Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Southern expression, "fixins"--with or without apostrophe?
16,420 views
Skip to first unread message
Crystal Wood
Feb 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/29/96
to
When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
"fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
"fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
Crystal
cw...@computek.net
Earle D. Jones
Mar 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/1/96
to
In article <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>, cw...@computek.net (Crystal
Wood) wrote:
Wood) wrote:
=================
Crystal:
Fixin' has a long southern historical background.
The oldest usage that I can personally recall is this:
"I'm fixin' to go to the store."
Meaning: I'm about ready to go to the store.
I heard the above in the 1930's in Birmingham, Alabama (where I was born).
Another expression would be, "I'm going to the store directly."
This usage of *directly* meant anything but *right away*. In fact, it had
an implication of, "...there's no hurry; I'll get around to it."
The expression, "...the fixin's..." would be used like this:
"We're having Christmas dinner with all the fixin's" meant with all the
bells and whistles (as they would say now)--all the "...trimmings (in
Alabama, "...all the trimmin's"), meaning with all of the assorted dishes
that would go along with a full dinner.
I appreciate your sensitivity to the apostrophe question.
Sometimes the apostrophe is used thus: It's--for *it is*.
And sometimes it is used to replace the missing *g* in spoken dialects,
such as * fixin's* for *fixings* and *trimmin's* for *trimmings*.
Whether the possesive was intended is sometimes lost.
If you live in the San Francisco Bay area, you may read Herb Caen's column
in the San Francisco Chronicle. He has his unofficial 'postrophe patrol.
Our job is to look out for apostrophe misuse. And we are tough. So y'all
be careful, now--you heah?
regards, earle
==============
--
..no sig is good sig..
James Eason
Mar 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/2/96
to ejo...@hooked.net
This is all fine and good, but "fixin's" is so ugly to look at. Can't
we, pretty please, just write "fixins"? Huh, please, please??
we, pretty please, just write "fixins"? Huh, please, please??
Mark Baker
Mar 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/3/96
to
In article <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>,
cw...@computek.net (Crystal Wood) writes:
cw...@computek.net (Crystal Wood) writes:
>It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
>an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's")
"It's" isn't an example of using an apostrophe-s for pluralising. It's
done to show posession, in a place where all logic says it should be.
But, of course, English isn't logical.
Daniel Luecking
Mar 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/6/96
to
stev...@indirect.com (Stephen T MacGregor) writes: ">"
Michael B. Quinion writes: ">>"
Michael B. Quinion writes: ">>"
mn...@cam.ac.uk (Mark Baker) writes: ">>>"
cw...@computek.net (Crystal Wood) writes: ">>>>"
[Boy I hope I got all that right]
>>>>It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
>>>>an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's")
>>> "It's" isn't an example of using an apostrophe-s for pluralising. It's
>>> done to show posession, in a place where all logic says it should be.
>>> But, of course, English isn't logical.
>>You've answered one mistake with another ... "it's" is an abbreviation
>>for "it is". It is NOT a possessive.
> You've answered a second mistake with a third: "it's" is not an
>abbreviation; it's a contraction of "it is". If it were an abbreviation,
>it would be pronounced "it is", just as "Mr" is pronounced "Mister".
And a third mistake is answered with a fourth, except that Mark Baker's
alleged second mistake isn't a mistake, so this is only the third.
Mark was discussing the example (following Crystal Wood) of the
*mistake* of using "it's" for "its". This is most definitely *not* an
example of incorrectly using an apostrophe-s to denote a
*plural*, as Crystal had said; it is an example of incorrectly using an
apostrophe-s to denote *possessive*, as Mark said.
Dan Luecking
--
luec...@comp.uark.edu | "...today's top mathematicians
Department of Mathematical Sciences | are in fact a group of exciting,
University of Arkansas | dynamic, and glamorous
Fayetteville, Arkansas | individuals." -- Dave Barry
holliet...@gmail.com
Feb 9, 2015, 4:32:40 PM2/9/15
to
The word "fixin'," as in, "I'm fixin' to go to the store," is not the same as the word "fixins" which generally refers to food. "We're having Thanksgiving dinner with all the fixins," would be a good example. The latter is a noun and the former, a verb. "Fixins" has always been plural but it is not possessive nor is it a contraction (it is also not an abbreviation...just a southern colloquialism). It does not have an apostrophe, although many people use one. "Fixin'" is technically an abbreviated form of fixing (still a colloquialism though). The word is traditionally spelled with an apostrophe at the end for no technical reason. However, it is a common practice to use an apostrophe for this type of abbreviation...the leaving off of a letter or letters from the end of the word, (as opposed to a traditional abbreviation which uses a period or all capitals, such as Dr. In place of doctor, and GA in place of Georgia).
This being said, since we are dealing with words that really more dialectical or cultural, it could be argued that the rules of formal English might not apply.
Just for the record, I don't like either one of those words, whether there is an apostrophe or not.
This being said, since we are dealing with words that really more dialectical or cultural, it could be argued that the rules of formal English might not apply.
Just for the record, I don't like either one of those words, whether there is an apostrophe or not.
Mike Barnes
Feb 9, 2015, 4:48:44 PM2/9/15
to
holliet...@gmail.com wrote:
> The word "fixin'," as in, "I'm fixin' to go to the store," is not the
> same as the word "fixins" which generally refers to food. "We're
> having Thanksgiving dinner with all the fixins," would be a good
> example.
FWIW as a visitor to the USA in the 70s I was baffled by that "food"
> The word "fixin'," as in, "I'm fixin' to go to the store," is not the
> same as the word "fixins" which generally refers to food. "We're
> having Thanksgiving dinner with all the fixins," would be a good
> example.
sense of the word "fixing" and its variants, having never come across it
before (or since) in the UK.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Horace LaBadie
Feb 9, 2015, 5:01:29 PM2/9/15
to
In article <fe6a0396-b2f0-4a88...@googlegroups.com>,
It's also found in the Western USA. Fixins can include any ingredient in
a recipe, e.g., corn liquor fixins, the ingredients to make moonshine.
Mencken cites a passage from Dickens in which he parodies such
Americanisms. (Dickens uses the apostrophe.)
a recipe, e.g., corn liquor fixins, the ingredients to make moonshine.
Mencken cites a passage from Dickens in which he parodies such
Americanisms. (Dickens uses the apostrophe.)
Jerry Friedman
Feb 9, 2015, 5:23:07 PM2/9/15
to
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 2:32:40 PM UTC-7, holliet...@gmail.com wrote:
> The word "fixin'," as in, "I'm fixin' to go to the store," is not the same as the word "fixins" which generally refers to food. "We're having Thanksgiving dinner with all the fixins," would be a good example. The latter is a noun and the former, a verb. "Fixins" has always been plural but it is not possessive nor is it a contraction (it is also not an abbreviation...just a southern colloquialism). It does not have an apostrophe, although many people use one. "Fixin'" is technically an abbreviated form of fixing (still a colloquialism though). The word is traditionally spelled with an apostrophe at the end for no technical reason. However, it is a common practice to use an apostrophe for this type of abbreviation...the leaving off of a letter or letters from the end of the word, (as opposed to a traditional abbreviation which uses a period or all capitals, such as Dr. In place of doctor, and GA in place of Georgia).
It's the standard practice, so it's the technical reason for writing
> The word "fixin'," as in, "I'm fixin' to go to the store," is not the same as the word "fixins" which generally refers to food. "We're having Thanksgiving dinner with all the fixins," would be a good example. The latter is a noun and the former, a verb. "Fixins" has always been plural but it is not possessive nor is it a contraction (it is also not an abbreviation...just a southern colloquialism). It does not have an apostrophe, although many people use one. "Fixin'" is technically an abbreviated form of fixing (still a colloquialism though). The word is traditionally spelled with an apostrophe at the end for no technical reason. However, it is a common practice to use an apostrophe for this type of abbreviation...the leaving off of a letter or letters from the end of the word, (as opposed to a traditional abbreviation which uses a period or all capitals, such as Dr. In place of doctor, and GA in place of Georgia).
"fixin's" with an apostrophe.
> This being said, since we are dealing with words that really more dialectical or cultural, it could be argued that the rules of formal English might not apply.
not "ayn't" or "eighnt".
> Just for the record, I don't like either one of those words, whether there is an apostrophe or not.
Northerner.
--
Jerry Friedman
annily
Feb 9, 2015, 8:15:13 PM2/9/15
to
of "fixings", i.e. things that "fix" a meal by making it better.
When you say many people use an apostrophe in "fixins", do you mean as
"fixin's", in which case it would be like "can't", where the apostrophe
indicates missing letter(s).
--
Lifelong resident of Adelaide, South Australia
"Talking to yourself is only a problem if you get a response you don't
understand".
holliet...@gmail.com
Feb 9, 2015, 8:58:28 PM2/9/15
to
A contraction is when two words are combined. You are becomes you're (not to be confused with "your" which is possessive). Does not becomes doesn't. So "fixins'" is not a contraction. It's just one word with a letter left out.
Also, the definition of "fixins" is not things that make a meal better (as if it were broken). It is meant as things that go along with a meal. It very well could make the meal better overall simply because there are many tasty things. The saying really is about things that traditionally go along with a meal. Now if I said, "I am fixing a meal of roast beef and green beans for dinner," that would mean I am cooking or preparing a meal. Not the most common usage of "fixing" but a proper one.
Also, the definition of "fixins" is not things that make a meal better (as if it were broken). It is meant as things that go along with a meal. It very well could make the meal better overall simply because there are many tasty things. The saying really is about things that traditionally go along with a meal. Now if I said, "I am fixing a meal of roast beef and green beans for dinner," that would mean I am cooking or preparing a meal. Not the most common usage of "fixing" but a proper one.
Eric Walker
Feb 9, 2015, 9:17:18 PM2/9/15
to
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:23:04 -0800, Jerry Friedman wrote:
[...]
> "I'm fixin' to" and "with all the fixin's"? are pretty strange to me as
> a Northerner.
I find it interesting the the AHD (5th) gives "fixings" for foodstuffs,
with no mention of a contracted version, and no sense at all given for
"fixing" except the standard ones.
I certainly do not know, but I much suspect that even in the regions
where the slurred forms once might have been common, they will today
rarely be found outside the menus of places with "Mom's" in their name.
I would imagine that the slurred or elided final consonant "g" arises
because--in fact or fancy--speakers who use it at all tend to drawl, so
that "fixing to" or "all the fixings" would be unusual renditions.
Just guessing . . . .
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
[...]
> "I'm fixin' to" and "with all the fixin's"? are pretty strange to me as
> a Northerner.
with no mention of a contracted version, and no sense at all given for
"fixing" except the standard ones.
I certainly do not know, but I much suspect that even in the regions
where the slurred forms once might have been common, they will today
rarely be found outside the menus of places with "Mom's" in their name.
I would imagine that the slurred or elided final consonant "g" arises
because--in fact or fancy--speakers who use it at all tend to drawl, so
that "fixing to" or "all the fixings" would be unusual renditions.
Just guessing . . . .
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Tony Cooper
Feb 9, 2015, 10:30:52 PM2/9/15
to
http://www.crackerbarrel.com/restaurant/lunch-and-dinner-menu/fancy-fixins/
There are no Cracker Barrel restaurants in Washington state, though.
If you travel in the Midwest, South, or East, you would find them in
42 states.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 9, 2015, 11:54:52 PM2/9/15
to
g" is "slurred or elided" in words like "fixins." Apparently "Cordiality"
precludes actually _listenin'_ to language. There is no "g" sound in words
that are spelled to end witb <ing>.
annily
Feb 10, 2015, 7:36:23 PM2/10/15
to
On 10.02.15 12:28, holliet...@gmail.com wrote:
> A contraction is when two words are combined. You are becomes you're (not to be confused with "your" which is possessive). Does not becomes doesn't. So "fixins'" is not a contraction. It's just one word with a letter left out.
Well, OED and Macquarie Dictionary disagree with you there:
> A contraction is when two words are combined. You are becomes you're (not to be confused with "your" which is possessive). Does not becomes doesn't. So "fixins'" is not a contraction. It's just one word with a letter left out.
Macquarie:
3. a shortened form of a word, etc., as e'er for ever, can't for cannot.
OED:
8. a.II.8.a Gram., Phonetics, etc. The action of contracting or
shortening (a word, a syllable, etc.) by omitting or combining some
elements, or, in writing, by substituting a single symbol for a number
of letters.
> Also, the definition of "fixins" is not things that make a meal better (as if it were broken). It is meant as things that go along with a meal. It very well could make the meal better overall simply because there are many tasty things. The saying really is about things that traditionally go along with a meal. Now if I said, "I am fixing a meal of roast beef and green beans for dinner," that would mean I am cooking or preparing a meal. Not the most common usage of "fixing" but a proper one.
>
annily
Feb 10, 2015, 7:57:36 PM2/10/15
to
On 11.02.15 11:06, annily wrote:
> On 10.02.15 12:28, holliet...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A contraction is when two words are combined. You are becomes you're
>> (not to be confused with "your" which is possessive). Does not becomes
>> doesn't. So "fixins'" is not a contraction. It's just one word with a
>> letter left out.
>
> Well, OED and Macquarie Dictionary disagree with you there:
>
> Macquarie:
> 3. a shortened form of a word, etc., as e'er for ever, can't for cannot.
>
> OED:
> 8. a.II.8.a Gram., Phonetics, etc. The action of contracting or
> shortening (a word, a syllable, etc.) by omitting or combining some
> elements, or, in writing, by substituting a single symbol for a number
> of letters.
>
>> Also, the definition of "fixins" is not things that make a meal better
>> (as if it were broken). It is meant as things that go along with a
>> meal. It very well could make the meal better overall simply because
>> there are many tasty things. The saying really is about things that
>> traditionally go along with a meal. Now if I said, "I am fixing a
>> meal of roast beef and green beans for dinner," that would mean I am
>> cooking or preparing a meal. Not the most common usage of "fixing"
>> but a proper one.
>>
>
> Do you have a source for that?
>
By "that" I meant your definition of "fixins". Also, I don't think that
> On 10.02.15 12:28, holliet...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A contraction is when two words are combined. You are becomes you're
>> (not to be confused with "your" which is possessive). Does not becomes
>> doesn't. So "fixins'" is not a contraction. It's just one word with a
>> letter left out.
>
> Well, OED and Macquarie Dictionary disagree with you there:
>
> Macquarie:
> 3. a shortened form of a word, etc., as e'er for ever, can't for cannot.
>
> OED:
> 8. a.II.8.a Gram., Phonetics, etc. The action of contracting or
> shortening (a word, a syllable, etc.) by omitting or combining some
> elements, or, in writing, by substituting a single symbol for a number
> of letters.
>
>> Also, the definition of "fixins" is not things that make a meal better
>> (as if it were broken). It is meant as things that go along with a
>> meal. It very well could make the meal better overall simply because
>> there are many tasty things. The saying really is about things that
>> traditionally go along with a meal. Now if I said, "I am fixing a
>> meal of roast beef and green beans for dinner," that would mean I am
>> cooking or preparing a meal. Not the most common usage of "fixing"
>> but a proper one.
>>
>
> Do you have a source for that?
>
definition precludes it from being a contraction (my quoted dictionary
definitions) of "fixings".
Eric Walker
Feb 10, 2015, 8:11:48 PM2/10/15
to
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:27:30 +1030, annily wrote:
[...]
>> Do you have a source for that?
>>
>>
> By "that" I meant your definition of "fixins". Also, I don't think that
> definition precludes it from being a contraction (my quoted dictionary
> definitions) of "fixings".
AHD 5th defines "fixings" as:
_Informal_ Accessories; trimmings; _a holiday meal with all the
fixings._
That seems to match "It is meant as things that go along with a
meal." Also, though the word is almost always in connection with a meal,
I believe it can be used of other things, in that same "accessories/
trimmings" sense.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
[...]
>> Do you have a source for that?
>>
>>
> By "that" I meant your definition of "fixins". Also, I don't think that
> definition precludes it from being a contraction (my quoted dictionary
> definitions) of "fixings".
_Informal_ Accessories; trimmings; _a holiday meal with all the
fixings._
That seems to match "It is meant as things that go along with a
meal." Also, though the word is almost always in connection with a meal,
I believe it can be used of other things, in that same "accessories/
trimmings" sense.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Tony Cooper
Feb 10, 2015, 8:17:29 PM2/10/15
to
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:06:18 +1030, annily <ann...@annily.invalid>
wrote:
>On 10.02.15 12:28, holliet...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A contraction is when two words are combined. You are becomes you're (not to be confused with "your" which is possessive). Does not becomes doesn't. So "fixins'" is not a contraction. It's just one word with a letter left out.
>
>Well, OED and Macquarie Dictionary disagree with you there:
>
>Macquarie:
>3. a shortened form of a word, etc., as e'er for ever, can't for cannot.
>
>OED:
>8. a.II.8.a Gram., Phonetics, etc. The action of contracting or
>shortening (a word, a syllable, etc.) by omitting or combining some
>elements, or, in writing, by substituting a single symbol for a number
>of letters.
>
>> Also, the definition of "fixins" is not things that make a meal better (as if it were broken). It is meant as things that go along with a meal.
"sides"; the things that go with a meal.
wrote:
>On 10.02.15 12:28, holliet...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A contraction is when two words are combined. You are becomes you're (not to be confused with "your" which is possessive). Does not becomes doesn't. So "fixins'" is not a contraction. It's just one word with a letter left out.
>
>Well, OED and Macquarie Dictionary disagree with you there:
>
>Macquarie:
>3. a shortened form of a word, etc., as e'er for ever, can't for cannot.
>
>OED:
>8. a.II.8.a Gram., Phonetics, etc. The action of contracting or
>shortening (a word, a syllable, etc.) by omitting or combining some
>elements, or, in writing, by substituting a single symbol for a number
>of letters.
>
>> Also, the definition of "fixins" is not things that make a meal better (as if it were broken). It is meant as things that go along with a meal.
>Do you have a source for that
Look at any menu where "fixins" or "fixin's" are listed. They are the
"sides"; the things that go with a meal.
R H Draney
Feb 11, 2015, 6:54:04 AM2/11/15
to
Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:qablda98a60r6ldht...@4ax.com:
But then there's "mixins", the things you can have the frozen-yogurt
shop "mix in" to your dessert....r
news:qablda98a60r6ldht...@4ax.com:
shop "mix in" to your dessert....r
annily
Feb 11, 2015, 8:16:21 PM2/11/15
to
(and related to the verb "fix"), isn't it? I got the impression that the
OP seemed to disagree with that, and hence disagreed with the spelling
"fixin's".
Tony Cooper
Feb 12, 2015, 12:32:45 AM2/12/15
to
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:46:15 +1030, annily <ann...@annily.invalid>
When either spelling (fixins or fixin's) is found, what will be listed
under that heading are the side dishes that can be ordered with the
meal. There are enough menus using the term that they are source
enough.
Personally, I would not use the apostrophe version.
wrote:
>On 11.02.15 11:47, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:06:18 +1030, annily <ann...@annily.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10.02.15 12:28, holliet...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> A contraction is when two words are combined. You are becomes you're (not to be confused with "your" which is possessive). Does not becomes doesn't. So "fixins'" is not a contraction. It's just one word with a letter left out.
>>>
>>> Well, OED and Macquarie Dictionary disagree with you there:
>>>
>>> Macquarie:
>>> 3. a shortened form of a word, etc., as e'er for ever, can't for cannot.
>>>
>>> OED:
>>> 8. a.II.8.a Gram., Phonetics, etc. The action of contracting or
>>> shortening (a word, a syllable, etc.) by omitting or combining some
>>> elements, or, in writing, by substituting a single symbol for a number
>>> of letters.
>>>
>>>> Also, the definition of "fixins" is not things that make a meal better (as if it were broken). It is meant as things that go along with a meal.
>>
>>> Do you have a source for that
>>
>> Look at any menu where "fixins" or "fixin's" are listed. They are the
>> "sides"; the things that go with a meal.
>>
>
>Yes, but it's still a variant spelling (or contraction) of "fixings"
>(and related to the verb "fix"), isn't it? I got the impression that the
>OP seemed to disagree with that, and hence disagreed with the spelling
>"fixin's".
Whether it is or isn't a variant or contraction, it is found on menus.
>On 11.02.15 11:47, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:06:18 +1030, annily <ann...@annily.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10.02.15 12:28, holliet...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> A contraction is when two words are combined. You are becomes you're (not to be confused with "your" which is possessive). Does not becomes doesn't. So "fixins'" is not a contraction. It's just one word with a letter left out.
>>>
>>> Well, OED and Macquarie Dictionary disagree with you there:
>>>
>>> Macquarie:
>>> 3. a shortened form of a word, etc., as e'er for ever, can't for cannot.
>>>
>>> OED:
>>> 8. a.II.8.a Gram., Phonetics, etc. The action of contracting or
>>> shortening (a word, a syllable, etc.) by omitting or combining some
>>> elements, or, in writing, by substituting a single symbol for a number
>>> of letters.
>>>
>>>> Also, the definition of "fixins" is not things that make a meal better (as if it were broken). It is meant as things that go along with a meal.
>>
>>> Do you have a source for that
>>
>> Look at any menu where "fixins" or "fixin's" are listed. They are the
>> "sides"; the things that go with a meal.
>>
>
>Yes, but it's still a variant spelling (or contraction) of "fixings"
>(and related to the verb "fix"), isn't it? I got the impression that the
>OP seemed to disagree with that, and hence disagreed with the spelling
>"fixin's".
When either spelling (fixins or fixin's) is found, what will be listed
under that heading are the side dishes that can be ordered with the
meal. There are enough menus using the term that they are source
enough.
Personally, I would not use the apostrophe version.
Adam Funk
Feb 12, 2015, 8:30:06 AM2/12/15
to
On 2015-02-11, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Look at any menu where "fixins" or "fixin's" are listed. They are the
> "sides"; the things that go with a meal.
Has anyone mentioned Country Joe & the Fish yet?
> Look at any menu where "fixins" or "fixin's" are listed. They are the
> "sides"; the things that go with a meal.
--
Civilization is a race between catastrophe and education.
[H G Wells]
Message has been deleted
R H Draney
Feb 12, 2015, 1:44:57 PM2/12/15
to
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in news:m3muqbxgj1.ln2
@news.ducksburg.com:
> On 2015-02-11, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Look at any menu where "fixins" or "fixin's" are listed. They are the
>> "sides"; the things that go with a meal.
>
> Has anyone mentioned Country Joe & the Fish yet?
What are we fightin' for?...r
@news.ducksburg.com:
> On 2015-02-11, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Look at any menu where "fixins" or "fixin's" are listed. They are the
>> "sides"; the things that go with a meal.
>
> Has anyone mentioned Country Joe & the Fish yet?
annily
Feb 12, 2015, 10:46:06 PM2/12/15
to
directed somewhat sarcastically toward the OP and incidental to the main
point of my comments, which was that the word is a contraction of fixings.
> Personally, I would not use the apostrophe version.
>
>
>
--
cameron.b...@gmail.com
Oct 7, 2016, 3:12:07 AM10/7/16
to
On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Crystal Wood wrote:
> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>
> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>
> It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
> an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>
> Crystal
> cw...@computek.net
jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live on my own now
> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>
> Crystal
> cw...@computek.net
Snidely
Oct 7, 2016, 5:26:12 AM10/7/16
to
On Friday, cameron.b...@gmail.com pointed out that ...
Congratulations. No doubt using a search engine helped you make that
grownup step.
/dps
--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
grownup step.
/dps
--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
Peter Moylan
Oct 7, 2016, 6:41:57 AM10/7/16
to
On 2016-Oct-07 20:26, Snidely wrote:
> On Friday, cameron.b...@gmail.com pointed out that ...
>> On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Crystal Wood wrote:
>>> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
>>> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
>>> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
>>> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>>>
>>> It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
>>> an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
>>> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>>>
>>> Crystal
>>> cw...@computek.net
>>
>> jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live on my own now
>
> Congratulations. No doubt using a search engine helped you make that
> grownup step.
Cameron wasn't the offender. Note, too, that he/she quoted what was
> On Friday, cameron.b...@gmail.com pointed out that ...
>> On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Crystal Wood wrote:
>>> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
>>> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
>>> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
>>> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>>>
>>> It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
>>> an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
>>> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>>>
>>> Crystal
>>> cw...@computek.net
>>
>> jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live on my own now
>
> Congratulations. No doubt using a search engine helped you make that
> grownup step.
being responded to. The people who revive zombie threads usually throw
in a comment with no indication of what they're responding to, leaving
the rest of us scratching our heads.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 7, 2016, 7:45:38 AM10/7/16
to
Snidely
Oct 9, 2016, 2:26:27 AM10/9/16
to
Peter Moylan scribbled something on Friday the 10/7/2016:
> Note, too, that he/she quoted what was
> being responded to. The people who revive zombie threads usually throw
> in a comment with no indication of what they're responding to, leaving
> the rest of us scratching our heads.
That is an improvement. I also observe that it wasn't top-posted.
> On 2016-Oct-07 20:26, Snidely wrote:
>> On Friday, cameron.b...@gmail.com pointed out that ...
>>> On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Crystal Wood wrote:
>>>> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
>>>> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
>>>> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
>>>> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>>>>
>>>> It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
>>>> an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
>>>> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Crystal
>>>> cw...@computek.net
>>>
>>> jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live on my own now
>>
>> Congratulations. No doubt using a search engine helped you make that
>> grownup step.
>
> Cameron wasn't the offender.
How do you figure?
>> On Friday, cameron.b...@gmail.com pointed out that ...
>>> On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Crystal Wood wrote:
>>>> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
>>>> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
>>>> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
>>>> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>>>>
>>>> It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
>>>> an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
>>>> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Crystal
>>>> cw...@computek.net
>>>
>>> jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live on my own now
>>
>> Congratulations. No doubt using a search engine helped you make that
>> grownup step.
>
> Cameron wasn't the offender.
> Note, too, that he/she quoted what was
> being responded to. The people who revive zombie threads usually throw
> in a comment with no indication of what they're responding to, leaving
> the rest of us scratching our heads.
Peter Moylan
Oct 9, 2016, 6:47:17 AM10/9/16
to
On 2016-Oct-09 17:26, Snidely wrote:
> Peter Moylan scribbled something on Friday the 10/7/2016:
>> On 2016-Oct-07 20:26, Snidely wrote:
>>> On Friday, cameron.b...@gmail.com pointed out that ...
>>>> On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Crystal Wood wrote:
>>>>> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
>>>>> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
>>>>> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
>>>>> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>>>>>
>>>>> It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
>>>>> an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
>>>>> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Crystal
>>>>> cw...@computek.net
>>>>
>>>> jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live on my own
>>>> now
>>>
>>> Congratulations. No doubt using a search engine helped you make that
>>> grownup step.
>>
>> Cameron wasn't the offender.
>
> How do you figure?
By looking back to the post where the ancient thread was revived. The
> Peter Moylan scribbled something on Friday the 10/7/2016:
>> On 2016-Oct-07 20:26, Snidely wrote:
>>> On Friday, cameron.b...@gmail.com pointed out that ...
>>>> On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Crystal Wood wrote:
>>>>> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
>>>>> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
>>>>> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
>>>>> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>>>>>
>>>>> It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
>>>>> an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
>>>>> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Crystal
>>>>> cw...@computek.net
>>>>
>>>> jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live on my own
>>>> now
>>>
>>> Congratulations. No doubt using a search engine helped you make that
>>> grownup step.
>>
>> Cameron wasn't the offender.
>
> How do you figure?
revival was by someone with an e-mail address holliet...@gmail.com.
Oh, wait, now I see it. There were TWO revivals, one in February 2015
and then another this month. But cameron did at least point out that it
was a response to an ancient post, so it wasn't the usual jumping in
without checking the date.
gregs...@gmail.com
Dec 10, 2016, 10:35:12 AM12/10/16
to
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 11:54:52 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> It's not surprisin' that the "Cordial" fellow thinks that a "final cosonant
> g" is "slurred or elided" in words like "fixins." Apparently "Cordiality"
> precludes actually _listenin'_ to language. There is no "g" sound in words
> that are spelled to end witb <ing>.
Almost no one thinks that there is a 'g' sound in a word that ends in 'ing', although there are a few exceptions such as 'finger' that do have the actual 'g' sound.
> It's not surprisin' that the "Cordial" fellow thinks that a "final cosonant
> g" is "slurred or elided" in words like "fixins." Apparently "Cordiality"
> precludes actually _listenin'_ to language. There is no "g" sound in words
> that are spelled to end witb <ing>.
The sound is called 'eng' in phonetics and is the final sound in the word 'thing'. What the poster meant when saying that the 'g' is slurred or elided is that the 'ng' becomes an 'n'.
Changing an 'ng' to an 'n' is considered improper, but is still frequently preferred because in some circumstances speaking properly comes across as stuffy or arrogant. Politicians often will change the 'ng' sound to 'n' in words in order to sound like one of the common people just as they will often use phrases from Southern or Black English.
thejun...@sympatico.ca
Jul 25, 2017, 12:57:21 PM7/25/17
to
On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Crystal Wood wrote:
> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>
> It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
> an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>
> Crystal
> cw...@computek.net
Not sure what you mean by it's/its. Its is possessive and it's means it is. In fixin's, the apostrophe is replacing the g.
> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>
> It has always annoyed me when someone pluralizes a word by adding
> an apostrophe-s (the prime example, "its/it's") so I'm in a bit
> of a quandary over this one. Any ideas? Thanks!
>
> Crystal
> cw...@computek.net
Richard Yates
Jul 25, 2017, 3:05:00 PM7/25/17
to
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT), thejun...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
(Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
What are the fixin's' ingredients?
wrote:
years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
What are the fixin's' ingredients?
Peter Moylan
Jul 25, 2017, 6:28:50 PM7/25/17
to
On 26/07/17 05:04, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT), thejun...@sympatico.ca
> wrote:
[...]
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT), thejun...@sympatico.ca
> wrote:
> (Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
> years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
never seem to notice that the question has already been answered to
everyone's satisfaction. It's as if their Google search showed only the
first article and not the rest of the thread.
It's the same with the whatsapp thread. Many of the posters there show
no sign of having read anything else in the thread, e.g. the warnings
against revealing your phone number in an on-line forum.
Tony Cooper
Jul 25, 2017, 7:35:35 PM7/25/17
to
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:04:55 -0700, Richard Yates
<ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT), thejun...@sympatico.ca
>wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Crystal Wood wrote:
>>> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
>>> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
>>> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
>>> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>>>
<ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT), thejun...@sympatico.ca
>wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Crystal Wood wrote:
>>> When one is writing in colloquial Southern English, and talking
>>> about a meal "with all the fixins" ("fixings"?), should there be
>>> an apostrophe to show that a letter has been omitted, as in
>>> "fixin's," or does that make it look like a possessive?
>>>
>What are the fixin's' ingredients?
"Fixin's", or "fixings" are not of a fixed nature. They are whatever
is served to accompany the main course. If the main course is fried
chicken, then the fixin's might be mashed potatoes and gravy, green
beans, and cole slaw. Not that this combination is fixed, though. The
cook decides.
I picked fried chicken as the example because it's usually a
Southerner who uses "fixin's", and fried chicken is something a
Southerner might put to the table. Yankees who serve pot roast might
have the same fixin's but call them "side dishes" even if they are not
in dishes on the side of the plate.
Don't mistake "side dishes" for "sides" even though they are the same
thing. "Side dishes" are served at home, and "sides" are choices in a
restaurant. In either case, they might still be mashed potatoes and
gravy, green beans, and cole slaw.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 25, 2017, 11:14:48 PM7/25/17
to
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:28:50 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 26/07/17 05:04, Richard Yates wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT), thejun...@sympatico.ca
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > (Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
> > years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
>
> That's something that still puzzles me about the drive-by posters. They
> never seem to notice that the question has already been answered to
> everyone's satisfaction. It's as if their Google search showed only the
> first article and not the rest of the thread.
For Christ's Sake. How many times do you have to be told that THEY DO NOT SEE
> On 26/07/17 05:04, Richard Yates wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT), thejun...@sympatico.ca
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > (Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
> > years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
>
> That's something that still puzzles me about the drive-by posters. They
> never seem to notice that the question has already been answered to
> everyone's satisfaction. It's as if their Google search showed only the
> first article and not the rest of the thread.
A THREAD, THEY SEE ONLY THE ONE MESSAGE THAT THEIR SEARCH TURNED UP?
> It's the same with the whatsapp thread. Many of the posters there show
> no sign of having read anything else in the thread, e.g. the warnings
> against revealing your phone number in an on-line forum.
LINE FORUM."
Snidely
Jul 26, 2017, 3:10:45 AM7/26/17
to
Just this Tuesday, Peter Moylan explained that ...
Get back to me when you've read the thread through a search engine
called up by a browser on a mobile device. I suspect that experience
may help with explanations.
/dps
--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15
called up by a browser on a mobile device. I suspect that experience
may help with explanations.
/dps
--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jul 26, 2017, 6:01:08 AM7/26/17
to
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Quinn C
Jul 28, 2017, 1:13:03 PM7/28/17
to
* Snidely:
> Just this Tuesday, Peter Moylan explained that ...
>> On 26/07/17 05:04, Richard Yates wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT), thejun...@sympatico.ca
>>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> (Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
>>> years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
>>
>> That's something that still puzzles me about the drive-by posters. They
>> never seem to notice that the question has already been answered to
>> everyone's satisfaction. It's as if their Google search showed only the
>> first article and not the rest of the thread.
>>
>> It's the same with the whatsapp thread. Many of the posters there show
>> no sign of having read anything else in the thread, e.g. the warnings
>> against revealing your phone number in an on-line forum.
>
> Get back to me when you've read the thread through a search engine
> called up by a browser on a mobile device. I suspect that experience
> may help with explanations.
I'm not sold yet. For me, it still shows a whole thread in Google
Groups, and it asks me to "Sign in to reply", even though I'm on
Android and therefore signed into Google in some sense.
--
Manche Dinge sind vorgeschrieben, weil man sie braucht, andere
braucht man nur, weil sie vorgeschrieben sind.
-- Helmut Richter in de.etc.sprache.deutsch
> Just this Tuesday, Peter Moylan explained that ...
>> On 26/07/17 05:04, Richard Yates wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT), thejun...@sympatico.ca
>>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> (Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
>>> years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
>>
>> That's something that still puzzles me about the drive-by posters. They
>> never seem to notice that the question has already been answered to
>> everyone's satisfaction. It's as if their Google search showed only the
>> first article and not the rest of the thread.
>>
>> It's the same with the whatsapp thread. Many of the posters there show
>> no sign of having read anything else in the thread, e.g. the warnings
>> against revealing your phone number in an on-line forum.
>
> Get back to me when you've read the thread through a search engine
> called up by a browser on a mobile device. I suspect that experience
> may help with explanations.
Groups, and it asks me to "Sign in to reply", even though I'm on
Android and therefore signed into Google in some sense.
--
Manche Dinge sind vorgeschrieben, weil man sie braucht, andere
braucht man nur, weil sie vorgeschrieben sind.
-- Helmut Richter in de.etc.sprache.deutsch
snide...@gmail.com
Jul 28, 2017, 3:12:52 PM7/28/17
to
the sign in is with your gmail account. Just using Android doesn't do that for you , and evidently Chrome couldn't pick between the two gmail I have on this phone.
You're right that it does as a gg thread, but one post takes up moist of the screen. The Gal 8 is big, bit not a phablet.
/dps
You're right that it does as a gg thread, but one post takes up moist of the screen. The Gal 8 is big, bit not a phablet.
/dps
Tony Cooper
Jul 28, 2017, 3:22:14 PM7/28/17
to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:12:48 -0700 (PDT), snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> the sign in is with your gmail account. Just using Android doesn't do that for you , and evidently Chrome couldn't pick between the two gmail I have on this phone.
>
>You're right that it does as a gg thread, but one post takes up moist of the screen. The Gal 8 is big, bit not a phablet.
>
Congratulations. You've won the "Least Intelligible Post of the
> the sign in is with your gmail account. Just using Android doesn't do that for you , and evidently Chrome couldn't pick between the two gmail I have on this phone.
>
>You're right that it does as a gg thread, but one post takes up moist of the screen. The Gal 8 is big, bit not a phablet.
>
Month" for July.
Better wipe that screen, though, before the moisture damages it.
Quinn C
Jul 28, 2017, 3:59:24 PM7/28/17
to
* snide...@gmail.com:
> the sign in is with your gmail account. Just using Android
> doesn't do that for you , and evidently Chrome couldn't pick
> between the two gmail I have on this phone.
My point exactly: Even though my Android is registered with a
Google account so that I can use Google Play etc. hassle-free (and
the Google acccount includes a gmail account that I never look
at), that doesn't mean that I'm already logged into Google within
the Browser.
So it isn't that easy to post to Google Groups without being aware
of what you're doing.
Let's assume you had already logged into Google in your Browser
for other reasons, so you don't need to "Login to Reply". Still,
reading an article in the Browser, hitting Reply, typing some
text, hitting Send, and later claiming that you didn't know you
were posting to an online forum means you don't know how the Web
works.
There was a theory that some people actually see these posts
within gmail, in which case they might think that they are sending
an email rather than making an online post, but this theory was
never very convincing, and the current drive-by was from someone
using a sympatico.ca address.
--
Strategy: A long-range plan whose merit cannot be evaluated
until sometime after those creating it have left the organization.
> the sign in is with your gmail account. Just using Android
> doesn't do that for you , and evidently Chrome couldn't pick
> between the two gmail I have on this phone.
Google account so that I can use Google Play etc. hassle-free (and
the Google acccount includes a gmail account that I never look
at), that doesn't mean that I'm already logged into Google within
the Browser.
So it isn't that easy to post to Google Groups without being aware
of what you're doing.
Let's assume you had already logged into Google in your Browser
for other reasons, so you don't need to "Login to Reply". Still,
reading an article in the Browser, hitting Reply, typing some
text, hitting Send, and later claiming that you didn't know you
were posting to an online forum means you don't know how the Web
works.
There was a theory that some people actually see these posts
within gmail, in which case they might think that they are sending
an email rather than making an online post, but this theory was
never very convincing, and the current drive-by was from someone
using a sympatico.ca address.
--
Strategy: A long-range plan whose merit cannot be evaluated
until sometime after those creating it have left the organization.
snide...@gmail.com
Jul 28, 2017, 4:35:00 PM7/28/17
to
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-7, Quinn C wrote:
> * snide...@gmail.com:
>
> > the sign in is with your gmail account. Just using Android
> > doesn't do that for you , and evidently Chrome couldn't pick
> > between the two gmail I have on this phone.
>
> My point exactly: Even though my Android is registered with a
> Google account so that I can use Google Play etc. hassle-free (and
> the Google acccount includes a gmail account that I never look
> at), that doesn't mean that I'm already logged into Google within
> the Browser.
>
> So it isn't that easy to post to Google Groups without being aware
> of what you're doing.
>
> Let's assume you had already logged into Google in your Browser
> for other reasons, so you don't need to "Login to Reply". Still,
> reading an article in the Browser, hitting Reply, typing some
> text, hitting Send, and later claiming that you didn't know you
> were posting to an online forum means you don't know how the Web
> works.
For me, an untested hypothesis is ... not acceptable yet.
> * snide...@gmail.com:
>
> > the sign in is with your gmail account. Just using Android
> > doesn't do that for you , and evidently Chrome couldn't pick
> > between the two gmail I have on this phone.
>
> My point exactly: Even though my Android is registered with a
> Google account so that I can use Google Play etc. hassle-free (and
> the Google acccount includes a gmail account that I never look
> at), that doesn't mean that I'm already logged into Google within
> the Browser.
>
> So it isn't that easy to post to Google Groups without being aware
> of what you're doing.
>
> Let's assume you had already logged into Google in your Browser
> for other reasons, so you don't need to "Login to Reply". Still,
> reading an article in the Browser, hitting Reply, typing some
> text, hitting Send, and later claiming that you didn't know you
> were posting to an online forum means you don't know how the Web
> works.
So I volunteered to be a test subject.
The result, I admit, is that my hypothesis either needs
rejecting or updating.
Perhaps I can work out a test with someone I know
who has only a single gmail account,
in case I can salvage a little bit more of my SWAG.
> There was a theory that some people actually see these posts
> within gmail, in which case they might think that they are sending
> an email rather than making an online post, but this theory was
> never very convincing, and the current drive-by was from someone
> using a sympatico.ca address.
and can't imagine how to get a usenet post to appear there
without an obvious step like someone clipping it and pasting it
in an email, which has a different reply mechanism.
Note that GG has an email interface as well as the browser interface,
but using that is like using an old-fashioned mailing list
(e.g., mailman, which is used by the Mercurial project
and also by an internal project at my work).
I wouldn't expect that to provide drive-by postings.
The ruminations will continue at intervals.
/dps
RH Draney
Jul 28, 2017, 10:08:30 PM7/28/17
to
Who she was or how she died
But when they opened up her purse
They found a snail inside
....r
Snidely
Jul 29, 2017, 3:05:29 AM7/29/17
to
Tony Cooper speculated:
I was reely hoping for a Razzie.
> Better wipe that screen, though, before the moisture damages it.
Don't be so ure it's a problem.
/dps
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:12:48 -0700 (PDT), snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> the sign in is with your gmail account. Just using Android doesn't do that
>> for you , and evidently Chrome couldn't pick between the two gmail I have on
>> this phone.
>>
>> You're right that it does as a gg thread, but one post takes up moist of the
>> screen. The Gal 8 is big, bit not a phablet.
>>
>
> Congratulations. You've won the "Least Intelligible Post of the
> Month" for July.
Is that one of them thar Golden Globe Awards?
>
>> the sign in is with your gmail account. Just using Android doesn't do that
>> for you , and evidently Chrome couldn't pick between the two gmail I have on
>> this phone.
>>
>> You're right that it does as a gg thread, but one post takes up moist of the
>> screen. The Gal 8 is big, bit not a phablet.
>>
>
> Congratulations. You've won the "Least Intelligible Post of the
> Month" for July.
I was reely hoping for a Razzie.
> Better wipe that screen, though, before the moisture damages it.
/dps
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
Snidely
Jul 29, 2017, 3:08:27 AM7/29/17
to
RH Draney blurted out:
"Ask us a question about this song"
/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Snidely
Jul 29, 2017, 3:11:17 AM7/29/17
to
With a quizzical look, snide...@gmail.com observed:
for the "native" groups; I haven't tried it with the bridged usenet
groups.
> but using that is like using an old-fashioned mailing list
> (e.g., mailman, which is used by the Mercurial project
> and also by an internal project at my work).
> I wouldn't expect that to provide drive-by postings.
>
> The ruminations will continue at intervals.
/dps "What's that rumblin' sound, Pops?"
groups.
> but using that is like using an old-fashioned mailing list
> (e.g., mailman, which is used by the Mercurial project
> and also by an internal project at my work).
> I wouldn't expect that to provide drive-by postings.
>
> The ruminations will continue at intervals.
Mark Brader
Jul 31, 2017, 3:57:06 PM7/31/17
to
Richard Yates quotes:
When this thread was revived *last* year, it was by someone who began
by saying "jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live
on my own now". Someone else eventually figured out that he was
responding to a *previous* revival of the thread the year before.
--
Mark Brader "I'm not Richard, either.
Toronto Oh, wait: I am! Lucky me!"
m...@vex.net --Richard R. Hershberger
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>> On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Crystal Wood wrote:
And writes:
> (Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
> years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
Uh, Richard, either your arithmetic or your calendar is faulty.
> (Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
> years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
When this thread was revived *last* year, it was by someone who began
by saying "jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live
on my own now". Someone else eventually figured out that he was
responding to a *previous* revival of the thread the year before.
--
Mark Brader "I'm not Richard, either.
Toronto Oh, wait: I am! Lucky me!"
m...@vex.net --Richard R. Hershberger
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Snidely
Aug 1, 2017, 2:54:22 AM8/1/17
to
Mark Brader presented the following explanation :
replied directly to the original message, whether or not there was
reading of the 2015-er message. My home machine does not have the 2009
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 00:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>#1/1>
References: <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>#1/1>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:32:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4hkm2b$c...@wizard.uark.edu>
References: <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>
<4hcqre$c...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <671371...@quinion.demon.co.uk>
<4hf0oj$2...@globe.indirect.com> <4hkm2b$c...@wizard.uark.edu>
According to GG, the original was
Date: 1996/02/29
Message-ID: <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>#1/1
and there were 4 contemporary replies.
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
> Richard Yates quotes:
>>> On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Crystal Wood wrote:
>
> And writes:
>> (Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
>> years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
>
> Uh, Richard, either your arithmetic or your calendar is faulty.
>
> When this thread was revived *last* year, it was by someone who began
> by saying "jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live
> on my own now". Someone else eventually figured out that he was
> responding to a *previous* revival of the thread the year before.
Comparing the relevant revivifying posts, it appears the 2016-er
>>> On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Crystal Wood wrote:
>
> And writes:
>> (Unlikely that Crystal will read your reply after eleven and a half
>> years. She received quite a detailed reply back then.)
>
> Uh, Richard, either your arithmetic or your calendar is faulty.
>
> When this thread was revived *last* year, it was by someone who began
> by saying "jesus this question was asked before I was born and I live
> on my own now". Someone else eventually figured out that he was
> responding to a *previous* revival of the thread the year before.
replied directly to the original message, whether or not there was
reading of the 2015-er message. My home machine does not have the 2009
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 00:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>#1/1>
References: <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>#1/1>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:32:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4hkm2b$c...@wizard.uark.edu>
References: <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>
<4hcqre$c...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <671371...@quinion.demon.co.uk>
<4hf0oj$2...@globe.indirect.com> <4hkm2b$c...@wizard.uark.edu>
According to GG, the original was
Date: 1996/02/29
Message-ID: <4h5655$1...@news.computek.net>#1/1
and there were 4 contemporary replies.
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
0 new messages