtml) and still turns up
on the web - 125 mentions on Google.
Ben Zimmer
OED2 marks this usage of "stay = stay for" as "quasi-transitive", and
also groups "stay the course" under the same heading:
stay, v.1
17. quasi-trans. To remain for, to remain and participate
in or assist at (a meal, ceremony, prayers, etc.); to
remain throughout or during (a period of time). = stay
for, 14a.
[citations from 1570 to 1888]
b. to stay the course: to hold out to the end of a race.
Freq. fig.
[citations from 1885 to 1983]
OED's first cite for "stay the course" in its racing sense is from 1885
(NY Times on ProQuest has it back to 1879 if not earlier). The OED
entry also cites the following:
1983 Verbatim IX. IV. 16/2 When President Reagan
exhorted Senators and Congressmen to stay the course,
the actual meaning of his words was the opposite of
his intended meaning.
Presumably the author is construing "stay" strictly in its transitive
sense of "to stop, arrest, check", rather than the quasi-transitive
sense above. It's easy enough to find citations for "stay the course"
that do have this earlier countervailing meaning, e.g.:
http://www.eapoe.org/works/tales/pestf.htm
Edgar Allan Poe, "King Pest" (F), The Works of the
Late Edgar Allan Poe, 1850, vol II, pp. 363-375.
But it lay not in the power of images, or sensations, or
impediments such as these, to stay the course of men...
But it's disingenuous to say that the Reaganesque usage is the opposite
of "the actual meaning". Interesting contronym, tho.
On contronyms:
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwhatwo.html
Alan Jones
"Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Xns944D512CD23A3op...@127.0.0.1...
So presumably it was a slip of the finger for "every so often"?
Alan Jones
Ray Heindl
> Ray Heindl <rahe...@xnccwx.net> wrote:
>> Here's one I ran across yesterday; I probably wouldn't have
>> noticed it if it weren't for this thread: "predominate" as an
>> adjective meaning "predominant". This one has a google ratio of
>> about 15:1. Of my usual set of dictionaries, only m-w.com
>> acknowledges that "predominate" can be an adjective. WordNet
>> also has the adjective use, but their example is "the
>> predominant mood among policy-makers is optimism", so they don't
>> seem too sure about it.
>>
>> Dominate doesn't seem to be much used as a synonym for dominant;
>> the google ratio is around 80:1.
>
> Another one I just thought of, while reading your post -- "an
> intricate part of," where "an integral part of" is meant. I am
> sure there are people who would swear it's supposed to be
> "intricate".
Reading another thread, I wondered if the use of "scan" as a synonym
for "skim" started out in this way.
Donna Richoux
Maybe. How words add meanings is always a mystery, but being confused
with other words can be part of it. I remember we talked about this pair
long ago -- maybe you could find there the dates that these meanings
emerged, to see which is older. Or they'd be in the OED, of course.
Opus the Penguin
>
> "Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>
>> In this case, the phrase was used to tell us the Internet might
>> be down "ever so often" at work today. The context suggested that
>> this occurrence would be intermittent and infrequent.
>
> So presumably it was a slip of the finger for "every so often"?
I'm thinking it was more likely ignorance/mishearing of the correct
phrase. I hear it used that way ever so often. Well, not that often, but
every so often.
rzed
> "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> In this case, the phrase was used to tell us the Internet might
>>> be down "ever so often" at work today. The context suggested that
>>> this occurrence would be intermittent and infrequent.
>>
>> So presumably it was a slip of the finger for "every so often"?
>
> I'm thinking it was more likely ignorance/mishearing of the correct
> phrase. I hear it used that way ever so often. Well, not that
> often, but every so often.
If what you're hearing is only "ever so often" then it may be a
mocking usage or a typo, but I do hear "ever" used (where I would use
"every") in quite a few constructions here in Virginia. I have always
thought of it as "ever' " (that is, a dropped final sound), and
usually hear it as a non-rhotic "evuh". For instance, "I have to drive
that route ever day." Do you hear it used in other phrases as well, or
does it seem to be stuck in the one you cite?
--
rzed
"Thus it appears that the point of the story is to ridicule Balaam the
magician in comparison to his ass: Balaam seeks to curse an entire
nation, but even his ass surpasses him in her abilities."
Donna Richoux
> "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > "Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> >
> >> In this case, the phrase was used to tell us the Internet might
> >> be down "ever so often" at work today. The context suggested that
> >> this occurrence would be intermittent and infrequent.
> >
> > So presumably it was a slip of the finger for "every so often"?
>
> I'm thinking it was more likely ignorance/mishearing of the correct
> phrase. I hear it used that way ever so often. Well, not that often, but
> every so often.
I knew this reminded me of the one of the A.A. Milne poems. "Ever so" is
used three times in this one:
Lines and Squares
by A.A. Milne
Whenever I walk in a London street,
I'm ever so careful to watch my feet;
And I keep in the squares,
And the masses of bears,
Who wait at the corners all ready to eat
The sillies who tread on the lines of the street,
Go back to their lairs,
And I say to them, "Bears,
Just look how I'm walking in all the squares!"
And the little bears growl to each other, "He's mine,
As soon as he's silly and steps on a line."
And some of the bigger bears try to pretend
That they came round the corner to look for a friend;
And they try to pretend that nobody cares
Whether you walk in the lines or the squares.
But only the sillies believe their talk;
It's ever so portant how you walk,
And it's ever so jolly to call out, "Bears,
Just watch me walking in all the squares!"
Ray Heindl
There were two threads, in 1994 and 2000. Neither gives any dates,
though.
The skim meaning of scan isn't in my 1971 compact OED[1], so that fact
may say something about the time frame. Maybe a newer OED could pin it
down.
[1] At least, I'm fairly sure it's not. I'm still getting used to new
glasses.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>> "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In this case, the phrase was used to tell us the Internet might
>>>> be down "ever so often" at work today. The context suggested
>>>> that this occurrence would be intermittent and infrequent.
>>>
>>> So presumably it was a slip of the finger for "every so often"?
>>
>> I'm thinking it was more likely ignorance/mishearing of the
>> correct phrase. I hear it used that way ever so often. Well, not
>> that often, but every so often.
>
> If what you're hearing is only "ever so often" then it may be a
> mocking usage or a typo, but I do hear "ever" used (where I would
> use "every") in quite a few constructions here in Virginia. I have
> always thought of it as "ever' " (that is, a dropped final sound),
> and usually hear it as a non-rhotic "evuh". For instance, "I have
> to drive that route ever day." Do you hear it used in other
> phrases as well, or does it seem to be stuck in the one you cite?
I'm familiar with the southern locution you mention. As far as I can
tell, that's not what I'm talking about. Here in Southern California, I
hear "ever so often" for "every so often" but don't hear "ever" for
"every".
Robert Bannister
> When I was a kid, I said "minus well" for "might as well." "If you're gonna
> kick that ball, you minus well put on your cleats." And I still catch myself
> saying it.
I recently read a book, set in some very Northern English city, where
the central character uses 'maison (well)' throughout.
--
Rob Bannister
Wood Avens
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove number to reply