Word Origin: plant / factory?

[Clio...@ids.net]

Hi,

Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
"factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
a satisfactory answer.
Thanks,
Patricia

[Richard Belcher]

Clio...@ids.net wrote:
: Hi,

Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
--
People just don't seem to gavotte and mazurka with the spirit and grace
that they used to.
Richard Belcher
will...@netcom.com

[Mike Barnes]

Richard Belcher wrote...

>Clio...@ids.net wrote:
>: Hi,
>
>: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
>: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
>: a satisfactory answer.
>: Thanks,
>: Patricia
>
> Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
they mean "factory".

Regards, Mike.
--
Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
This week's hot tips for the lottery: 12, 14, 23, 32, 38, 34.

[James Eason]

Clio...@ids.net wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
> "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
> a satisfactory answer.
> Thanks,
> Patricia

It seems to be a transference of meaning from the vegetable kingdom:
plant = a thing that you put in the ground; plant (vb) = put things in
the ground to stay and grow; plantation, a place where you grow things
on an industrial scale, or a planting of trees or other "permanent"
vegetable beings; plant (factory), a permanent installation of
machines, buildings, etc. to make things on an industrial scale.
According to OED, Mrs Piozzi (Dr Johnson's friend) was miffed by this
use of the word, making her one of the earliest of a.u.e.'ers. She
claimed (rather inconsequentially, to my mind) that she "couldn't
understand it". Hers is the earliest citation in the OED, 1789. This
may serve as a cautionary tale to those who really and truly object to
a word or usage: don't even whisper it!

[John Nurick]

James Eason <jea...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
<snip>

>It seems to be a transference of meaning from the vegetable kingdom:
>plant = a thing that you put in the ground; plant (vb) = put things in
>the ground to stay and grow; plantation, a place where you grow things
>on an industrial scale, or a planting of trees or other "permanent"
>vegetable beings; plant (factory), a permanent installation of
>machines, buildings, etc. to make things on an industrial scale.

<interesting story about Sam and Hester>

My impression is that in UK usage "plant" is at least as likely to
refer to a machine or set of machines as to a factory, and that
permanent installation is not necessary. For instance, the scrapers
and rollers and other machines that build highways are, collectively,
plant.

--
Best wishes

John Nurick

e-mail: j.nu...@dial.pipex.com
v-mail: <+44|0> 191 281 1306

[Mirabelle Severn & Thames]

In article <williambD...@netcom.com>,
Richard Belcher <will...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Clio...@ids.net wrote:

>: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for

>: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found

>: Patricia

> Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

> Richard Belcher

Not 'round here. They're each used in slightly different
contexts.

Naomi Brokaw
from California's central coast

[Sparrow]

Mike Barnes <mi...@exodus.co.uk> wrote:

>Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
>they mean "factory".

I would say plant (god knows why) when referring to a chemicals factory, and
possibly not to any other

============== Spug (Sparrow) London.==========================

[Richard Kaulfuss]

Mike Barnes (mi...@exodus.co.uk) wrote:
: Richard Belcher wrote...
: >Clio...@ids.net wrote:
: >: Hi,
: >
: >: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for

: >: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found

: >: a satisfactory answer.
: >: Thanks,
: >: Patricia

: >
: > Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

:
: Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
: they mean "factory".
:
Some of my colleagues do, on occasion. But then we work for a large US
multinational...

Dick

[James Eason]

I have always taken "plant" to mean the physical facilities of a
factory (or, for that matter, of a school -- we have a "Plant
Department" here at the U of Chicago, and believe you me, they are
_not_ dedicated to botanical pursuits). In any case, here in the
country formerly known as the United States, the two words coexist.

[Sparrow]

John Nurick <j.nu...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

>My impression is that in UK usage "plant" is at least as likely to
>refer to a machine or set of machines as to a factory, and that
>permanent installation is not necessary. For instance, the scrapers
>and rollers and other machines that build highways are, collectively,
>plant.

Am I the only one amused by the road sign
"Warning: Heavy plant crossing" - It never fails to summon an image of a
triffid-like thing dragging itself across the road

============== Spug (Sparrow) London.==========================

[Aaron J. Dinkin]

In article <qWuAhLA3...@exodus.co.uk>, Mike Barnes
<mi...@exodus.co.uk> wrote:

> Richard Belcher wrote...
> >Clio...@ids.net wrote:
> >: Hi,
> >
> >: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
> >: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
> >: a satisfactory answer.
> >: Thanks,
> >: Patricia

I always assumed it was "plant" as in "source of something", viz.: "Tomato
plant" = where tomatoes come from; "power plant" = where power comes from.

帰aron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

[Richard Belcher]

Richard Belcher (will...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Clio...@ids.net wrote:
: : Hi,

: : Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
: : "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
: : a satisfactory answer.
: : Thanks,
: : Patricia

: Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.

Gee, I guess puns are absolutely out of the question. It's amazing how
many outraged posts resulted from this.

: --

[Tom Heathcote]

John Nurick (j.nu...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
<snip>
: My impression is that in UK usage "plant" is at least as likely to

: refer to a machine or set of machines as to a factory, and that
: permanent installation is not necessary. For instance, the scrapers
: and rollers and other machines that build highways are, collectively,
: plant.

AFAIK this is correct. Although this terminology is not exactly common
usage among the general population.

I have sometimes seen signs near roadworks that read "HEAVY PLANT CROSSING".
This strangely worded warning caused me some puzzlement when I first
encountered it. Even now it still evokes images of some kind of large
Triffid walking across the road - or possibly that thing from Little
Shop of Horrors ("Feeeeed me Seymour!")

Tom Heathcote.

[lacj...@gmail.com]

I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.

[Don Phillipson]

<lacj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc3ff0d0-9e15-4345...@googlegroups.com...

Your informants seem rather muddled. The origins of the word "plant"
can be found in etymological dictionaries. Henry Ford published
several books, but none called Factory. He had an interest in
plantations of rubber but not peanuts. Peanuts were farmed in
Central America for thousands of years before the US Dept. of
Agriculture was created. G.W. Carver is remembered for his
research into peanut recipes and industrial products.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Whiskers]

I don't think Ford or Carver had anything to do with it (notwithstanding
their achievements in other fields). 'Factory' may be a definition, but
it isn't the etymology.

My guess is that 'plant' in this sense began as 'something planned
[for]', but I can't find firm support for that. OED does have a hint
though:

"plant, n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.

[...]

In spite of the apparent implications of quot. 1789 at sense 5a does
not appear to have a model in French; however, perhaps compare French
plan plan n.

[...]

5.
a. The premises, fittings, and equipment of a business or (chiefly N.
Amer.) of an institution; a factory, a place where an industrial
process is carried out. In extended use: the workers employed at a
business, institution, or factory. Frequently with modifying word.

1789 H. L. Piozzi Observ. Journey France I. 133 The ground was
destined to the purposes of extensive commerce, but the appellation
of a plant gave me much disturbance, from my inability to fathom the
meaning.

1838 Civil Engineer & Architect's Jrnl. 1 239/2 There was very
little possibility of transferring these implements (technically
called the Plant) from one contract to another.

[...]

and:

"plan, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 1
September 2017.

Origin: A borrowing from French. Etymon: French plan.

Etymology: Partly < French plan drawing, sketch, or diagram made by
projection on a horizontal plane showing the layout of a building,
city, area, etc. (1547 in Middle French; 1545 as plant ), drawing
guiding the establishment of a building, or of a work which is to be
realized (1563; 1538 as plant ), set of measures adopted in order to
accomplish something (1627) ( < planter : see plant v.), and partly <
French plan plane surface (1553 in Middle French), use as noun of plan
, adjective (see plane adj.). Compare Italian pianta (a1529), Spanish
planta (1600). Compare plane n.3

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[CDB]

It's the other way around. The peanut plant is planted in the ground.
So, by extension, is the Ford plant.

In Spanish, you go upstairs from the planta baja.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=plant

[Cheryl]

On 2017-09-01 9:05 AM, lacj...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've been told that the word, Plant. Was derived from the word, Factory. By Henry Ford as it relates to the introduction of the peanut plant. Which is well known discovery of a historic black scientist named George Washington Carver.
>

The term "plant" might have been derived from "plantation" - no, not in
the Gone With the Wind sense, but in the earlier one in which a
plantation was a group of people "planted" in the New World, and which
later referred to the place that they settled, and still later to large
farms or estates owned by individuals. The use of "plant" to refer to a
specific area where something is carried out would also be a derivation,
whether the activity was manufacturing cars, or, in some areas,
operating schools. In any case, I suspect Henry Ford's use of the word
"plant" was not derived from "factory" and the usage existed long before
Ford did.

--
Cheryl

[Peter T. Daniels]

The full name of the smallest state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."

The responses given this morning are pretty much the same as the ones
given in 1996.

Which, Tony Cooper, suggests that Google Groups isn't so "crippled" after all.

[RH Draney]

That's some heavy plant crossing you've got there....r

[charles]

In article <slrnoqimth.5...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,

how about "Planta Genista" (Broom) which gave it's name to the English
ruling House in the 12th/13th Century.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Whiskers]

That is a vegetative organism, not an industrial installation.

[bebe...@aol.com]

Speaking of plants, the unexpected vocative above makes for a nice garden path.

[Peter T. Daniels]

arthur-Navi is right! Commas do matter!

[David Kleinecke]

I don't think anybody ever argued that ALL commas do not matter.
They are extremely useful in marking intonation as in the vocative
in the sentence above or in a list "Tom, Dick and Harry". Problems
arise when people try using them to denote semantics rather than
pauses. For example I make a pause between "Tom" and "Dick" but
not in "Dick and Harry".

[Janet]

In article <a46ae10b-d562-419e...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

I told you so

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

When they're in the right place. Such as not between subject and predicate.

[Robert Bannister]

A lot of respected authors, particularly from the 19th century,
regularly place commas between subject and predicate when the subject is
very long and is followed by a natural speech pause.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Peter T. Daniels]

That was two centuries ago.

If the subject ends or the predicate begins with a non-restrictive clause, a
comma will appear there but in a different function.

[Lesmond]

Whenever I see the "Plant Entrance" signs I prepare to brake for triffids.

--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks

[gustoff...@gmail.com]

In Dick Gregory’s new book, he suggests the usage arose from George Washington Carver’s suggestions to Henry Ford. GWC was a botanist. I would have assumed the usage started in England long ago, but some of you suggest otherwise.

[harriso...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 2 May 1996 08:00:00 UTC+1, Mike Barnes wrote:
> Richard Belcher wrote...

> >Clio...@ids.net wrote:
> >: Hi,
> >
> >: Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
> >: "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not found
> >: a satisfactory answer.
> >: Thanks,
> >: Patricia
> >
> > Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
>

> Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
> they mean "factory".

Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
would say that?

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 15:28:32 UTC, gustoff...@gmail.com wrote:
> In Dick Gregory’s new book, he suggests the usage arose from George Washington Carver’s suggestions to Henry Ford. GWC was a botanist. I would have assumed the usage started in England long ago, but some of you suggest otherwise.

The OED's earliest reference is 1789 but as it indicates that nobody seemed
to know even then where the usage comes from I think we're probably doomed
to ignorance!

1789 H. L. Piozzi Observ. Journey France I. 133 The ground was destined
to the purposes of extensive commerce, but the appellation of a plant gave
me much disturbance, from my inability to fathom the meaning.

'Nuff said!

[musika]

Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.

--
Ray
UK

[harriso...@gmail.com]

Good point. I wonder how many of our comments will be contradicted
long after we are there to defend them. PTD will outlive all of us on
that score :)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:51:27 +0000, musika <mUs...@NOSPAMexcite.com>
wrote:

In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.

While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
be familiar with it from seeing road signs with the word on them:
For instance:
https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg

Plant
crossing

https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed/2/Heaviy_plant_crossing.png

Caution
Heavy plant
crossing

A blog:
https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plant-crossing/

<image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>

I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
lumbering across the road.

Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
pot with its fronds trailing.


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

[Ross]

A triffid?

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:53:05 -0800 (PST), Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

A mandrake root?

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <8bedddcf-a4b5-441d...@googlegroups.com>,

Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 7:07:24 AM UTC+13, PeterWD wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:51:27 +0000, musika <mUs...@NOSPAMexcite.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On 17/01/2019 16:33, harriso...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, 2 May 1996 08:00:00 UTC+1, Mike Barnes wrote:
> > >>> Richard Belcher wrote...

> > >>>> Clio Bi...@ids.net wrote:
> > >>>> : Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> : Does anyone know how the word "plant" came into use as a synonym for
> > >>>> : "factory"? I have checked a number of dictionaries and have not
> > >>>> : found
> > >>>> : a satisfactory answer.
> > >>>> : Thanks,
> > >>>> : Patricia
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Don't know but it's firmly uprooted and supplanted factory.
> > >>>
> > >>> Not here it hasn't. I don't know anyone British who says "plant" when
> > >>> they mean "factory".
> > >>
> > >> Really? "The Ford plant in Dagenham"? You don't know anyone who
> > >> would say that?
> > >>
> > >Mike posted that in 1996. He died in 2016. Don't expect a reply.
> >
> > In BrE "plant" tends to mean machinery used on construction sites, etc.
> >
> > While most people may not use the word in that sense they are likely to
> > be familiar with it from seeing road signs with the word on them:
> > For instance:
> > https://www.safetyshop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525
> > d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/C/GCS15.jpg
> >
> > Plant
> > crossing
> >
> > https://www.gsbhealthandsafetysigns.co.uk/images/thumbnails/280/210/detailed

> > /2/Heaviy plant crossing.png

> >
> > Caution
> > Heavy plant
> > crossing
> >
> > A blog:
> > https://thoughtsbyanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/thoughts-on-heavy-plan
> > t-crossing/
> >
> > <image of a "heavy plant crossing" sign>
> >
> > I’m assuming it’s a rather serious sign, warning of large machinery
> > lumbering across the road.
> >
> > Yet to me, I’ve always imagined not a truck, but an over-sized plant
> > pot with its fronds trailing.
>
> A triffid?

Audrey II.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:53:05 -0800 (PST), Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

Yes. That's what it suggests to me. However, I don't know how well
triffids are known to younger people.

[David Kleinecke]

Or even to some older ones.

[Peter T. Daniels]

(That's what I thought immediately.)

> Yes. That's what it suggests to me. However, I don't know how well
> triffids are known to younger people.

The novel was recommended to me by my first employer at Chicago (he was
Director of the Oriental Institute, I was Research Assistant, which meant
I typed the ms. pages he'd written the day before). It was frightening.
A while later I saw the movie. It wasn't.

[Dr. HotSalt]

That was my first thought too (Triffid, Audrey II), but this does not
occur in the US. If it does in Canada it might drift over the border like
roundabouts did. I sincerely hope not.

In AmE "plant" means "physical plant"- where a manufacturing business
does its actual manufacturing, which may be in a different location
(block, city, state, country) than its administrative office(s).

(I have no more idea than anyone else if it refers to the manufacturing
machinery being "planted" as opposed to being free-range per the BrE
signage. I am tempted to compare with "fixed" as in "fixture" but I can't
remember whether or not I've started any arguments this year.)

When self-propelled heavy machinery is going to cross an American road,
signs are put out saying "HEAVY EQUIPMENT CROSSING" or similar.


Dr. HotSalt

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 19:40:08 -0800 (PST), "Dr. HotSalt"
<alie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When self-propelled heavy machinery is going to cross an American road,
>signs are put out saying "HEAVY EQUIPMENT CROSSING" or similar.

I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
trucks to enter a highway at any point, but the signs are posted where
large trucks enter from places like construction zones and phosphate
pits.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Lewis]

I have seen temporary signs for when very large equipment, too large to
normally be on roads, is going to be on a road or crossing a road,
though I cannot recall the exact wording. Not merely large trucks but
massive moving projects along the lines of multi-story buildings or
gigantic mining equipment.

But along the lines of "heavy equipment crossing" and not merely the
"Wide load" pilot and chase cars one sees.

--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other. They don't
really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other. They don't
really mean it.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 18-Jan-19 3:40, Dr. HotSalt wrote:

<out of context snip>

> That was my first thought too (Triffid, Audrey II), but this does not
> occur in the US. If it does in Canada it might drift over the border like
> roundabouts did.

Are plate tectonics so active along (or across) the Canadian border?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Mark Brader]

Tony Cooper:

> I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
> is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some

> trucks to enter a highway at any point...

Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
the road in front of them.
--
Mark Brader | "Any philosophy that can be put 'in a nutshell'
Toronto | belongs there."
m...@vex.net | --Sydney J. Harris

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 7:13:24 PM UTC-8, Mark Brader wrote:
> Tony Cooper:
> > I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
> > is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
> > trucks to enter a highway at any point...
>
> Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
> sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
> the road in front of them.

They don't make it sound like that to me,
but then I'm used to seeing those signs
on limited access highways (aka "freeways").

On California SR39, one is more likely to see "Road Work",
but then Hiway 30 is just a surface street these days,
with more driveways per foot than it has "super".

/dps

[charles]

In article <HrydnTZSi8NRCN_B...@giganews.com>,

Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> Tony Cooper:
> > I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
> > is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
> > trucks to enter a highway at any point...

> Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
> sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
> the road in front of them.

what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 5:12:39 AM UTC-5, charles wrote:
> In article <HrydnTZSi8NRCN_B...@giganews.com>,
> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> > Tony Cooper:

> > > I've not noticed those signs in Florida, but what I do see quite a bit
> > > is a sign that says "Trucks entering highway". One can expect some
> > > trucks to enter a highway at any point...
> > Exactly why I wonder why these signs are allowed to exist. They make it
> > sound as though drivers anywhere else aren't supposed to need to watch
> > the road in front of them.
>
> what it means is that the truck drivers don't look where they are going.
> As happened in Cambrdgeshire last year .

What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.

For the curious:
https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

[Sam Plusnet]

Alternatively, there is a BBC article
"Older drivers: Is age a factor behind the wheel?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429

There are roughly 300 licenced drivers over the age of 100 in the UK.

Hence Philip is a stripling.

p.s. He's back behind the wheel again today.



--
Sam Plusnet

[Tony Cooper]

He must have very good automobile insurance. I saw a photograph of
his replacement Land Rover being delivered either the same day of the
accident or the next day.

In the US, he'd still be fighting the insurance company for
compensation.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
that he is driving it.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

I suspect that, were the President or First Person involved, equally
rapid service would be expected.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 19-Jan-19 20:12, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> No, he's in posession of a new car. There is no confirmation yet
> that he is driving it.

What!
You doubt the BBC? - who were quoting the Daily Mail and the Sun?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

It was being delivered from elsewhere on the royal estates. It is not a
replacement paid for by the insurance company.

A report says "It is believed to be the same car he has been seen
driving near to Balmoral in September 2018".

I imagine he has cars in various parts of the country: Sandringham,
Balmoral, Windsor, etc.

>
>In the US, he'd still be fighting the insurance company for
>compensation.

I suspect that has hardly started.

It is not clear whether the crash was the fault of either driver, both
or neither. There is an ongoing police investigation.

[Janet]

In article <bea45a81-e7fb-410c...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

>

> What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
> SUV?

> They didn't say whether he was driving.

He was.

>(Are there age limits on
> "driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)

Only for youths.

Janet.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

In any case he is reported to have been seen driving on private land,
not on a public road.

Being a horsey man with an even more horsey wife, and a horsey daughter
who has ridden in the Olympics, Philip is no doubt familiar with the
saying "When you fall off a horse, get right back on".

OK, Philip's "horse" had four wheels rather than four legs, but the
principle still applies.

[Janet]

In article <39074ehfr2pc39nkp...@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@invalid.com says...

He has a very rich wife, so a higher insurance premium won't deter
him.

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

A good thing he wasn't taking the Missus out for a spin!

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 3:13:22 PM UTC-5, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:

> I suspect that, were the President or First Person involved, equally
> rapid service would be expected.

The President is not permitted to drive. Obama sometimes persuaded them
to let him drive around the little roads inside the White House compound.

[Sam Plusnet]

When the Obamas visited the UK in 2016 Philip drove them around, but he
was only 94 at the time.
(I don't think he was free-lancing as an Uber driver)

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

<smile>

It seems that the speed limit on the strech of road he was turning on to
was 60mph. By "coincidence" it was reduced to 50 mph soon after then
crash.
There was a proposal to install speed cameras there about three years
ago. It is still being discussed.

[Tony Cooper]

Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
self-insured?

[LFS]

Not only has he been driving it, he's been spotted driving it without
wearing a seatbelt and the police have confirmed that they have spoken
to him about this.

I think he deserves public thanks for pushing the other stuff out of the
headlines for a couple of days.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[bill van]

I think he'd be hilarious if he chose to sit for truthful interviews
about his life, times and observations.

bill

[charles]

In article <3eb9833a-e534-4adb...@googlegroups.com>, Peter

But I've seen him doing that near Balmoral. I stopped in a passing place to
let an oncoming vehicle pass and he was the driver.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK. I've
not heard of any exceptions.
Government website:
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance

You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.

Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re
covered if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any
other person, vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any
other costs like repair to your own vehicle.

If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage to
your own vehicle.

Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to their
own vehicle.

[RHDraney]

It's not strictly required here in the US either, or at least not in
Arizona...in lieu of proof of insurance, you can post a bond to cover
the corresponding claims...I haven't looked at the statute recently, but
the last time I did the amount of the bond had to be at least $40,000,
which may be why few people choose that option....r

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Does he? Isn't bigamy a crime?

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Sunday, 20 January 2019 00:28:31 UTC, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
> self-insured?

Third-party insurance has been mandatory in the UK since 1930 (the first country to introduce mandatory motor insurance) but there are a couple of very limited alternatives.

According to the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks Deposits) Regulations 1992, a business can place a £500,000 bond with the Government which is subsequently used to pay third-party claims in the event of an at-fault collision. (The vehicle owner remains liable for claims in excess of the £500,000.)

As a further alternative to third party liability motor insurance, a vehicle user may take out a security with a security giver. Under RTA s. 146 a security can only be given by an insurance company or some body of persons which carries on in the UK the business of giving securities. This requires permission from the Secretary of State.

A consultation on whether to remove these alternatives has closed.

Owain

[Janet]

In article <q21lv...@news2.newsguy.com>, dado...@cox.net says...

>
> On 1/20/2019 3:48 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:28:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
> > <tonyco...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is insurance mandatory for all drivers in the UK? Could the Royals be
> >> self-insured?
> >
> > As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK. I've
> > not heard of any exceptions.
> > Government website:
> > https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
> >
> > You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
> >

> > Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you?re

> > covered if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any

> > other person, vehicle, animal or property. It doesn?t cover any

> > other costs like repair to your own vehicle.
> >
> > If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage to
> > your own vehicle.
> >
> > Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to their
> > own vehicle.
>
> It's not strictly required here in the US either, or at least not in
> Arizona...in lieu of proof of insurance, you can post a bond to cover
> the corresponding claims...I haven't looked at the statute recently, but
> the last time I did the amount of the bond had to be at least $40,000,
> which may be why few people choose that option....r

Third party insurance is mandatory for drivers in UK.

Janet.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 20-Jan-19 6:31, LFS wrote:

> Not only has he been driving it, he's been spotted driving it without
> wearing a seatbelt and the police have confirmed that they have spoken
> to him about this.
>
> I think he deserves public thanks for pushing the other stuff out of the
> headlines for a couple of days.
>

Well it would be difficult to arrange another royal wedding at short
notice, but...

No, that's a conspiracy theory too far.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Moylan]

On 20/01/19 21:48, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> As far as I know insurance is mandatory for all drivers in the UK.
> I've not heard of any exceptions. Government website:
> https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance
>
> You must have motor insurance to drive your vehicle on UK roads.
>
> Third party insurance is the legal minimum. This means you’re covered
> if you have an accident causing damage or injury to any other person,
> vehicle, animal or property. It doesn’t cover any other costs like
> repair to your own vehicle.
>
> If you have "third party insurance" you are self-insured for damage
> to your own vehicle.
>
> Most people have "comprehensive insurance" which covers damage to
> their own vehicle.

The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is that
third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance", is
separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a vehicle
each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness certificate (except for
relatively new vehicles) and the green slip. (Which are both done over
the internet these days.) There are no exceptions.

If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is a
separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy does not
include third party cover, because it's understood you're already
covered for that.

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

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come separately
too?

[Peter T. Daniels]

They'll be happy to sell you insurance on whatever you want insured.

My 2019 auto insurance policy came in the mail a few weeks ago. It has
maybe half a dozen categories, most of them required by law, one or two
optional but one would be foolish to delete them.

Some time in the early 1980s -- a year or two after I became a driver and
a car-owner -- Illinois became the last state to make car insurance
mandatory.

[Quinn C]

* Peter Duncanson [BrE]:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:05:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>What was that about the Duke of Edinburgh being rescued from a capsized
>>SUV? They didn't say whether he was driving. (Are there age limits on
>>"driving" "licences" [i.e. drivers' licenses] Over There?)
>
> He was driving. No, there are not age limits on driving licences.
> However, from the age of 70 a licence must be renewed every 3 years.
> The application form requires statements about the applicant's health.
> While all drivers are legally required to inform the licensing agency of
> any medical condition that could impair fitness to drive, it is seen to
> be wise to specifically ask older drivers every 3 years.
>
> For the curious:
> https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

I suspect it's also seen as unwise to pester royal highnesses about it.

--
Be afraid of the lame - They'll inherit your legs
Be afraid of the old - They'll inherit your souls
-- Regina Spektor, Après moi

[Peter Moylan]

The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
see why anyone would find that baffling.

A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.

The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
insurance companies and their customers.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:57 +1100, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 22/01/19 00:19, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> On Monday, 21 January 2019 01:16:56 UTC, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>> The situation in NSW, and I suspect in other Australian states, is
>>> that third party insurance, also known as "green slip insurance",
>>> is separated out as a special kind of insurance. To re-register a
>>> vehicle each year, you must submit both a roadworthiness
>>> certificate (except for relatively new vehicles) and the green
>>> slip. (Which are both done over the internet these days.) There are
>>> no exceptions.
>>>
>>> If you also want comprehensive insurance, that's optional, and is
>>> a separate insurance policy. A "comprehensive" insurance policy
>>> does not include third party cover, because it's understood you're
>>> already covered for that.
>>
>> Bafflingly unnecessary! Do other liability insurances come
>> separately too?
>
>The sole point of the legislation is to distinguish between compulsory
>and non-compulsory insurance, and to have a mechanism to ensure that all
>cars are covered by the compulsory one. (Note that a car cannot be
>registered until _after_ the compulsory insurance is in place.) I don't
>see why anyone would find that baffling.

What is baffling is why it is necessary to have two separate policies,
one for compulsory insurance and the other for non-compulsory. In the UK
all car insurance policies meet the compulsory requirements. They differ
in their non-compulsory provisions.

>
>A detail that I forgot to mention is that these third-party policies are
>tightly regulated, to ensure that all such policies are up to the same
>standard. Back in the days when third party insurance was just a
>component of an overall insurance policy, there was no consistency
>between companies as to how well the relevant third parties were covered.
>
>The details of any non-compulsory insurance are a matter between the
>insurance companies and their customers.

--

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

[Tony Cooper]

I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
UK driver is insured by more than one company.

In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
is based this.

For example, I can choose to have a $500 deductible or a $1,000
deductible meaning I will pay either $500 or $1,000 towards the damage
amount and the insurance will pay the rest. My premium will be lower
if I choose the $1,000 option.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Not UK!

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

That was Pter Moylan referring to Australia.

>
>In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
>customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
>is based this.
>
>For example, I can choose to have a $500 deductible or a $1,000
>deductible meaning I will pay either $500 or $1,000 towards the damage
>amount and the insurance will pay the rest. My premium will be lower
>if I choose the $1,000 option.

--

[Sam Plusnet]

The Australian system means that there are twice as many insurance
policies, and thus twice the administrative overheads - which come out
of the car owner's pocket. Claims for an accident between two cars
would involve four insurance companies.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
car.

Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
dealing with accidents on public highways.)

--
Doris did not usually leave men to port and cigars except
at large,formal dinners because Frank was a man who often
found other men's company gross and tedious.
-- Jane Rule, This Is Not For You, p.93

[Tony Cooper]

Florida is a "no fault" state. If I am in an automobile accident my
insurance covers me no matter if I am at fault or the other party is
at fault. My insurance provider may try to recover costs from the
other party's provider, but they will pay the charges (less the
deductible). They will even go after the other provider for the
deductible amount if the other party is at fault.

"No fault" doesn't mean that neither party is found to be at fault. It
means that each party's insurance initially pays for their insured's
damages.

That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.

This is a bit off the subject but I once damaged my hand attaching my
utility trailer to the trailer hitch. It required several stitches in
the ER. My medical insurance did not cover it. That's considered
covered by my automobile insurance. I had to provide proof of
automobile insurance at the hospital when I told them what happened.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:21:05 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:

> That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
> companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
> to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.

If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
you entirely. There are insurance companies -- not the ones that advertise
on TV -- that specialize in insuring the "uninsurable," and their rates
are astronomical. If you fall under their purview, you must either pay
what they ask or give up driving.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:21:05 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
>> companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
>> to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.
>
>If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
>premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
>you entirely.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
renewal.

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

But it won't happen in the Quebec system. Well, not in the same way.
Your premium goes up if you have demerit points, but that also means
it'll go down again when the points get canceled, usually after 2
years.

To my understanding - no direct experience.

--
Java is kind of like kindergarten. There are lots of rules you
have to remember. If you don't follow them, the compiler makes
you sit in the corner until you do.
Don Raab

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:49:51 -0500, Quinn C
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:29:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:21:05 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
>>>> companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
>>>> to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.
>>>
>>>If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
>>>premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
>>>you entirely.
>>
>> Of course, but that has nothing to do with "no fault". That is true
>> under any system. The rate increase would go into effect at the next
>> renewal.
>
>But it won't happen in the Quebec system. Well, not in the same way.
>Your premium goes up if you have demerit points, but that also means
>it'll go down again when the points get canceled, usually after 2
>years.
>
>To my understanding - no direct experience.

The "points" also come off after a period of x years here, too. I'm
not sure what the time period is having not experienced it. A driver
can get "points" assessed even if there's no accident. A traffic
infraction may result in "points".

While a person can be "at fault" and not receive a traffic citation, a
traffic citation often is the result of being at fault for an
accident. If no police are called to the scene, no citation is
issued. In my specific area, if the police are called to the scene of
a traffic accident, one (or both) of the parties will receive a
citation even if the accident itself does not clearly indicate that
one party is at fault.

PTD did - uncharacteristically - allow that the rate hike is
conditional: "...they're free to raise your premium". It is not
necessarily an automatic rate hike.

[Peter T. Daniels]

You made it sound as if there's miraculously no down-side to no-fault as
compared with the old-fashioned way of doing it.

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:41:25 -0500, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>

>>> I'm a bit confused by this conversation. It seems to be saying that a
>>> UK driver is insured by more than one company.
>>>
>>> In the US, automobile insurance coverage is from one vendor. The
>>> customer chooses the extent and limits of the coverage, and the rate
>>> is based this.
>>
>>In Quebec, you will actually deal with two entities. The province
>>provides insurance coverage for injury or death, which you need to pay
>>even just to have your driver's license - more if you have a car
>>registered. Apart from that, you need civil liability insurance from a
>>private company, some minimum of which is also compulsory if you have a
>>car.
>>
>>Since the province is the only insurer for injury and death, in those
>>cases there is no fight over who should pay what (as long as you're
>>dealing with accidents on public highways.)
>
> Florida is a "no fault" state. If I am in an automobile accident my
> insurance covers me no matter if I am at fault or the other party is
> at fault. My insurance provider may try to recover costs from the
> other party's provider, but they will pay the charges (less the
> deductible). They will even go after the other provider for the
> deductible amount if the other party is at fault.
>
> "No fault" doesn't mean that neither party is found to be at fault. It
> means that each party's insurance initially pays for their insured's
> damages.

So there are ways to do "no fault" with multiple private insurers. The
details have to be worked out, of course. For example, who pays for a
pedestrian who has no insurance, or what happens with out of state
drivers. The short overview for Quebec notes that the coverage extends
to tourists.

> That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
> companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.

Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.

> This is a bit off the subject but I once damaged my hand attaching my
> utility trailer to the trailer hitch. It required several stitches in
> the ER. My medical insurance did not cover it. That's considered
> covered by my automobile insurance. I had to provide proof of
> automobile insurance at the hospital when I told them what happened.

I believe that was in the short list of things not covered by Quebec
public insurance (I only skimmed through it.)

Then again, Quebec has a public health system, so medical bills are an
issue on a very different scale from the US.

--
- It's the title search for the Rachel property.
Guess who owns it?
- Tell me it's not that bastard Donald Trump.
-- Gilmore Girls, S02E08 (2001)

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C

Well, an accident involving multiple automobiles could involve
multiple insurers.

The
>details have to be worked out, of course. For example, who pays for a
>pedestrian who has no insurance,

The driver's insurance is responsible for the cost of the injuries to
the pedestrian.

>or what happens with out of state drivers.

If I am in an accident involving an out-of-state driver my insurer
pays for the damages to my vehicle. That driver's insurance provider
will have to hash it out with my insurance provider for coverage of
that vehicle if I'm at fault.

The short overview for Quebec notes that the coverage extends
>to tourists.
>
>> That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
>> companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.
>
>Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.

Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

In the model that I was talking about, of course. Since there's only
one insurer, there won't be any quibbling between it.

--
Microsoft designed a user-friendly car:
instead of the oil, alternator, gas and engine
warning lights it has just one: "General Car Fault"

Disclaimer: I, Quinn, don't believe Microsoft actually
created such a car design

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 22:56:46 -0500, Quinn C

<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>> That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
>>>> companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.
>>>
>>>Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.
>>
>> Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?
>
>In the model that I was talking about, of course. Since there's only
>one insurer, there won't be any quibbling between it.

You don't think, in that case, that the insured is not paying for it?
I don't mean the premium, but the insurer's cost of processing a claim
because it's not a no-fault state.

To make that case, you'd have show that the insurance rates are less
in states that do not have no-fault, and that those lower rates are
based on the insurance provider's lesser cost of doing business.

The last part is added because in some states the rates have to be
approved by the state. In Florida, for example, the insurance
companies have to apply to the state if they want a rate increase and
show why.

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 22:56:46 -0500, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:04:58 -0500, Quinn C
>>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
>>>>> companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight.
>>>>
>>>>Which you have to pay for, though, ultimately.
>>>
>>> Of course. But under what type of coverage is that *not* the case?
>>
>>In the model that I was talking about, of course. Since there's only
>>one insurer, there won't be any quibbling between it.
>
> You don't think, in that case, that the insured is not paying for it?
> I don't mean the premium, but the insurer's cost of processing a claim

Of course. I was talking about the quibbling. Wasn't that clear?

A company tries to reduce their payouts by quibbling with other
insurance companies. If they win more often than not, that may be true,
but in the bigger picture, all the insured have to shoulder all the
payouts plus the costs of all quibbling.

> because it's not a no-fault state.
>
> To make that case, you'd have show that the insurance rates are less
> in states that do not have no-fault, and that those lower rates are
> based on the insurance provider's lesser cost of doing business.

I'm not sure what you're arguing about here.

Quebec has a no-fault rule, and when it comes to bodily injury, only
one insurer. It made sense to me that no-fault works in this case,
because it's really irrelevant who's at fault when the payout always
comes from the same source anyway. I found it harder to imagine how
no-fault would work if the parties involved in an accident may have
different insurers, but I get the approximate idea now.

--
For spirits when they please
Can either sex assume, or both; so soft
And uncompounded is their essence pure,
-- Milton, Paradise Lost

[Tak To]

On 1/23/2019 10:29 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:21:05 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> That is generally to my advantage. I don't care if the insurance
>> companies quibble over who's at fault. That's their fight. It's also
>> to my advantage if the other party is uninsured or under-insured.
>
> If they determine that you were at fault, they're free to raise your
> premium (maybe as much as they want, maybe it's regulated) or to drop
> you entirely.

In some state there is an appeal process. I have successfully
appealed a case against me when I lived in Massachusetts.

There are insurance companies -- not the ones that advertise
> on TV -- that specialize in insuring the "uninsurable," and their rates
> are astronomical. If you fall under their purview, you must either pay
> what they ask or give up driving.

It seems only fair.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[cole...@gmail.com]

Great answer

[cole...@gmail.com]

Carvery was known for his work with peanuts yes but also many other things Henry Ford pick his brains and I would say the word plant was used because of him learn about him.

[cole...@gmail.com]

He used it because he was a good friend of George Washington carvery the plant man horticulturis.herny Ford would always pick his brains.