Plural Clergy as "Revs."
Mary F. Heath
In one particular church in Berkeley, California, there is a co-ministry
held by a married couple; both the man and the woman are ordained. The
newsletter for this church shows "The Revs." as their title, but that
added "s" seems wrong to me. I cannot find any protocol to confirm my
opinion and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you.
m.h.
m.h.
Thomas Schenk
Trust your common sense on this one. "Reverend" is an adjective, not a
noun. (Whether it is ever properly a noun is questionable, and has
been a subject of earlier threads in this group. The OED, its
supplement, and additions series give only an adjectival entry for the
word.)
So, unless one is peculiarly given to pluralizing one's adjectives,
such as "fasts cars", "funnys clowns", and "unusuals sex practices",
one would ordinarily not be inclined to say "The Reverends Sarah and
Moishe Goldfarb" any more than one would say "the charmings Sarah and
Moishe Goldfarb".
Tom
--
*******************
Dr Thomas M Schenk
Laguna Beach, California
Mark Odegard
**Please note Spam Trap** On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:33:58 -0800,
"Mary F. Heath" <mhe...@goldrush.com> in
<352072...@goldrush.com> wrote
|In one particular church in Berkeley, California, there is a co-ministry
|held by a married couple; both the man and the woman are ordained. The
|newsletter for this church shows "The Revs." as their title, but that
|added "s" seems wrong to me. I cannot find any protocol to confirm my
|opinion and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you.
Trust me in this. "Revs." (or "the Revs.") is now pretty
standard for such situations. The etiquette books and style
guides have not quite caught up with this one. As for why you
are supposed to trust me on this? My parents are a clergy
couple, and that's the style they use. It's concise, avoids a
clumsy redundancy, and no one seems to misunderstand.
--
Mark Odegard. (descape to email)
Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
Stan Brown
In article <352072...@goldrush.com>, the entity known as
>In one particular church in Berkeley, California, there is a co-ministry
>held by a married couple; both the man and the woman are ordained. The
>newsletter for this church shows "The Revs." as their title, but that
>added "s" seems wrong to me. I cannot find any protocol to confirm my
>opinion and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you.
"Rev" is an abbreviation for the adjective (not noun) "Reverend". English
does not change adjectives(*) when they modify plural nouns. There is no
call to pluralize the abbreviation when the written-out form would not
have an s.
(My favorite church title, remembered from many years ago, was "Bishop
the Honorable Prophet Samuel".)
(*) Exception: "woman" does become "women" when modifying a plural noun,
for some reason.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
Please do not send me mail with a false return address.
Stan Brown
In article <35208b7a....@news2.means.net>, the entity known as
>"Revs." (or "the Revs.") is now pretty
>standard for such situations. The etiquette books and style
>guides have not quite caught up with this one. As for why you
>are supposed to trust me on this? My parents are a clergy
>couple, and that's the style they use.
They may call themselves what they like, I suppose, but it's still wrong.
The adjective "Reverend" does not become "Reverends" when modifying a
plural noun.
>Mark Odegard. (descape to email)
>Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
If so, use a valid email address. You can't eat your cake and have it.
Curtis Cameron
Thomas Schenk wrote:
>
> So, unless one is peculiarly given to pluralizing one's adjectives,
> such as "fasts cars", "funnys clowns", and "unusuals sex practices",
> one would ordinarily not be inclined to say "The Reverends Sarah and
> Moishe Goldfarb" any more than one would say "the charmings Sarah and
> Moishe Goldfarb".
I think that the word "honorable" is almost an exact parallel to
"reverend". If you had two judges in a room, would you say "the
honorables judges Bob and Sue"?
However, some people do use the word "reverend" as a title, so you'll
see some defense of it. I'm more prescriptivist that many here though
("My name is Curtis and I'm a prescriptivist").
--
-Curtis Cameron
WGS-84 33.033N, 96.724W
Skitt
Thomas Schenk wrote in message <35208EC1...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Mary F. Heath wrote:
>>
>> In one particular church in Berkeley, California, there is a
co-ministry
>> held by a married couple; both the man and the woman are ordained.
The
>> newsletter for this church shows "The Revs." as their title, but
that
>> added "s" seems wrong to me. I cannot find any protocol to confirm
my
>> opinion and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you.
>
>Trust your common sense on this one. "Reverend" is an adjective, not
a
>noun. (Whether it is ever properly a noun is questionable, and has
>been a subject of earlier threads in this group. The OED, its
>supplement, and additions series give only an adjectival entry for
the
>word.)
I was not a participant of the previous discussions of the
adjective/noun controversy. I found this in MWCD10:
Main Entry: 2reverend
Function: noun
Date: 1608
: a member of the clergy -- sometimes used in plural as a title
And from OED:
rev-er-end ['rev@r@nd] adj. & n. --adj. (esp. as the title of a
clergyman) deserving reverence. --n. colloq. a
clergyman. /Most Reverend the title of an archbishop or an Irish Roman
Catholic bishop. Reverend Mother the title
of the Mother Superior of a convent. Right Reverend the title of a
bishop. Very Reverend the title of a dean etc.
[ME f. OF reverend or L reverendus gerundive of revereri: see REVERE]
I see that OED deems the noun a colloquialism. MWCD10 does not.
Skitt
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Please note Spam Trap** On Tue, 31 Mar
1998 08:29:56 -0500, brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) in
<MPG.f8ab9dc7...@news.concentric.net> wrote
|They may call themselves what they like, I suppose, but it's still wrong.
|The adjective "Reverend" does not become "Reverends" when modifying a
|plural noun.
'Reverend' is also a noun, and is used as a *title*. It
pluralizes and is used in the same manner as is "doctor", as
with the brothers Mayo -- the Drs. Mayo. Most protestant
churchgoers tend to use "Rev." in this sense, a usage that
identically parallels that of "Dr.".
I am suprised at the large number of responses that seem unaware
that "reverend" is a noun.
--
N.Mitchum
Thomas Schenk wrote:
----
> Trust your common sense on this one. "Reverend" is an adjective, not a
>
> So, unless one is peculiarly given to pluralizing one's adjectives,
> such as "fasts cars", "funnys clowns", and "unusuals sex practices",
> one would ordinarily not be inclined to say "The Reverends Sarah and
> Moishe Goldfarb" any more than one would say "the charmings Sarah and
> Moishe Goldfarb".
>
> Dr Thomas M Schenk
Be sensible. Is "Doctor" an adjective as you used it above? Have
you never been one of a group referred to, for instance, as
"Doctors Swallow, Cutmore, and Schenk"? Never seen this form of
address abbreviated to "Drs."?
Why withhold the same privileges from others? These are titles,
not adjectives. You tell us what you would *not* call the
Goldfarbs. What do you recommend instead? Would you use the
singular "Reverend" for the pair? In that case you risk implying
that only one of them deserves the label. Would you repeat the
title for the second of them and spend twice as many words on the
formula? ("The Reverend Moishe Goldfarb and the Reverend Sarah
Goldfarb" -- you couldn't omit the surname of the former, lest we
conclude that his first name is his last.)
As Mark Odegard said, "Revs." is short, reasonable, and easily
understood.
--- NM
Mailed copies of replies always appreciated. (Mailers: drop HINTS.)
Bob(TM)
>
> Trust your common sense on this one. "Reverend" is an adjective, not a
> noun.
> Dr Thomas M Schenk
reverend - noun: a member of the clergy
Maybe not the OED, but Websters and generations of usage confirm
that *reverend* is indeed a noun.
Bob
Robert Lipton
>> Trust your common sense on this one. "Reverend" is an adjective, not a
>> noun.
>> *******************
>> Dr Thomas M Schenk
>> Laguna Beach, California
RHUD2: Reverend (1): Capitalized {used as a title of respect applied to
or pefixed to the name of a member of the clergy or a religious order}
Bob
Thomas Schenk
N.Mitchum wrote:
>
> Thomas Schenk wrote:
> ----
> > Trust your common sense on this one. "Reverend" is an adjective, not a
> >
> > So, unless one is peculiarly given to pluralizing one's adjectives,
> > such as "fasts cars", "funnys clowns", and "unusuals sex practices",
> > one would ordinarily not be inclined to say "The Reverends Sarah and
> > Moishe Goldfarb" any more than one would say "the charmings Sarah and
> > Moishe Goldfarb".
> >
> > Dr Thomas M Schenk
>
> Be sensible. Is "Doctor" an adjective as you used it above?
No, it's a title or honorific, in the same way as are Mr, Mrs Ms, and
Prof. etc., and, therefore, a noun. "Reverend", on the other hand. is
an honorific title only to a minority of people--who are nonetheless
entitled to their own choice of usage. To maintain that this
represents standard usage, however, would be stretching things a tad.
I am fully aware that there are church members, particularly the
non-denmonational varieties, who refer to their ministers, priests,
prelates, or whatever else, as the "Reverend" (noun), and consider
this to be a title. The fact that some do this does not put them in
the mainstream of usage. Bless them, I say, and may their progeny
flourish.
> Have you never been one of a group referred to, for instance, as
> "Doctors Swallow, Cutmore, and Schenk"? Never seen this form of
> address abbreviated to "Drs."?
That's apples (nouns)and (adjectives). If husband and wife both have
doctorates in theology, do they then become "the Revs. Drs. Goldfarb"?
If you consider "Reverend" a title, then that seems to me to be the
form that would naturally follow.
> Why withhold the same privileges from others?
Do I look like I'm stopping anyone from styling themselves however
they may wish?
> These are titles,not adjectives. You tell us what you would *not* call the
> Goldfarbs. What do you recommend instead? Would you use the
> singular "Reverend" for the pair? In that case you risk implying
> that only one of them deserves the label. Would you repeat the
> title for the second of them and spend twice as many words on the
> formula? ("The Reverend Moishe Goldfarb and the Reverend Sarah
> Goldfarb" -- you couldn't omit the surname of the former, lest we
> conclude that his first name is his last.)
"The Rev.Sarah Goldfarb and the Rev. Moishe Goldfarb" sounds perfectly
fine to me. I have no difficulty in either typing or saying it.
> As Mark Odegard said, "Revs." is short, reasonable, and easily
> understood.
But also tacky to those of us with delicate ears.
Tom
--
Stan Brown
In article <35212568....@news2.means.net>, the entity known as
ode...@means.netscape (Mark Odegard) wrote:
>I am suprised at the large number of responses that seem unaware
>that "reverend" is a noun.
Not after "the" and before a person's name, it's not -- any more than
"honorable". It may be a noun in other contexts, but not in the context
under discussion.
Sean Holland
Stan Brown <brow...@concentric.net> wrote:
> "Rev" is an abbreviation for the adjective (not noun) "Reverend". English
> does not change adjectives(*) when they modify plural nouns. There is no
> call to pluralize the abbreviation when the written-out form would not
> have an s.
I have often heard "Rev" used as a kind of diminutive form, much as we
might affectionately address a doctor as "Doc". In the newsletter in
question, the "Revs" may be using a cutism. (Or should that be
"cuteism"? Help me out here. I'm trying to coin a word.)
I am no church-goer, but I can't avoid the scene altogether as I have
family who are into that kind of thing. I have observed that churches in
general are becoming cuter in their effort to appeal to the masses. Even
masses have been jazzed up to appeal to the masses. The last time I was
in a Catholic church there were hippies playing guitars, and the Rev was
trying to be cool.
--
Sean
To e-mail me, take out the garbage.
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Please note Spam Trap** On Tue, 31 Mar
<35218219...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
|N.Mitchum wrote:
|>
|> Thomas Schenk wrote:
|> ----
|> > Trust your common sense on this one. "Reverend" is an adjective, not a
|> > noun. (Whether it is ever properly a noun is questionable, [...]
Have you yet reconsidered? Do you dispute the dictionaries?
|> > So, unless one is peculiarly given to pluralizing one's adjectives,
|> > such as "fasts cars", "funnys clowns", and "unusuals sex practices",
|> > one would ordinarily not be inclined to say "The Reverends Sarah and
|> > Moishe Goldfarb" any more than one would say "the charmings Sarah and
|> > Moishe Goldfarb".
[...]
|> Be sensible. Is "Doctor" an adjective as you used it above?
|
|No, it's a title or honorific, in the same way as are Mr, Mrs Ms, and
|Prof. etc., and, therefore, a noun. "Reverend", on the other hand. is
|an honorific title only to a minority of people--who are nonetheless
|entitled to their own choice of usage. To maintain that this
|represents standard usage, however, would be stretching things a tad.
You ignore the evidence presented by the dictionaries! You also
ignore the usage of regular churchgoers!
Admittedly, regular churchgoers are "a minority of people". But
to say their regular usage of "reverend" as a noun is
"stretching things a tad" stretches my own belief that anyone
could doubt the validity of the usage!
|I am fully aware that there are church members, particularly the
|non-denmonational varieties, who refer to their ministers, priests,
|prelates, or whatever else, as the "Reverend" (noun), and consider
|this to be a title.
Aggh! "Non-denominational!" Hogwash. Highchurchers tend to call
him "Father" (Anglicans are mulling over "Mother"), but everyone
else calls sem "Reverend Lastname", or more colloquially, "Rev.
Firstname". I include such anything-but-nondenominational sorts
as Methodists, Lutherans, UCCers (a.k.a. Congregationalists),
etc.
|The fact that some do this does not put them in
|the mainstream of usage. Bless them, I say, and may their progeny
|flourish.
Out of "the mainstream of usage"? I'm gagging! Go talk to
mainstream protestant clergy! Go talk to mainstream protestant
churchgoers! Ask them what their "mainstream of usage" is! Or do
you only talk to votaries of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and
other such pseudo-nondenominational trailer trash?
|> Have you never been one of a group referred to, for instance, as
|> "Doctors Swallow, Cutmore, and Schenk"? Never seen this form of
|> address abbreviated to "Drs."?
|
|That's apples (nouns)and (adjectives). If husband and wife both have
|doctorates in theology, do they then become "the Revs. Drs. Goldfarb"?
|If you consider "Reverend" a title, then that seems to me to be the
|form that would naturally follow.
The plural is Reverend-Doctors (with or without the hyphen).
Reformed Judaism has female rabbis. I cannot cite a specific
case, but I am sure there is actually a reformed Jewish clergy
couple out there. Thus: [the] Rabbis Goldfarb, [the]
Rabbi-Doctors Goldfarb, even (that last might need some
additional thought).
|> Why withhold the same privileges from others?
|
|Do I look like I'm stopping anyone from styling themselves however
|they may wish?
Not as *they* wish. Rather, as conventional usage prescribes.
The minister, the pastor, the rabbi are leaders of a community
(in certain protestant terms, a "gathered community"). While
English has become quite casual about honorifics, such persons
are still accorded a title.
|> These are titles,not adjectives. You tell us what you would *not* call the
|> Goldfarbs. What do you recommend instead? Would you use the
|> singular "Reverend" for the pair? In that case you risk implying
|> that only one of them deserves the label. Would you repeat the
|> title for the second of them and spend twice as many words on the
|> formula? ("The Reverend Moishe Goldfarb and the Reverend Sarah
|> Goldfarb" -- you couldn't omit the surname of the former, lest we
|> conclude that his first name is his last.)
|
|"The Rev.Sarah Goldfarb and the Rev. Moishe Goldfarb" sounds perfectly
|fine to me. I have no difficulty in either typing or saying it.
Ugh. Redundant, overlong. The Rabbis Goldfarb is succinct and no
one is really going to misunderstand.
|> As Mark Odegard said, "Revs." is short, reasonable, and easily
|> understood.
|
|But also tacky to those of us with delicate ears.
Delicate ears? Haruumph!
Brian J Goggin
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:18:43 -0800, "Bob(TM)" <de...@wwics.com> wrote:
>>
>> Trust your common sense on this one. "Reverend" is an adjective, not a
>> noun.
>> *******************
>> Dr Thomas M Schenk
>> Laguna Beach, California
>
>
> reverend - noun: a member of the clergy
>
>
>Maybe not the OED, but Websters and generations of usage confirm
>that *reverend* is indeed a noun.
===OED begins=====
[...]
c. Prefixed to the name (and designation) of the person, and
frequently abbreviated as Rev., Revd. Pl. Reverends. In early and some
recent use without the.
1642 Fuller Holy & Prof. St. iv. 293 That wofull and unhappy discord
betwixt him and reverend Bishop Hooper.
_1656 Bp. Hall Rev. Unrevealed _1 Reverend Calvin_is willing to
construe this of the last desolation of the Jews.
1657 Trapp Comm. Job ix. 9 But I had rather (saith Reverend Mr. Beza)
retain still the Hebrew words.
1711 Hearne Collect. (O.H.S.) III. 218 The Reverend Dr Atterbury was
made Dean of Xt Church on this day sennight.
1824 Scott St. Ronan's xxi, Let me name myself as the Reverend Josiah
Cargill, minister of St. Ronan's.
1884 Catholic Dict. (1897) 590/1 The Very Reverend Father Colin
died_at the age of eighty-five.
1939 R. E. Wolseley in Ken 9 Mar. 62/3 Ten devices_invented by
southern journalists to avoid using _Mr.', _Mrs.', and _Miss', in
front of the names of Negroes are: Mademoiselle Madame Professor
Doctor Reverend [etc.].
1961 R. B. Long Sentence & its Parts x. 230 There is a feeling that
these [honorific modifiers] should be preceded by the article the and
followed by given names and family names together, as in the Reverend
George Brewster; but there is also a marked tendency to treat reverend
exactly as the noun honorifics are treated, as in Reverend Brewster
will preach at the eleven-o'clock service.
1973 Publishers' Weekly 7 May 61/2 (Advt.), The Reverends Rudolf
Harvey and Lawrence Burke.
d. n. A clergyman; a cleric or divine. Also Right Reverend, a bishop.
colloq.
1608 Sylvester Du Bartas Wks. (Grosart) I. 254 Much more Then the
Right-Reverend whom they taxt before.
1737 Common Sense I. 247 A Right Reverend or two us'd to draw their
Pens in his Defence.
1776 Hume My own Life, Answers by Reverends, and Right Reverends, came
out two or three in a year.
1804 E. de Acton Tale without Title II. 132 That is the object of
solicitude among our Right Reverends.
1844 Dickens Mart. Chuz. xvi, Those who had not attained to military
honours were either doctors, professors, or reverends.
1859 O. L. Jackson Colonel's Diary (1922) ii. 8, I_heard a very good
sermon---from a Reverend from Pittsburgh.
1894 Blackmore Perlycross 18 We are not so meddlesome as you reverends
are.
1943 G. Greene Ministry of Fear iii. ii. 191 That [car], sir---that's
the reverend's._ We thought it only right to let the vicar know.
1971 Language XLVII. 30 Whether or not the notorious Reverend or his
students sat up nights inventing such errors, attested errors reveal
the same kind of metathesis.
1976 J. McNeish Glass Zoo vii. 71 Funny, that cloak of yours. I know a
Reverend in Leeds got about like that.
[...]
===ends=====
bjg
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] **Please note Spam Trap** On Wed, 01 Apr
1998 15:22:44 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) in
<352e5a5f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> wrote
|Er, it's actully "Reform Judaism",
I stand corrected.
[...]
|In my experience, all were addressed as "Rabbi", but I never heard
|reference to couple-rabbis, so don't know how they'd be referred to.
|I'd think the sensible way would in fact be "Rabbis Jane & John Doe".
Yes, this is sensible. My parents are Revs. L.R. and L.L.
Odegard. Once a Reform or Conservative synagoge gets a rabbi
couple, however, I suspect that, in casual conversation, they'd
end up as "Rabbis Doe" just as my parents can be "Revs Odegard".
Markus Laker
brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
> (*) Exception: "woman" does become "women" when modifying a plural noun,
> for some reason.
Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. A quick Web search at
<http://www.excite.com> for 'women priests' produces hits for both
'woman priests' and 'women priests'. The results show that both forms
are used. Indeed, the same writer may use both in the same piece of
writing, suggesting that people aren't sure what the rule is. This
happens at <http://www.biblebb.com/files/54-16.HTM>. At
<http://www.iol.ie/~duacon/womnts.htm> we have the following reference:
89. S. CALLAHAN, 'Misunderstanding of Sexuality and Resistance to
Woman Priests,' in _Women Priests_ ed. L. and A. SWIDLER, Paulist
Press, New York 1977, pgs 291-294.
Something I don't know is whether one's stance on female X's influences
the decision to call them 'woman X's' or 'women X's'. At least one
feminine form -- 'priestess', used within the Anglican Church -- is used
only by people who believe that a certain job should be the preserve of
men.
I haven't studied any of the Web pages I've mentioned (other than
Excite) or followed up the references. Please don't take my mentioning
of these sites as an endorsement.
Markus
--
a.u.e resources: http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~laker/aue/
Remove the 'skip this bit' bit of my email address to reply.
P&DSchultz
cardano wrote:
>
> lakerSki...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) wrote:
>
> >brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
> >
> >> (*) Exception: "woman" does become "women" when modifying a plural noun,
> >> for some reason.
> >
> >Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. A quick Web search at
> ><http://www.excite.com> for 'women priests' produces hits for both
> >'woman priests' and 'women priests'. The results show that both forms
>
> modifiers is that it's considerably more unusual to see "man" or "men"
> used this way.
It has been noted that regular plural nouns are not usually used in
compounding, but irregular plurals can be (but don't HAVE to be).
Hence: teethmarks, lice-infested, men bashing, women priests.
//P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
P&DSchultz wrote:
<snip>
> It has been noted that regular plural nouns are not usually used in
> compounding, but irregular plurals can be (but don't HAVE to be).
> Hence: teethmarks, lice-infested, men bashing, women priests.
Not to mention goosenecks, moose calls, and deer rifles.
Oh, and micetraps.[1]
Bob Lieblich
[1] For that one percent who need smileys: the foregoing was supposed to
be funny. Thank you for laughing.
P&DSchultz
I knew you would find some feetholds to test my assertion.
//P. Schultz
Bun Mui
They are called priestesses.
Comments?
Bun Mui
cardano
lakerSki...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) wrote:
>brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
>
>> (*) Exception: "woman" does become "women" when modifying a plural noun,
>> for some reason.
>
>Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. A quick Web search at
><http://www.excite.com> for 'women priests' produces hits for both
>'woman priests' and 'women priests'. The results show that both forms
What puzzles me about the usage of "woman" or "women" used as
modifiers is that it's considerably more unusual to see "man" or "men"
used this way. Here it would be more usual to use the adjective
"male." My question is doesn't "female priest" or "female
primeminister" etc. sound more natural than the alternative. It does
to me. I almost exclusively use the modifiers "male" and "female" in
these situations, yet notice that I seem to be in the minority. Is
there some reason I'm missing that people tend to avoid "male" and
"female" as modifiers? If so, is it related to the avoidance of "sex"
and its replacement by "gender" in phrase like "both sexes" vs "both
genders"?
Zhuad
Lawyeresses? Doctoresses? Is there a pressing need for this formation?
dc...@dircon.co.uk
In article <xdWU.42$E84.1...@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca>,
COD defines 'priestess' as 'a female priest of a _non-Christian_ religion'
(my emphasis).
Steve
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <35381646...@news.tcp.co.uk>,
>brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
>
>> (*) Exception: "woman" does become "women" when modifying a plural noun,
>> for some reason.
>
>Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't.
This gives me another opportunity to ask again a question I've asked before but
received very little in the way of an answer: Why is it that "woman" is the
only adjective in English that inflects for number. We will say, at least
sometimes, "women priests", "women sports announcers", or "women doctors"; we
will not say "men* teachers" or "children* actors".
In fact, we will hardly use "man" as an adjective; for some reason the noun
pair is man-woman, but the adjective pair is male-woman (or sometimes male-
female, but rarely man-woman).
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>It has been noted that regular plural nouns are not usually used in
>compounding, but irregular plurals can be (but don't HAVE to be).
>Hence: teethmarks, lice-infested, men bashing, women priests.
This is something interesting and something I hadn't thought of; but is
"women priests" a compound? If it is, how does one distinguish (if one ever
feels the need to do so) a compound from a noun-with-modifier?
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Frances Kemmish
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>
> In article <35381646...@news.tcp.co.uk>,
> lakerSki...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) writes:
> >brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
> >
> >> (*) Exception: "woman" does become "women" when modifying a plural noun,
> >> for some reason.
> >
> >Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't.
>
> This gives me another opportunity to ask again a question I've asked before but
> received very little in the way of an answer: Why is it that "woman" is the
> only adjective in English that inflects for number. We will say, at least
> sometimes, "women priests", "women sports announcers", or "women doctors"; we
> will not say "men* teachers" or "children* actors".
>
I am old enough to remember referring to 'lady doctors'.
Fran
P&DSchultz
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>
You're right. How about "attributively," or something like that?
//P. Schultz
The Chocolate Lady
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:22:44 GMT during the alt.usage.english
Community News Flash, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) reported:
>Er, it's actully "Reform Judaism", and yes, they have female rabbis,
>who have their own pulpits -- meaningful designation. Earlier, the
>few female ordained rabbis had to content themselves with teaching,
>administrative, or other non-pulpit positions. But that is changing.
>
>Conservative Judaism also ordains females, though perhaps not as many
>as Reform. I used to attend a synagogue precisely because it was led
>by the first female rabbi West of the Mississippi who had her own
>pulpit, rather than other jobs (see above). But I think that is also
>changing, though I don't have any stats.
The Reconstructionst movement also ordains females. Have been for
many years. The first woman Rabbi was from the Reform movement.
However the second woman Rabbi was a Reconstructionst. In fact, she
was ordained with her husband and that would make them the first
"couple-rabbis". They got a joint pulpit in Panama.
>In my experience, all were addressed as "Rabbi", but I never heard
>reference to couple-rabbis, so don't know how they'd be referred to.
>I'd think the sensible way would in fact be "Rabbis Jane & John Doe".
Yes, they (female) all do prefer to be addressed as Rabbi. The couple
I refer to above could easily be referred to as The Rabbis Sasso,
except for the fact that Sandy is actually Rabbi Eisenberg-Sasso,
while her husband is Rabbi (Dennis) Sasso.
According to my sister, more than one Rabbi is a 'gaggle'.
WARNING: Bad rabbi joke coming up!
(If a rabbi's wife is called a "Rebitzen", the what do you call a
rabbi's husband? ...
Miserable!)
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Procrastinatorial, Persnickitorial Pugnascitoralist."
--- Chris.tine Mclaughlin
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>> >It has been noted that regular plural nouns are not usually used in
>> >compounding, but irregular plurals can be (but don't HAVE to be).
>> >Hence: teethmarks, lice-infested, men bashing, women priests.
>>
>> This is something interesting and something I hadn't thought of; but is
>> "women priests" a compound? If it is, how does one distinguish (if one ever
>> feels the need to do so) a compound from a noun-with-modifier?
>
>You're right. How about "attributively," or something like that?
That helps. Yet "women" in "women dentists" or "child" in "child prodigies"
are not attributive in quite the same way that the other examples are. The
others can be restated as noun plus prepositional phrase; perhaps that's what
makes them true compounds: marks of teeth, infested with lice, bashing of
men...but the dentists and prodigies have to be "women who are dentists",
"children who are prodigies".
And I think in the "x who are y" brand of attribution, "woman" is the only
attributive that agrees in number with its noun. "Man" might, but it seems to
be almost never used attributively, which is also a puzzle to me, but perhaps
for a different thread.
The capability of using singular or irregular plural in a compound opens up a
distinction in meaning that is not available with nouns that do not pluralize
in a compound. If I mean "the indentation may by a set of teeth" I will say
"teethmarks"; if I say "toothmarks" I will mean the identations left by a
single tooth in several locations. Does this pattern hold up? If I said
"ox-cart" would I mean a cart to be drawn by a single ox, whereas a cart
designed to be pulled by multiple bovines would be an oxen-cart?
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Iskandar Baharuddin
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
> In article <35381646...@news.tcp.co.uk>,
> lakerSki...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) writes:
> >brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
> >
> >> (*) Exception: "woman" does become "women" when modifying a plural noun,
> >> for some reason.
> >
> >Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't.
>
> This gives me another opportunity to ask again a question I've asked before but
> received very little in the way of an answer: Why is it that "woman" is the
> only adjective in English that inflects for number.
Try ox/oxen, mouse/mice, louse/lice.
Common feature in old English.
> We will say, at least
> sometimes, "women priests", "women sports announcers", or "women doctors"; we
> will not say "men* teachers" or "children* actors".
>
> In fact, we will hardly use "man" as an adjective; for some reason the noun
> pair is man-woman, but the adjective pair is male-woman (or sometimes male-
> female, but rarely man-woman).
>
> Gary Williams
> WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
"Adjective" is pretty meaningless when applied to a specific English word, as
opposed to its usage.
Perhaps someone will volunteer to make a list of all English words which can be
used as either noun or adjective without flexion. Maybe this would be good for a
grant - or perhaps it has already been done.
This problem does not arise in Indonesia, but word order does. Consider the
difference between:
- seorang penjual wanita
- seorang wanita penjual
both of which have been used to translate "female sales person".
The first formulation really should be used as the translation of "pimp".
--
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"I'll worry about that tomorrow!"
- Scarlett O'Hara
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 05:18:35 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>
>Damn, that's good! Got any more like that? Useful in traffic.
>
>Polar
>
K'mbang sa-kuntum di-mulut naga.
P&DSchultz
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>
>
> >> >It has been noted that regular plural nouns are not usually used in
> >> >compounding, but irregular plurals can be (but don't HAVE to be).
> >> >Hence: teethmarks, lice-infested, men bashing, women priests.
> >>
> >> This is something interesting and something I hadn't thought of; but is
> >> "women priests" a compound? If it is, how does one distinguish (if one ever
> >> feels the need to do so) a compound from a noun-with-modifier?
> >
> >You're right. How about "attributively," or something like that?
>
> That helps. Yet "women" in "women dentists" or "child" in "child prodigies"
I don't think this is worth all the pilpul. How about this: Wherever
normally a plural noun is not used in some combination with another
noun, a participle, or a gerund, an irregular plural noun can be.
//P. Schultz
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 00:50:49 GMT, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
Bloometh the bud in mouth dragon
A compliment.
>Yeah, right, thanks -- but I need to know what it means.
>
>One of our popular outdoor recreations in L.A. is drive-by shootings.
>I don't want to chance offending an Indonesian driver by questioning
>his mother's antecedents.
>
Orang M'layu don't behave like Indonesians.
kathy...@gmail.com
Paul Wolff
word is pressed into service as a noun. We don't usually pluralise our
adjectives before plural nouns.
What's far more interesting to me is the coded LOL. Little Old Lady?
Hardly, unless it's Kathy's signature. Laughing Out Loud? There's no
joke there. Lots Of Laughs? There's not a laugh in sight. Lots Of Love?
Nice, but no cigar. Why do people do that?
--
Paul
Peter Moylan
least once a sentence? I think there are some people who are like that
with LOL. They don't intend it to mean anything.
There is, I am told, no truth in the rumour that some phone models
automagically insert LOL at random points in a text message.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> According to Mirriam-Webster, “Reverend” is both an adjective and a noun.
English it's an adjective.
> Plural abbreviation would be the Revs. Brown and Smith. Or you could
> give them an adjective as in “the reverend Reverends Brown and Smith.”
> But that might be confusing. LOL
athel
Stoat
An example of correct use is:
The Reverend Dr John Smith
Note 1) the use of the definite article,
2) There may be qualifiers such as Very, Most, or Right before
Reverend.
3) Titles such as Sir, Lord, etc. add complications.
--brian
--
Wellington
New Zealand
spains...@gmail.com
> On 2020-07-23 21:42:52 +0000, kathy...@gmail.com said:
>
> > According to Mirriam-Webster, “Reverend” is both an adjective and a noun.
> Well, that's American (if I believe television programmes). In British
> English it's an adjective.
normal as "who's the vicar in your church?" The only word that could replace "rev" is "minister".
spains...@gmail.com
charles
> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 7:03:10 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2020-07-23 21:42:52 +0000, kathy...@gmail.com said:
> >
> > > According to Mirriam-Webster, ”Reverend• is both an adjective and a
> > > noun.
> > Well, that's American (if I believe television programmes). In British
> > English it's an adjective.
>
> that could replace "rev" is "minister".
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
spains...@gmail.com
> In article <3f9c16f3-9dca-4a01...@googlegroups.com>,
> spains...@gmail.com <spains...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 7:03:10 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > On 2020-07-23 21:42:52 +0000, kathy...@gmail.com said:
> > >
> > > > According to Mirriam-Webster, ”Reverend• is both an adjective and a
> > > > noun.
> > > Well, that's American (if I believe television programmes). In British
> > > English it's an adjective.
> >
> > Shows how out of touch you aRe with how we speak. "Who's the rev in your
> > chapel?" is as normal as "who's the vicar in your church?" The only word
> > that could replace "rev" is "minister".
> or Rector or Pastor
or vicar, the "grace and favour" house provided for the minister is not a rectory or a
vicarage - it is a "manse".
charles
historic reasons for this. A vicar lives in a Vicarage, a Rector in a
Rectory, a CofS minister lives in a manse. And there's the old word
"parson" - who lived in a Parsonage. My mother had friends ( I think they
also might have been distant cousins) who lived in "The Old Parsoange2
Athel Cornish-Bowden
friends (who have, I suspect, been Americanized by watching too much
television)?
--
athel
charles
years ago, became ordinained he was said to have been "Reved up"
> --
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2020-07-23 21:42:52 +0000, kathy...@gmail.com said:
> > According to Mirriam-Webster, “Reverend” is both an adjective and a noun.
>
> Well, that's American (if I believe television programmes). In British
> English it's an adjective.
in the US referred to its reverend. That was surprising, because the
noun "reverend" is usually used of the ministers of "lower" churches.
I've been wondering who this Mirriam gal is.
Peter T. Daniels
is determined by the location where they happen to reside?
In the last two episodes of *Father Brown* shown here, his residence
was referred to as the "presbytery," which struck me as quite odd.
Over Here, a presbytery is a level of administration (smaller than
a synod) within the Presbyterian Church.
The most popular US term seems to be "rectory," even though US churches
don't have that persnickety distinction among rectors, vicars, curates,
etc., except in the most formal contexts within one or two denominations.
Most usual is "minister."
charles
froma "lower" church.
charles
> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 5:16:24 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > In article <d4249780-5cb8-4473...@googlegroups.com>,
> > spains...@gmail.com <spains...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 9:01:24 AM UTC+1, charles wrote:
> > > > In article <3f9c16f3-9dca-4a01...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > spains...@gmail.com <spains...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 7:03:10 AM UTC+1, Athel
> > > > > Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > > > > On 2020-07-23 21:42:52 +0000, kathy...@gmail.com said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, that's American (if I believe television programmes). In
> > > > > > British English it's an adjective.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shows how out of touch you aRe with how we speak. "Who's the rev
> > > > > in your chapel?" is as normal as "who's the vicar in your
> > > > > church?" The only word that could replace "rev" is "minister".
> > > > or Rector or Pastor
> > >
> > > Not rector. Pastor maybe. I can only speak for Methodists, but as
> > > there is no rector or vicar, the "grace and favour" house provided
> > > for the minister is not a rectory or a vicarage - it is a "manse".
> >
> > In our CofE parish we have a "Rector". My daughter is a "Vicar". There
> > are historic reasons for this. A vicar lives in a Vicarage, a Rector in
> > a Rectory, a CofS minister lives in a manse. And there's the old
> > word "parson" - who lived in a Parsonage. My mother had friends ( I
> > think they also might have been distant cousins) who lived in "The Old
> > Parsoange2
> Are you suggesting that the name of the office they hold in the parish
> is determined by the location where they happen to reside?
Rector rules - a Vicar acts vicariously; it's somebody else's parish.
> In the last two episodes of *Father Brown* shown here, his residence was
> referred to as the "presbytery," which struck me as quite odd. Over
> Here, a presbytery is a level of administration (smaller than a synod)
> within the Presbyterian Church.
> The most popular US term seems to be "rectory," even though US churches
> don't have that persnickety distinction among rectors, vicars, curates,
> etc., except in the most formal contexts within one or two denominations.
> Most usual is "minister."
Peter Young
information here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rector_(ecclesiastical)>
> In the last two episodes of *Father Brown* shown here, his residence
> was referred to as the "presbytery," which struck me as quite odd.
> Over Here, a presbytery is a level of administration (smaller than
> a synod) within the Presbyterian Church.
lives.
Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE TI)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <4a9aa785-73f3-4705...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 2:03:10 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > On 2020-07-23 21:42:52 +0000, kathy...@gmail.com said:
> > > > According to Mirriam-Webster, ”Reverend• is both an adjective and a
> > > > noun.
> > > Well, that's American (if I believe television programmes). In British
> > > English it's an adjective.
> > A news story about the charitable outreach of an Episcopal congregation
> > in the US referred to its reverend. That was surprising, because the
> > noun "reverend" is usually used of the ministers of "lower" churches.
>
> > I've been wondering who this Mirriam gal is.
>
> The Archbishop of Canterbury is the "Most Reverend". I don't think he's
> froma "lower" church.
consecration of several bishops"?
I don't think so. The matter is adjectives vs. nouns.
Jerry Friedman
> On 24 Jul 2020 "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> In the last two episodes of *Father Brown* shown here, his residence
>> was referred to as the "presbytery," which struck me as quite odd.
>> Over Here, a presbytery is a level of administration (smaller than
>> a synod) within the Presbyterian Church.
>
> Presbytery is the customary name here for where a Roman Catholic priest
> lives.
Cross-thread caveat: Milton was not from Singapore.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
faster in his grave.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
hisoric[al] reasons for ...," one expects that what follows is a
list of those reasons.
Are "historic" ('being of great significance because of age', perhaps)
and "historical" ('having to do with history') not distinguished in BrE?
Sam Plusnet
> In article <b92e2a89-9c5d-400c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 5:16:24 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>>> In article <d4249780-5cb8-4473...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> spains...@gmail.com <spains...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 9:01:24 AM UTC+1, charles wrote:
>>>>> In article <3f9c16f3-9dca-4a01...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> spains...@gmail.com <spains...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 7:03:10 AM UTC+1, Athel
>>>>>> Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2020-07-23 21:42:52 +0000, kathy...@gmail.com said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, that's American (if I believe television programmes). In
>>>>>>> British English it's an adjective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shows how out of touch you aRe with how we speak. "Who's the rev
>>>>>> in your chapel?" is as normal as "who's the vicar in your
>>>>>> church?" The only word that could replace "rev" is "minister".
>>>>> or Rector or Pastor
>>>>
>>>> Not rector. Pastor maybe. I can only speak for Methodists, but as
>>>> there is no rector or vicar, the "grace and favour" house provided
>>>> for the minister is not a rectory or a vicarage - it is a "manse".
>>>
>>> In our CofE parish we have a "Rector". My daughter is a "Vicar". There
>>> are historic reasons for this. A vicar lives in a Vicarage, a Rector in
>>> a Rectory, a CofS minister lives in a manse. And there's the old
>>> word "parson" - who lived in a Parsonage. My mother had friends ( I
>>> think they also might have been distant cousins) who lived in "The Old
>>> Parsoange2
>
>> Are you suggesting that the name of the office they hold in the parish
>> is determined by the location where they happen to reside?
>
> Not by the location itself, but by the history of the church/parish. A
> Rector rules - a Vicar acts vicariously; it's somebody else's parish.
>
>
for the occupant.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
Cheryl
of the hierarchy. This is because we only had two levels - the minister
and the bishop, and we only saw the bishop once every three years or so.
We reserved "Priest" for the Roman Catholics (whatever the Book of
Common Prayer said), although I found out later not all Anglicans do. I
think I may have gotten deacons, vicars, rectors, archdeacons and so on
sort of figured out, but I'm always a little uncertain. We didn't have
any special name for the houses many religions provided as part of the
pay for their clergy.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
unless he or she insist on being called "Jane". We never use "The
Reverend Ms. Smith", although I remember being taught as a child that's
the right way to do it. It was one of those rules that seemed a waste of
time because no one REALLY spoke like that. I can see, though, that such
a usage could easily become "the Reverend"
--
Cheryl
Snidely
wordplay.
For me, that's a chortle or maybe a mild snort, not really out loud,
and definitely not rolling on the floor. Neither my keyboard nor
screen need cleaning. Still, it is mildly amusing wordplay.
But then, I think Anaheim chilis are hot, and jalapenos are beyond my
capacity, and I hate coffee except as a scent, so I guess de gustibus
plays here.
/dps
--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)
Madhu
Wrote on Fri, 24 Jul 2020 13:53:02 +0100:
> In article <b92e2a89-9c5d-400c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 5:16:24 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>> > In article <d4249780-5cb8-4473...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > spains...@gmail.com <spains...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 9:01:24 AM UTC+1, charles wrote:
>> > In our CofE parish we have a "Rector". My daughter is a
>> > "Vicar". There are historic reasons for this. A vicar lives in a
>> > Vicarage, a Rector in a Rectory, a CofS minister lives in a manse.
>> > And there's the old word "parson" - who lived in a Parsonage. My
>> > mother had friends ( I think they also might have been distant
>> > cousins) who lived in "The Old Parsoange2
>
>> Are you suggesting that the name of the office they hold in the
>> parish is determined by the location where they happen to reside?
>
> Not by the location itself, but by the history of the church/parish. A
> Rector rules - a Vicar acts vicariously; it's somebody else's parish.
has employed instead of doing things himself?
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
with. This sense is specific to the Church of England and other Anglican
churches.
The distinction between a rector and a vicar is now historical.
It is difficult to accurately summarise the difference between a rector
and a vicar but, simplifying, they were both financially supported by
local taxes known as "tithes". A rector received this support directly.
In the case of a vicar the tithes went to a "lay patron" who was
responsible for appointing and paying the vicar.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_(Anglicanism)>
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Paul Wolff
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> posted:
there seemed to be some small farmland attached to the post and the
rectory. He did enjoy driving his tractor at harvest-time.
--
Paul
Athel Cornish-Bowden
father's was Curate at Princetown, Rector of Revelstoke and of
Martinhoe. His name was Louis Arthur William Woollcombe. His father
(Arthur Augustus Woollcombe) was Rector of Leusdon. I've been to
Leusdon, and I know where Princetown is, though I've never been a guest
of Her Majesty there. I've no idea where Revelstoke (not the one Devon,
anyway -- I've been through the one in Canada) is, and Google Maps has
no idea either, but it's probably close to Martinhoe, in the area of
Barnstaple -- not near Dartmoor, therefore.
> and there seemed to be some small farmland attached to the post and
> the rectory. He did enjoy driving his tractor at harvest-time.
--
Jerry Friedman
Hence, in a different denomination, a Spanish equivalent for "once in a
blue moon"--"cada visita de obispo", every visit of a bishop.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
Up above somewhere was a list of terms for Protestant ministers and
the places they live. Did it include parson and parsonage? Are those
used in BrE?
charles
Parsonage" in Scotland. I assumed itused to belong to the Episcopal
Church. "Parson" was a term which covered Anglicam priests, usually in
rural areas.
Peter T. Daniels
-- and one thing Episcopalians aren't is humble.
charles
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:10:49 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > In article <2e99255d-390b-4123...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> > T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Up above somewhere was a list of terms for Protestant ministers and
> > > the places they live. Did it include parson and parsonage? Are those
> > > used in BrE?
> >
> > Yes, I mentioned parsonage. One of my mothers' cousins lived in "The Old
> > Parsonage" in Scotland. I assumed itused to belong to the Episcopal
> > Church. "Parson" was a term which covered Anglicam priests, usually in
> > rural areas.
> ! That wouldn't happen here. "Parson" is about as humble as they come
> -- and one thing Episcopalians aren't is humble.
were/are necessarily well off. In the 'landed gentry', son #1 inherited
the land (and money), son #2 went into the army (or possibly the navy), son
#3 went into the church.
Paul Wolff
<gram...@verizon.net> posted:
another, the paddock beyond the garden behind my house here in Church
Road is part of Parsonage Farm, which also has a common boundary with
the churchyard. (In these parts, farms tended to be centred within the
villages, with much of their agricultural land distributed outside the
villages.)
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
a humble wooden church -- a Methodist one, probably. Episcopal
churches are grand and made of stone, Lutheran churches might
be next most grand ... Catholic churches appertain to all ranks
of society, but Episcopalians are probably the smallest and wealthiest
of the major denominations.
The Cathedral of St. John the Divine is much larger and grander,
but St. Patrick's Cathedral (on Fifth Avenue) is much better known
(and probably much better patronized for regular services).
Fort Washington Pres is brick and limestone, designed by Carrère
& Hastings in 1913 fresh off the New York Public Library; some
decades ago it merged with Washington Heights Presbyterian Church,
which was a mile or two north (under the odd name Fort Washington
Heights) and which looked from the outside to be wood construction
(I never went in). The congregation is now Hispanic.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
they were. According to Whitaker's Almanack of 1975 (the oldest I
have), the Bishop of Exeter was paid £3000 per year, and the Dean of
Exeter Cathedral £2400. I don't know what ordinary priests got, but it
was presumably less. I don't really remember what I made as a
university lecturer at that time (when I was a young lad of 32), but I
think it was of the order of £2000. Members of Parliament were paid
£4500. Of course, one needs to take account of the fact that clerics
had housing provided -- palaces for bishops, much less fancy for
rectors etc.
--
athel
Peter Young
per annum, so I was better off then a Bishop and an MP!
charles
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > In article <ea44dcb1-0f52-4adf...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:10:49 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > > > In article <2e99255d-390b-4123...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> > > > T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > Up above somewhere was a list of terms for Protestant ministers
> > > > > and the places they live. Did it include parson and parsonage?
> > > > > Are those used in BrE?
> > > > Yes, I mentioned parsonage. One of my mothers' cousins lived in
> > > > "The Old Parsonage" in Scotland. I assumed itused to belong to the
> > > > Episcopal Church. "Parson" was a term which covered Anglicam
> > > > priests, usually in rural areas.
> > > ! That wouldn't happen here. "Parson" is about as humble as they come
> > > -- and one thing Episcopalians aren't is humble.
> >
> > There is the expresson " Poor as a churchmouse". Not all Anglican
> > priests were/are necessarily well off. In the 'landed gentry', son #1
> > inherited the land (and money), son #2 went into the army (or possibly
> > the navy), son #3 went into the church.
> We certainly have that expression, but church mice would live in a
> humble wooden church -- a Methodist one, probably. Episcopal churches
> are grand and made of stone,
charles
> --
Kerr-Mudd,John
wrote:
'Congregational' is the official adjective).
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <3e54e582-2f8b-4350...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > > In article <ea44dcb1-0f52-4adf...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:10:49 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > > > > In article <2e99255d-390b-4123...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> > > > > T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Up above somewhere was a list of terms for Protestant ministers
> > > > > > and the places they live. Did it include parson and parsonage?
> > > > > > Are those used in BrE?
> > > > > Yes, I mentioned parsonage. One of my mothers' cousins lived in
> > > > > "The Old Parsonage" in Scotland. I assumed itused to belong to the
> > > > > Episcopal Church. "Parson" was a term which covered Anglicam
> > > > > priests, usually in rural areas.
> > > > ! That wouldn't happen here. "Parson" is about as humble as they come
> > > > -- and one thing Episcopalians aren't is humble.
> > > There is the expresson " Poor as a churchmouse". Not all Anglican
> > > priests were/are necessarily well off.
> > humble wooden church -- a Methodist one, probably. Episcopal churches
> > are grand and made of stone,
>
> The one in Comrie, Perthshire, was made of corrugated iron.
Cheryl
church, but it proved a very expensive proposition. There are some grand
stone Anglican (Episcopalian) churches here, well, I can think of one
and possibly a second (it's still extant, but I don't know how grand it
is). The vast majority of them them are quite modest wooden structures.
It is very difficult to generalize accurately about Anglicans/Episcopalians.
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2020-07-31 2:01 p.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> >> In article <ea44dcb1-0f52-4adf...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:10:49 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> >>>> In article <2e99255d-390b-4123...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> >>>> T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Up above somewhere was a list of terms for Protestant ministers and
> >>>>> the places they live. Did it include parson and parsonage? Are those
> >>>>> used in BrE?
> >>>> Yes, I mentioned parsonage. One of my mothers' cousins lived in "The Old
> >>>> Parsonage" in Scotland. I assumed itused to belong to the Episcopal
> >>>> Church. "Parson" was a term which covered Anglicam priests, usually in
> >>>> rural areas.
> >>> ! That wouldn't happen here. "Parson" is about as humble as they come
> >>> -- and one thing Episcopalians aren't is humble.
> >> There is the expresson " Poor as a churchmouse". Not all Anglican priests
> >> were/are necessarily well off.
> > a humble wooden church -- a Methodist one, probably. Episcopal
> > churches are grand and made of stone, Lutheran churches might
> > be next most grand ... Catholic churches appertain to all ranks
> > of society, but Episcopalians are probably the smallest and wealthiest
> > of the major denominations.
> > The Cathedral of St. John the Divine is much larger and grander,
> > but St. Patrick's Cathedral (on Fifth Avenue) is much better known
> > (and probably much better patronized for regular services).
> > Fort Washington Pres is brick and limestone, designed by Carrère
> > & Hastings in 1913 fresh off the New York Public Library; some
> > decades ago it merged with Washington Heights Presbyterian Church,
> > which was a mile or two north (under the odd name Fort Washington
> > Heights) and which looked from the outside to be wood construction
> > (I never went in). The congregation is now Hispanic.
>
> We had an early bishop who wanted the local Anglicans to go all high
> church, but it proved a very expensive proposition. There are some grand
> stone Anglican (Episcopalian) churches here, well, I can think of one
> and possibly a second (it's still extant, but I don't know how grand it
> is). The vast majority of them them are quite modest wooden structures.
>
> It is very difficult to generalize accurately about Anglicans/Episcopalians.
Church in the United States, but presumably much closer to the
Motherland (where your Queen is still Defender of the Faith, no?).
I suppose we send delegates to conventions of the Anglican Communion,
but it doesn't have much influence here.
Do you call Methodists "Non-Conformists"?
Paul Wolff
subject - what Episcopal churches are made of.
You could try arguing that a church is the people, not the building, but
corrugated iron looks unlikely in such a case.
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, at 14:24:42, Peter T. Daniels posted:
> >On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 4:55:49 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> >> > > There is the expresson " Poor as a churchmouse". Not all Anglican
> >> > > priests were/are necessarily well off.
> >> > We certainly have that expression, but church mice would live in a
> >> > humble wooden church -- a Methodist one, probably. Episcopal churches
> >> > are grand and made of stone,
> >>
> >> The one in Comrie, Perthshire, was made of corrugated iron.
> >
> >The what?
>
> Charles's sentence, by all logic, refers to the immediately preceding
> subject - what Episcopal churches are made of.
refers to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. Lower-
case "episcopal" is an adjective for bishops.
> You could try arguing that a church is the people, not the building, but
> corrugated iron looks unlikely in such a case.
Tony Cooper
>It is very difficult to generalize accurately about Anglicans/Episcopalians.
did an steep emergency dive to go down to clearer skies. When the
airplane landed a news reporter interviewed the deplaning passengers.
One of the passengers said he was a Catholic priest, and knew that a
merciful God would look out for him. Another passenger was a Jewish
rabbi, and he echoed the same sentiments. A Baptist minister said
that whatever God's will was, he would accept it.
The last man to deplane crawled off and was so shaken he could barely
stand. The reporter, noting that the man was wearing a collar, asked
him what denomination he was.
The man replied that he was an Ecopalian. The stunned reporter said
he had not known there was such a church, and asked the man what an
Ecopalian is.
"It's an Episcopalian with the pis scared out of him" he said.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
Baptists I have known were as straight as a die.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Peter Moylan
in 1972, a Senior Lecturer at the lowest level was paid the same as an
ordinary member of parliament. (Cabinet ministers got more, of course.)
Now a backbencher gets almost twice what a Senior Lecturer gets.
The main reason for that is that parliamentary salaries are set by
parliament.
bil...@shaw.ca
bill
Paul Wolff
<gram...@verizon.net> posted:
>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, at 14:24:42, Peter T. Daniels posted:
>> >On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 4:55:49 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>> >> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>
>> >> > > There is the expresson " Poor as a churchmouse". Not all Anglican
>> >> > > priests were/are necessarily well off.
>> >> > We certainly have that expression, but church mice would live in a
>> >> > humble wooden church -- a Methodist one, probably. Episcopal churches
>> >> > are grand and made of stone,
>> >>
>> >> The one in Comrie, Perthshire, was made of corrugated iron.
>> >
>> >The what?
>>
>> Charles's sentence, by all logic, refers to the immediately preceding
>> subject - what Episcopal churches are made of.
>
>But "Episcopal" doesn't refer to the Anglican church in Britain. It
>refers to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.
(Of a Church) constituted on the principle of government by
bishops, possessing bishops; belonging to such a Church. M18.
But:
Episcopal Church: spec. a Church of the Anglican Communion in
the US, Scotland, and some other countries.
Perthshire is in Scotland.
>Lower-
>case "episcopal" is an adjective for bishops.
eye.
>> You could try arguing that a church is the people, not the building, but
>> corrugated iron looks unlikely in such a case.
>
>Well. _I_ couldn't.
Paul
Paul Wolff
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> posted:
to profit from their civic actions at all. They may put in a statement
of justified expenses at the end of each month. Parliament can defray
the cost of the pool of assistants who draw up those expenses claims.
--
Paul
charles
charles
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 6:03:27 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, at 14:24:42, Peter T. Daniels posted:
> > >On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 4:55:49 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > >> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > >> > > There is the expresson " Poor as a churchmouse". Not all
> > >> > > Anglican priests were/are necessarily well off.
> > >> > We certainly have that expression, but church mice would live in a
> > >> > humble wooden church -- a Methodist one, probably. Episcopal
> > >> > churches are grand and made of stone,
> > >>
> > >> The one in Comrie, Perthshire, was made of corrugated iron.
> > >
> > >The what?
> >
> > Charles's sentence, by all logic, refers to the immediately preceding
> > subject - what Episcopal churches are made of.
> But "Episcopal" doesn't refer to the Anglican church in Britain.
Episcopal Church". Most of my childhood church-going was to this
organisation since it was my mother's belief. My parents had a mixed
marriage, my father was staunchly Persbyterian,
You're mixing up England with Britain.
> It refers to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.
> Lower- case "episcopal" is an adjective for bishops.
> > You could try arguing that a church is the people, not the building,
> > but corrugated iron looks unlikely in such a case.
> Well. _I_ couldn't.
Kerr-Mudd,John
worship as they feel fit, it's a very broad (if wrinkly) church.
Peter T. Daniels
and Assemblymen to have other jobs -- to make the salary competitive
with those in the private sector -- to try to avoid the corruption
of favor-seekers hiring their representatives' law firms to lobby
the representatives. (In the wake of a long series of scandals along
those lines.) Your proposal would seem to make underpaid -- or are
you saying unpaid? -- legislators even more susceptible to bribery.
Peter T. Daniels
> Perthshire is in Scotland.
Eponym for the one in Australia.
> >Lower-
> >case "episcopal" is an adjective for bishops.
>
> At the start of a sentence, that distinction is invisible to the naked
> eye.
Peter T. Daniels
iron??) denomination with that name.
Peter T. Daniels
> T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 6:03:27 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, at 14:24:42, Peter T. Daniels posted:
> > > >On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 4:55:49 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > > >> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>
> > > >> > > There is the expresson " Poor as a churchmouse". Not all
> > > >> > > Anglican priests were/are necessarily well off.
> > > >> > We certainly have that expression, but church mice would live in a
> > > >> > humble wooden church -- a Methodist one, probably. Episcopal
> > > >> > churches are grand and made of stone,
> > > >>
> > > >> The one in Comrie, Perthshire, was made of corrugated iron.
> > > >
> > > >The what?
> > >
> > > Charles's sentence, by all logic, refers to the immediately preceding
> > > subject - what Episcopal churches are made of.
>
> > But "Episcopal" doesn't refer to the Anglican church in Britain.
>
> It refers to the Anglican Church in Scotland. which is "The Scottish
> Episcopal Church". Most of my childhood church-going was to this
> organisation since it was my mother's belief. My parents had a mixed
> marriage, my father was staunchly Persbyterian,
>
> You're mixing up England with Britain.
the same denomination as our grand but minority churches -- it's
another denomination that happens to have the same name. My sentence
clearly referred to the religious diversity in the US, where a
village green might have four or five churches around it, looking
pretty much the same on the outside, except (where there was one)
the Episcopal one being a bit more showy.
charles
charles
Peter T. Daniels
is dated in the 1770s, even before there was a Constitution.
charles
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 8:55:50 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > In article <1325376a-bf3a-4a5b...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> > T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 6:10:50 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> > > > You're mixing up England with Britain.
> > > And you're equating Scotland with the US. Your iron church isn't
> > > the same denomination as our grand but minority churches -- it's
> > > another denomination that happens to have the same name.
> >
> > I suspect the Scottish one came first.
> (a) So what?
are. others ^^^
> (b) The Church's charter, or whatever it calls itself,
> is dated in the 1770s, even before there was a Constitution.
Cheryl
back in the mid 1800s, at least around here. Also "Church of England",
but of course, not "Anglican Church of Canada". Distinctions between the
various groups claiming descent from, or allegiance to, Canterbury,
aren't always clear - or unchanging.
> I suppose we send delegates to conventions of the Anglican Communion,
> but it doesn't have much influence here.
Anglican Communion and, say, the Roman Catholic Church, is that the
Anglican Communion is voluntary, and while members of the worldwide
church may listen politely to what the Archbishop of Canterbury says,
they are under no obligation to agree with him or obey hime.
> Do you call Methodists "Non-Conformists"?
two who come from away. We do have a considerable number of members of
the United Church of Canada, which all the local Methodists joined long
before I was born. In the period I was talking about, we had
"Dissenters" who were often, but not always, influenced by Methodism.
Basically, they were non-Church of England (or Episcopalian)
Protestants. It was sometimes hard to define them. In spite of the
annoyance of some of the clergy, a lot of people seem to have attended
whichever service was available, regardless of their official affiliation.
--
Cheryl