Gruntled?

[Killer Instinct]

I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
"gruntled"?

If not then is there seriously any way of writing "I am not disgruntled"
without using a double negative?

/A



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[the Omrud]

On 12/03/2012 19:14, Killer Instinct wrote:
> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
> "gruntled"?

Not really. PG Wodehouse used it, but only as a joke:

- He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that,
if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.

> If not then is there seriously any way of writing "I am not disgruntled"
> without using a double negative?

Well, clearly, if "gruntled" is not a word then "disgruntled" is not a
negative and "not disgruntled" is not a double negative.

How about "contented", "satisfied", "uncritical"?

--
David

[Peter Brooks]

On Mar 12, 9:18 pm, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/03/2012 19:14, Killer Instinct wrote:
>
> > I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
> > "gruntled"?
>
> Not really.  PG Wodehouse used it, but only as a joke:
>

But the word has had life beyond that:

" [OED]
gruntled, ppl. a.

(ˈgrʌnt(ə)ld)

[Back-formation f. disgruntled a.]

Pleased, satisfied, contented.

   1938 Wodehouse Code of Woosters i. 9 He spoke with a certain what-

is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled,

he was far from being gruntled.    1962 C. Rohan Delinquents 76 Come
on, Brownie darling, be gruntled.    1966 New Statesman 11 Nov. 693/2
An action against a barrister for negligence‥would open the door to
every disgruntled client. Now gruntled clients are rare in the
criminal courts.    1967 E. McGirr Hearse with Horses i. 17 The Agency
has a nice file of gruntled exes who have found their talents in a
great variety of jobs.

"

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:18:10 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/03/2012 19:14, Killer Instinct wrote:
>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
>> "gruntled"?
>
>Not really. PG Wodehouse used it, but only as a joke:
>
>- He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that,
>if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.
>

The OED defines "gruntled" without labelling it as jocular. However, in
my experience it is not nearly as widely used and accepted without
calling attention to itself as is "disgruntled".

>> If not then is there seriously any way of writing "I am not disgruntled"
>> without using a double negative?
>
>Well, clearly, if "gruntled" is not a word then "disgruntled" is not a
>negative and "not disgruntled" is not a double negative.
>
>How about "contented", "satisfied", "uncritical"?

The OED defines it as "pleased, satisfied, contented."

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[retrosorter]

On Mar 12, 3:58 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:18:10 +0000, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gmail.com>

I don't regard gruntled as a very ept word.

[Duggy]

On Mar 13, 6:42 am, retrosorter <hrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 3:58 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:18:10 +0000, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >On 12/03/2012 19:14, Killer Instinct wrote:

> > >> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
> > >> "gruntled"?
> > >Not really.  PG Wodehouse used it, but only as a joke:

> I don't regard gruntled as a very ept word.

The sort of person who would consider "gruntled" an ept word I
wouldn't parage them because they are probably not be very shevelled
or kempt in their personal habits and not couth at all. They probably
use the language is domitable but it is barely scathed so I'm mayed as
the language remains mantled.

===
= DUG.
===

[J. J. Lodder]

Killer Instinct <anders.a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
> "gruntled"?

Of course, by a well known work of History
the fortifications of Dunkirk gruntled again and again,
after having been disgruntled and raised to the ground.

It's Memorable, even,

Jan

[Christian Weisgerber]

Killer Instinct <anders.a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
> "gruntled"?

Not really. It's not the only case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaired_word

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Mike L]

I find it rather gusting, if not actually iquitous. Didn't most of us
play this game as students?

--
Mike.

[mrucb...@att.net]

> Mike.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And spoke of it here 14 years ago, it seems....

In article <889034297...@alquds.demon.co.uk>,
sota...@alquds.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Monday, in article <6dfor4$r1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> kit_dolp...@hotmail.com wrote:

> k@h> As an alternative to that hard
> k@h> stuff I invite the readers to
> k@h> invent, or to remind us of, such
> k@h> humorous back-formations as
> k@h> "couth" (from "uncouth"),
> k@h> "gruntle" (from "disgruntle"),
> k@h> "kempt" (from "unkempt"),
> k@h> "shevel" (from "dishevel"),
> k@h> "gust" (from "disgust"), and
> k@h> "may" (from "dismay").



<snip>


> The Society for the Preservation of Tithesis commends your
> ebriated and scrutable use of delible and defatigable, which
> are gainly, sipid and couth. We are gruntled and consolate
> that you have the ertia and eptitude to choose such putably
> pensible tithesis, which we parage.


Just for fun, let's see how many of these "coinages" are actually
formed by
a sawing-off of a negative prefix and how many just seem to be.

"couth": fine. It literally means "well known"; originally "uncouth"
meant
"unknown" and then drifted into its present meaning of "unmannerly"
(consider "unheard-of behavior").


"gruntle": nope. The "dis-" sawed off here is not a negative "dis-"
but the
"dis-" that means "apart". Here, in fact, it's an intensifier.


"kempt": fine. It's an archaic past participle of "comb"; "unkempt"
is
literally "uncombed".


"shevel": hard to say; probably not. Again, "dis-" here means
"apart".


"gust": fine.


"may": maybe, but not for the reason it looks like. "Dis-" here is an
intensifier as in "disgruntle", but originally the word comes from
"dis-"
plus Vulgar Latin "exmagare". If all you're left with at the end is
"may",
the "ex-" must have been taken off as well - and that _is_ negative.


"tithesis": no way. While "antithesis" certainly has a negative
prefix,
it's "anti-", not "an-". And "thesis" is a real word.


"ebriated": uh-uh. The "in-" in "inebriated" is an intensifier, not a
negative.


"scrutable": fine; in fact, it's in the AHD.


"delible": okay.


"defatigable": fine.


"gainly": also in the AHD.


"sipid": the "in-" is a negative prefix, all right, but when
unprefixed the
vowel expands back to its full value. It should be "sapid", which is
a
word.


"consolate": okay.


"ertia": like "insipid", the vowel changed when prefixed. Ought to be
"artia".


"eptitude": similarly, "ineptitude" is actually the opposite of
"aptitude".


"putably": not really. This is "dis-" meaning "apart" in the sense of
"different".


"pensible": nope. "Dis-" means "apart" in "dispensible".


"parage": fine, surprisingly. "Disparage" originally meant "deprive
of
rank"; "parage" ("peerage") is "rank".


-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

[Duggy]

On Mar 13, 7:38 am, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> Killer Instinct <anders.anders...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
> > "gruntled"?
>
> Not really.  It's not the only case:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaired_word

It's missing some:

Ited - coming apart.
Tant - close.
Ppealing - unattractive.
Bful - even more holy.

===
= DUG.
===

[Peter Moylan]

mrucb...@att.net wrote:

[quoting a 1988 posting by Aaron Dinkin]

> "shevel": hard to say; probably not. Again, "dis-" here means
> "apart".

I've always had the uncomfortable feeling that the opposite of
"dishevelled" should be "hevelled", but of course etymologically I'm wrong.

This sent me on a wild goose chase a few minutes ago. I remembered that
there was an early 20th century pronunciation of "déshabillé" as
"desh-a-beal", and it suddenly struck me that "desh-a-beal" and
"dishevel" might be related. They're not, though.

But wait a minute. Perhaps that "desh-a-beal" (or "dish o' veal")
pronunciation was prompted by someone's mistaken belief that the words
were related.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[James Hogg]

Peter Moylan wrote:
> mrucb...@att.net wrote:
>
> [quoting a 1988 posting by Aaron Dinkin]
>
>> "shevel": hard to say; probably not. Again, "dis-" here means
>> "apart".
>
> I've always had the uncomfortable feeling that the opposite of
> "dishevelled" should be "hevelled", but of course etymologically I'm wrong.
>
> This sent me on a wild goose chase a few minutes ago. I remembered that
> there was an early 20th century pronunciation of "déshabillé" as
> "desh-a-beal", and it suddenly struck me that "desh-a-beal" and
> "dishevel" might be related. They're not, though.
>
> But wait a minute. Perhaps that "desh-a-beal" (or "dish o' veal")
> pronunciation was prompted by someone's mistaken belief that the words
> were related.

The Ulster form that I know is "out in his dissables". There are several
variants in English dialects: dishabells, dizzybells, etc.

--
James

[Peter Young]

On 12 Mar 2012 na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> Killer Instinct <anders.a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
>> "gruntled"?

> Not really. It's not the only case:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaired_word

The classic case is from P.G.Wodehouse (quoted from memory): "I could

see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being
gruntled".

Peter. (who is never couth, kepmt or shevelled.)

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Peter Young]

On 13 Mar 2012 Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 12 Mar 2012 na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

>> Killer Instinct <anders.a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
>>> "gruntled"?

>> Not really. It's not the only case:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaired_word

> The classic case is from P.G.Wodehouse (quoted from memory): "I could
> see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being
> gruntled".

> Peter. (who is never couth, kepmt or shevelled.)

^^^^^

Or even kempt.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Killer Instinct" <anders.a...@hotmail.com> writes:

> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
> "gruntled"?

My, you're looking very sheveled and kempt this morning!

David Dyer-Bennet, member, Society for the Restoration of Lost Positives

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[R H Draney]

Peter Young filted:

>
>On 13 Mar 2012 Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The classic case is from P.G.Wodehouse (quoted from memory): "I could
>> see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being
>> gruntled".
>
>> Peter. (who is never couth, kepmt or shevelled.)
> ^^^^^
>
>Or even kempt.

I reckon you were plused until you spotted that....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Peter Young]

Indeed, but I wasn't very ept, it seems.

Peter.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:

> "Killer Instinct" <anders.a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
>> "gruntled"?
>
> My, you're looking very sheveled and kempt this morning!

The OED cites "kempt" (which, by the way, is just "combed") nearly 700
years before "unkempt" (in the strict sense of "uncombed", another
60-odd years before it is cited in the sense of "dishevelled").

"Shevelled" is listed, cited to 1613, but as a reduced ("aphetic")
form of "dishevelled" rather than as a back-formation.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The Society for the Preservation of
SF Bay Area (1982-) |Tithesis commends your ebriated and
Chicago (1964-1982) |scrutable use of delible and

|defatigable, which are gainly, sipid

evan.kir...@gmail.com |and couth. We are gruntled and

|consolate that you have the ertia and

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |eptitude to choose such putably

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/03/12 3:04 AM, Peter Young wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2012 R H Draney<dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Young filted:
>>>
>>> On 13 Mar 2012 Peter Young<pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The classic case is from P.G.Wodehouse (quoted from memory): "I could
>>>> see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being
>>>> gruntled".
>>>
>>>> Peter. (who is never couth, kepmt or shevelled.)
>>> ^^^^^
>>>
>>> Or even kempt.
>
>> I reckon you were plused until you spotted that....r
>
> Indeed, but I wasn't very ept, it seems.
>
> Peter.
>

For a moment, I suspected you of being a kept man.

--
Robert Bannister

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-14, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> "Killer Instinct" <anders.a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
>>> "gruntled"?
>>
>> My, you're looking very sheveled and kempt this morning!
>
> The OED cites "kempt" (which, by the way, is just "combed") nearly 700
> years before "unkempt" (in the strict sense of "uncombed", another
> 60-odd years before it is cited in the sense of "dishevelled").

It also cites "couth" from "OE" (no specific date) and "uncouth" from
c897.

OTOH, "canny" from 1637 but "uncanny" from 1596 --- however, I suspect
those dates for written citations are close enough that we can't
really say than "uncanny" came first in speech.


--
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
[XKCD 312]

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 12 Mar 2012 na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
> > Killer Instinct <anders.a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
> >> "gruntled"?
>
> > Not really. It's not the only case:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaired_word
>
> The classic case is from P.G.Wodehouse (quoted from memory): "I could
> see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being
> gruntled".

But not very original.
The Memorabe historical source
(which Wodehouse must have been aware of)
pre-dates it by about 10 years,

Jan

[Peter Young]

"Canny" is still in use in northern BrE.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> "Killer Instinct" <anders.a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
>>> "gruntled"?
>>
>> My, you're looking very sheveled and kempt this morning!
>
> The OED cites "kempt" (which, by the way, is just "combed") nearly 700
> years before "unkempt" (in the strict sense of "uncombed", another
> 60-odd years before it is cited in the sense of "dishevelled").

Yes, it's a "lost" positive; implying it once existed.

> "Shevelled" is listed, cited to 1613, but as a reduced ("aphetic")
> form of "dishevelled" rather than as a back-formation.
--

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:

> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Killer Instinct" <anders.a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word
>>>> as "gruntled"?
>>>
>>> My, you're looking very sheveled and kempt this morning!
>>
>> The OED cites "kempt" (which, by the way, is just "combed") nearly
>> 700 years before "unkempt" (in the strict sense of "uncombed",
>> another 60-odd years before it is cited in the sense of
>> "dishevelled").
>
> Yes, it's a "lost" positive; implying it once existed.

Ah, I thought that what was being discussed was things like
"dishevelled", whose "positive" was formed by reanalysis, and where
the reanalyzed word was often a word that was borrowed with the the
supposed prefix (in this case from Old French "deschevelé").

As for "kempt", the OED has six citations from the twentieth century,
and Google Books lists 2,490 hits for "well-kempt" (and the _NY Times_
has 42), so I'm not sure how "lost" it is.

>> "Shevelled" is listed, cited to 1613, but as a reduced ("aphetic")
>> form of "dishevelled" rather than as a back-formation.

--

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |You cannot solve problems with the
SF Bay Area (1982-) |same type of thinking that created
Chicago (1964-1982) |them.
| Albert Einstein
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

I haven't really been following this discussion (I'm way behind and
catching up sort of backwards), but "(dis)gruntled" is a weird case.
"Gruntle", the word that led to "disgruntled", does still exist,
though it's not common, as a verb meaning "to utter a little or low
grunt". The "dis-" is interpreted by the OED as an intensifier rather
than as a negative, and the transitive verb (from which the adjective
is derived) is something like "to put in a state where you grumble".
"Gruntled" as a positive is a back-formation due to reanalyzing the
prefix as a negative.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The vast majority of humans have
SF Bay Area (1982-) |more than the average number of
Chicago (1964-1982) |legs.

evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Steve Hayes]

And then there's atheist and theist.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Mike L]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> "Killer Instinct" <anders.a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
>>> "gruntled"?
>>
>> My, you're looking very sheveled and kempt this morning!
>
>The OED cites "kempt" (which, by the way, is just "combed") nearly 700
>years before "unkempt" (in the strict sense of "uncombed", another
>60-odd years before it is cited in the sense of "dishevelled").
>
>"Shevelled" is listed, cited to 1613, but as a reduced ("aphetic")
>form of "dishevelled" rather than as a back-formation.

"Sleep, that knits up the ravell'd sleave of care..."

--
Mike.

[Duggy]

On Mar 15, 6:14 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:38:28 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >On 2012-03-14, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> >OTOH, "canny" from 1637 but "uncanny" from 1596 --- however, I suspect
> >those dates for written citations are close enough that we can't
> >really say than "uncanny" came first in speech.
>
> And then there's atheist and theist.

And they walked into a bar?

===
= DUG.
===

[R H Draney]

Duggy filted:
>
>On Mar 15, 6:14=A0am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:38:28 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrot=

>e:
>> >On 2012-03-14, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> >OTOH, "canny" from 1637 but "uncanny" from 1596 --- however, I suspect
>> >those dates for written citations are close enough that we can't
>> >really say than "uncanny" came first in speech.
>>
>> And then there's atheist and theist.
>
>And they walked into a bar?

Later that same evening, in another part of town, in a seemingly deserted
warehouse....

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"Ravel" is a weird one, as it appears to have become its own opposite.
Originally, it was "tangled" (cited to the early sixteenth century),
but by the early seventeenth, the OED cites it in a transitive sense
of "to cause to unravel or fray". My guess is that both being tangled
and being frayed were seen as similar "incorrect" states for thread.

"Unravel" shows up at the same time (start of the seventeenth
century), presumably taking "ravel" in a stricter sense.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Never ascribe to malice that which
SF Bay Area (1982-) |can adequately be explained by
Chicago (1964-1982) |stupidity.

evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-14, Peter Young wrote:

> On 14 Mar 2012 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> OTOH, "canny" from 1637 but "uncanny" from 1596 --- however, I suspect
>> those dates for written citations are close enough that we can't
>> really say than "uncanny" came first in speech.
>
> "Canny" is still in use in northern BrE.

Yes, I like that one, but not as much as "oxter".


--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995)

[James Silverton]

On 3/14/2012 4:45 PM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2012-03-14, Peter Young wrote:
>
>> On 14 Mar 2012 Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>>> OTOH, "canny" from 1637 but "uncanny" from 1596 --- however, I suspect
>>> those dates for written citations are close enough that we can't
>>> really say than "uncanny" came first in speech.
>>
>> "Canny" is still in use in northern BrE.
>
> Yes, I like that one, but not as much as "oxter".
>
>

Geordie chant "Hey, canny man throw a ha'pny oot. Me faither's in gaol
and ah canna get him oot!"

--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Peter Brooks]

On Mar 14, 10:14 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> writes:

>
> >> "Killer Instinct" <anders.anders...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
> >>> "gruntled"?
>
> >> My, you're looking very sheveled and kempt this morning!
>
> >The OED cites "kempt" (which, by the way, is just "combed") nearly 700
> >years before "unkempt" (in the strict sense of "uncombed", another
> >60-odd years before it is cited in the sense of "dishevelled").
>
> >"Shevelled" is listed, cited to 1613, but as a reduced ("aphetic")
> >form of "dishevelled" rather than as a back-formation.
>
> "Sleep, that knits up the ravell'd sleave of care..."
>

The 'innocent' sleep - that of the guilty leaves the sleeve ravelled.

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/03/12 9:49 PM, Peter Young wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2012 Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-03-14, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>>> David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Killer Instinct"<anders.a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I have seen it as the subject of a joke, but is there such a word as
>>>>> "gruntled"?
>>>>
>>>> My, you're looking very sheveled and kempt this morning!
>>>
>>> The OED cites "kempt" (which, by the way, is just "combed") nearly 700
>>> years before "unkempt" (in the strict sense of "uncombed", another
>>> 60-odd years before it is cited in the sense of "dishevelled").
>
>> It also cites "couth" from "OE" (no specific date) and "uncouth" from
>> c897.
>
>> OTOH, "canny" from 1637 but "uncanny" from 1596 --- however, I suspect
>> those dates for written citations are close enough that we can't
>> really say than "uncanny" came first in speech.
>
> "Canny" is still in use in northern BrE.

"Canny" and "uncanny" are hardly opposites.
I find the German "unheimlich" (which can mean uncanny) strange too,
since "heimlich" means "secretly" or "furtively" and not "homely", which
is what it looks like.


--
Robert Bannister

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:17:23 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au>
wrote:

That's another thread.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:58:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

>> "Sleep, that knits up the ravell'd sleave of care..."
>
>"Ravel" is a weird one, as it appears to have become its own opposite.
>Originally, it was "tangled" (cited to the early sixteenth century),
>but by the early seventeenth, the OED cites it in a transitive sense
>of "to cause to unravel or fray". My guess is that both being tangled
>and being frayed were seen as similar "incorrect" states for thread.
>
>"Unravel" shows up at the same time (start of the seventeenth
>century), presumably taking "ravel" in a stricter sense.

One unravels a knitted garment, just as one unravels tangled thread.

It separates the threads into usable pieces.

But an unravelled garment is no longer any use as a garment.

[Peter Brooks]

On Mar 15, 8:06 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:58:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>

> <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> >> "Sleep, that knits up the ravell'd sleave of care..."
>
> >"Ravel" is a weird one, as it appears to have become its own opposite.
> >Originally, it was "tangled" (cited to the early sixteenth century),
> >but by the early seventeenth, the OED cites it in a transitive sense
> >of "to cause to unravel or fray".  My guess is that both being tangled
> >and being frayed were seen as similar "incorrect" states for thread.
>
> >"Unravel" shows up at the same time (start of the seventeenth
> >century), presumably taking "ravel" in a stricter sense.
>
> One unravels a knitted garment, just as one unravels tangled thread.
>
> It separates the threads into usable pieces.
>
> But an unravelled garment is no longer any use as a garment.
>

But the ravelled sleeve of each day's care, that's knitted up by
innocent sleep, is what we'd call an unravelled sleeve if we took it
to a knitter today.

[Duggy]

On Mar 15, 4:03 pm, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:17:23 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>

> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 15, 6:14 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:38:28 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >On 2012-03-14, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> >> >OTOH, "canny" from 1637 but "uncanny" from 1596 --- however, I suspect
> >> >those dates for written citations are close enough that we can't
> >> >really say than "uncanny" came first in speech.
>
> >> And then there's atheist and theist.
>
> >And they walked into a bar?
>
> That's another thread.

She'd not the atheist's daughter?

===
= DUG.
===

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:47:15 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>"Canny" and "uncanny" are hardly opposites.
>I find the German "unheimlich" (which can mean uncanny) strange too,
>since "heimlich" means "secretly" or "furtively" and not "homely", which
>is what it looks like.

Ah, perhaps something like that might account for my being told by a lecturer
in police science, when I queried his equating of "inertia" with
"secretiveness", that it was absolutely correct, and a technical term.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:13:09 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au>
wrote:

She'd probly rather not.

[Steve Hayes]

Only when the next day's care unravelled it in order to reknit it.

[Peter Brooks]

On Mar 15, 8:58 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:04:31 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 15, 8:06 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:58:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>
> >> <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> >> >> "Sleep, that knits up the ravell'd sleave of care..."
>
> >> >"Ravel" is a weird one, as it appears to have become its own opposite.
> >> >Originally, it was "tangled" (cited to the early sixteenth century),
> >> >but by the early seventeenth, the OED cites it in a transitive sense
> >> >of "to cause to unravel or fray".  My guess is that both being tangled
> >> >and being frayed were seen as similar "incorrect" states for thread.
>
> >> >"Unravel" shows up at the same time (start of the seventeenth
> >> >century), presumably taking "ravel" in a stricter sense.
>
> >> One unravels a knitted garment, just as one unravels tangled thread.
>
> >> It separates the threads into usable pieces.
>
> >> But an unravelled garment is no longer any use as a garment.
>
> >But the ravelled sleeve of each day's care, that's knitted up by
> >innocent sleep, is what we'd call an unravelled sleeve if we took it
> >to a knitter today.
>
> Only when the next day's care unravelled it in order to reknit it.
>

No. It is the ravelled sleeve that needs reknitting.

The full text is here: [Macbeth Act 2 Scene 2]:

"
Methought I heard a voice cry 'Sleep no more!
Macbeth does murder sleep', the innocent sleep,
Sleep that knits up the ravell'd sleeve of care,
The death of each day's life, sore labour's bath,
Balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course,
Chief nourisher in life's feast,--
"

[James Hogg]

The semantic development, according to Kluge, is from "zum Haus gehörig"
to "einheimisch" to "vertraut" to "(Fremden) verborgen". The meaning of
"unheimlich" must have been fixed as the opposite of "heimlich" when it
meant "familiar".

--
James

[James Hogg]

Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:58:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> "Sleep, that knits up the ravell'd sleave of care..."
>> "Ravel" is a weird one, as it appears to have become its own opposite.
>> Originally, it was "tangled" (cited to the early sixteenth century),
>> but by the early seventeenth, the OED cites it in a transitive sense
>> of "to cause to unravel or fray". My guess is that both being tangled
>> and being frayed were seen as similar "incorrect" states for thread.
>>
>> "Unravel" shows up at the same time (start of the seventeenth
>> century), presumably taking "ravel" in a stricter sense.
>
> One unravels a knitted garment, just as one unravels tangled thread.

What about a bolero?

--
James

[Katy Jennison]

That would be where they start face down on the ice and end up on their
feet?

--
Katy Jennison

[Robert Bannister]

Great tune.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Brooks]

On Mar 16, 9:47 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 15/03/12 3:24 PM, James Hogg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve Hayes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:58:40 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

> >> <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >>> Mike L<n...@yahoo.co.uk>  writes:
>
> >>>> "Sleep, that knits up the ravell'd sleave of care..."
> >>> "Ravel" is a weird one, as it appears to have become its own opposite.
> >>> Originally, it was "tangled" (cited to the early sixteenth century),
> >>> but by the early seventeenth, the OED cites it in a transitive sense
> >>> of "to cause to unravel or fray".  My guess is that both being tangled
> >>> and being frayed were seen as similar "incorrect" states for thread.
>
> >>> "Unravel" shows up at the same time (start of the seventeenth
> >>> century), presumably taking "ravel" in a stricter sense.
>
> >> One unravels a knitted garment, just as one unravels tangled thread.
>
> > What about a bolero?
>
> Great tune.
>

Which bolero?

[J. J. Lodder]

The one that gets you Bo,

Jan

[James Hogg]

I'll give you 10 for that one.

--
James

[Duggy]

On Mar 16, 7:04 pm, James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:

There was no 10, she got a 11.

===
= DUG.
===

[James Hogg]

Isn't 10 enough for Lodder?

--
James

[R H Draney]

James Hogg filted:

But these go to eleven....r

[Duggy]

Another thread title has made me think.

Habilitate?

===
= DUG.
===

[Adam Funk]

Cartoon, SFW:

http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2013/10/04


--
The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine
him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote
Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine.
--- Hunter S Thompson