Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"beaker" again
402 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 8:49:28 AM1/4/15
to
It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
"beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
"beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
the Omrud
Jan 4, 2015, 9:07:58 AM1/4/15
to
comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this
drinking vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of
her attempts to sound posh.
--
David
Katy Jennison
Jan 4, 2015, 9:08:03 AM1/4/15
to
On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
infallible guide to BrE usage. I'm trying to think of a comparable US
sitcom, but I confess I rarely watch the things; but I don't imagine
they're infallible guides to AmE, either.
--
Katy Jennison
Tony Cooper
Jan 4, 2015, 10:11:51 AM1/4/15
to
to current British usage also know that "Leave It To Beaver" is a
comprehensive guide to current American usage.
While I have been - unjustly - maligned for comments critical of the
State of New Jersey, it is obvious that there is some sort of time
warp in that area that delays broadcast of current television shows
for about 25 years. This a currently-running ad for television sets
in New Jersey:
https://img1.etsystatic.com/011/1/6939617/il_340x270.429880581_oif3.jpg
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Charles Bishop
Jan 4, 2015, 10:18:55 AM1/4/15
to
In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
I don't (not being an expert) understand why people, in this case you,
PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
what you're doing above.
If others refer to it as a beaker, it makes it a bit more difficult to
communicate for those of us who would call it a mug, but with exchange
of information (You dummyu!, it's a beaker) and some patient
understanding (My dear sir, the container that you have, which you call
a mug, I call a beaker, mmmmkay?)
Let it be so, please?
--
charles
PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
what you're doing above.
If others refer to it as a beaker, it makes it a bit more difficult to
communicate for those of us who would call it a mug, but with exchange
of information (You dummyu!, it's a beaker) and some patient
understanding (My dear sir, the container that you have, which you call
a mug, I call a beaker, mmmmkay?)
Let it be so, please?
--
charles
the Omrud
Jan 4, 2015, 10:23:19 AM1/4/15
to
On 04/01/2015 15:18, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>
> I don't (not being an expert) understand why people, in this case you,
> PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
> handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
> what you're doing above.
To be fair, I believe that Peter is referring back to the fact that
> In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>
> I don't (not being an expert) understand why people, in this case you,
> PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
> handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
> what you're doing above.
every BrE poster here insisted that it's always called a mug in BrE.
This is contradicted by an eposide of KUA. I need to know the context,
but as others have said, Hyacinth Bucket is not a reliable source for BrE.
--
David
Dr Nick
Jan 4, 2015, 10:30:18 AM1/4/15
to
suggested last time) a term used by some manufacturers who consider
their exquisite tableware too refined to include something as
monosyllabic as a "mug". Several people seem to be selling "beaker
mugs" which I think might be a trick to increase search engine hits.
Those of us who live in houses have mugs. People who live in exclusive
executive accommodations may have beakers.
I too have never watched KUA, but know enough to suspect that HB may
well have a similar approach.
LFS
Jan 4, 2015, 10:37:27 AM1/4/15
to
Mr Daniels in his quest to understand the subtle nuances of British
culture. The classic Hancock and Terry and June are probably a bit
dated. Last of the Summer Wine and Birds of a Feather might offer
suitable fodder for discussion. Any other suggestions?
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
the Omrud
Jan 4, 2015, 10:44:37 AM1/4/15
to
the Likely Lads; Porridge; Fawlty Towers, perhaps. The Young Ones?
How about One Foot in the Grave? The Vicar of Dibley? The IT Crowd and
Black Books?
--
David
LFS
Jan 4, 2015, 10:53:41 AM1/4/15
to
levels...
the Omrud
Jan 4, 2015, 10:55:35 AM1/4/15
to
--
David
Don Phillipson
Jan 4, 2015, 11:31:20 AM1/4/15
to
> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>> [Richard's
>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>> is
>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>> [Richard's
>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>> is
>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this drinking
> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
> attempts to sound posh.
British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass. The
range is thus from the everyday kitchen mug to the stainless steel
tumbler formerly found in elegant bathrooms (for cleaning teeth.)
The word was popularized by Victorian archaeology, when people
started exhibiting prehistoric pottery in public musems and classified
certain defunct tribes as the Beaker People etc. The genteel reserved
"mug" for the big heavy tea/soup mug issued to troops in barracks
(together with one knife, one fork and one spoon.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
the Omrud
Jan 4, 2015, 11:37:34 AM1/4/15
to
On 04/01/2015 15:59, Don Phillipson wrote:
>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>> [Richard's last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>>> is seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>
> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>
>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this drinking
>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>> attempts to sound posh.
>
> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
Well, er, no it isn't/wasn't. It may be a non-standard term, or it may
>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>> [Richard's last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>>> is seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>
> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>
>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this drinking
>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>> attempts to sound posh.
>
> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
be a technical term, or it may be a term used by the aristocracy (with
which I am unaccountably unfamiliar) but it's not been in ordinary use
in my lifetime.
> The
> range is thus from the everyday kitchen mug to the stainless steel
> tumbler formerly found in elegant bathrooms (for cleaning teeth.)
>
> The word was popularized by Victorian archaeology, when people
> started exhibiting prehistoric pottery in public musems and classified
> certain defunct tribes as the Beaker People etc. The genteel reserved
> "mug" for the big heavy tea/soup mug issued to troops in barracks
> (together with one knife, one fork and one spoon.)
--
Richard Tobin
Jan 4, 2015, 11:40:02 AM1/4/15
to
In article <m8bpsk$l73$1...@news.albasani.net>,
In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a handle-less
plastic "glass".
Since then I have only heard it in the context of archaeology.
-- Richard
Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
I am a native speaker of British English, living in Britain.
>Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a handle-less
plastic "glass".
Since then I have only heard it in the context of archaeology.
-- Richard
Katy Jennison
Jan 4, 2015, 11:44:31 AM1/4/15
to
On 04/01/2015 15:37, LFS wrote:
at first sight seem a strange choice, I nominate "Dr Who".
--
Katy Jennison
the Omrud
Jan 4, 2015, 11:50:18 AM1/4/15
to
On 04/01/2015 16:44, Katy Jennison wrote:
--
David
> On 04/01/2015 15:37, LFS wrote:
>
>> I've been trying to think what sitcom would be more helpful viewing for
>> Mr Daniels in his quest to understand the subtle nuances of British
>> culture. The classic Hancock and Terry and June are probably a bit
>> dated. Last of the Summer Wine and Birds of a Feather might offer
>> suitable fodder for discussion. Any other suggestions?
>
> I'm not a great watcher of comedy. For the job in hand, and this might
> at first sight seem a strange choice, I nominate "Dr Who".
Ehem. ITYM "Doctor Who". Else, no Torchwood.
>
>> I've been trying to think what sitcom would be more helpful viewing for
>> Mr Daniels in his quest to understand the subtle nuances of British
>> culture. The classic Hancock and Terry and June are probably a bit
>> dated. Last of the Summer Wine and Birds of a Feather might offer
>> suitable fodder for discussion. Any other suggestions?
>
> I'm not a great watcher of comedy. For the job in hand, and this might
> at first sight seem a strange choice, I nominate "Dr Who".
--
David
Katy Jennison
Jan 4, 2015, 11:59:11 AM1/4/15
to
And what about all those other things that aren't glasses, such as cups
and tankards? Where on earth did this crazy notion originate?
--
Katy Jennison
Katy Jennison
Jan 4, 2015, 12:12:35 PM1/4/15
to
Of course.
--
Katy Jennison
James Silverton
Jan 4, 2015, 12:15:11 PM1/4/15
to
for beaker has ever been for a straight-sided open piece of chemical
glassware.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
Richard Tobin
Jan 4, 2015, 12:20:03 PM1/4/15
to
In article <m8bse3$6gj$1...@dont-email.me>,
-- Richard
James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a handle-less
>>> plastic "glass".
>>>
>>> Since then I have only heard it in the context of archaeology.
>>> In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a handle-less
>>> plastic "glass".
>>>
>>> Since then I have only heard it in the context of archaeology.
>As far as I am aware, outside archeology and "Beaker Folk", my only use
>for beaker has ever been for a straight-sided open piece of chemical
>glassware.
Oh yes, I forgot that use.
>for beaker has ever been for a straight-sided open piece of chemical
>glassware.
-- Richard
Charles Bishop
Jan 4, 2015, 12:30:50 PM1/4/15
to
In article <m8bq9r$2hdl$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
No conversations about chem labs then?
--
charles
--
charles
pensive hamster
Jan 4, 2015, 12:33:15 PM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, 4 January 2015 16:40:02 UTC, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <m8bpsk$l73$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> >Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
> >British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
>
> I am a native speaker of British English, living in Britain.
Moi aussi.
> In article <m8bpsk$l73$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> >Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
> >British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
>
> I am a native speaker of British English, living in Britain.
> In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a handle-less
> plastic "glass".
prevent spillage:
https://babyshwop.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/classiccup-blue.jpg
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/20137573/
or with laboratory glassware. Wikipedia seems to have it
more-or-less right (not sure about the 'without a handle' bit,
children's beakers sometimes have handles):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_%28drinkware%29
'A beaker is a beverage container, and a term used in parts of
the UK. A beaker is typically a non-disposable plastic or ceramic
cup or mug without a handle, much like a laboratory beaker.
'Beaker is particularly commonly used to describe a lidded cup
designed for toddlers or small children, with a no-spill mouthpiece
incorporated into the lid.
'In North American English, the term is almost exclusively used in
the laboratory context.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_%28glassware%29
'A beaker is a simple container for stirring, mixing and heating
liquids commonly used in many laboratories. Beakers are
generally cylindrical in shape, with a flat bottom.[1] Most also
have a small spout (or "beak") to aid pouring as shown in the
picture.'
Charles Bishop
Jan 4, 2015, 12:42:46 PM1/4/15
to
In article <FVcqw.356608$Su5.2...@fx03.am4>,
Slightly different then, from what I thought, but my point still stands.
The fact that someone calls an object a different name than what is used
to is normal.
I have read something along the lines of "a beaker of the needful"
probably in Wodehouse (so who knows when it was written-his works
spanned many decades). The meaning would have been a glass of an
alcoholic spirit of some sort.
--
charle
The fact that someone calls an object a different name than what is used
to is normal.
I have read something along the lines of "a beaker of the needful"
probably in Wodehouse (so who knows when it was written-his works
spanned many decades). The meaning would have been a glass of an
alcoholic spirit of some sort.
--
charle
Iain Archer
Jan 4, 2015, 12:53:50 PM1/4/15
to
Dr Nick <nosp...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 at
15:31:39:
Beaker 10oz (28cl) - Red".
<http://www.nobleexpress.co.uk/cp/single-handed-polycarbonate-beaker-10oz
-28cl-red/AG306>
>Those of us who live in houses have mugs. People who live in exclusive
>executive accommodations may have beakers.
I remember using a similarly shaped one, also of thin plastic and with a
handle, probably in the '50s, maybe when the family lived in a council
flat. I think it might have been dedicated to evening drinks such as
Ovaltine or cocoa. The features I attached, I don't know how
justifiably, to its being a beaker were its being plastic, thin,
lightweight and of curved vertical cross-section.
--
Iain Archer
15:31:39:
>the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 04/01/2015 15:18, Charles Bishop wrote:
>>> In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>>[Richard's
>>>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
>>>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>>
>>> I don't (not being an expert) understand why people, in this case you,
>>> PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
>>> handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
>>> what you're doing above.
>>
>> To be fair, I believe that Peter is referring back to the fact that
>> every BrE poster here insisted that it's always called a mug in
>> BrE. This is contradicted by an eposide of KUA. I need to know the
>> context, but as others have said, Hyacinth Bucket is not a reliable
>> source for BrE.
>
>Searching for >beaker of coffee site:uk< it seems to be (as I think was
>suggested last time) a term used by some manufacturers who consider
>their exquisite tableware too refined to include something as
>monosyllabic as a "mug". Several people seem to be selling "beaker
>mugs" which I think might be a trick to increase search engine hits.
>
Here is one, with handle, called simply "Single Handed Polycarbonate
>
>> On 04/01/2015 15:18, Charles Bishop wrote:
>>> In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>>[Richard's
>>>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
>>>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>>
>>> I don't (not being an expert) understand why people, in this case you,
>>> PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
>>> handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
>>> what you're doing above.
>>
>> To be fair, I believe that Peter is referring back to the fact that
>> every BrE poster here insisted that it's always called a mug in
>> BrE. This is contradicted by an eposide of KUA. I need to know the
>> context, but as others have said, Hyacinth Bucket is not a reliable
>> source for BrE.
>
>Searching for >beaker of coffee site:uk< it seems to be (as I think was
>suggested last time) a term used by some manufacturers who consider
>their exquisite tableware too refined to include something as
>monosyllabic as a "mug". Several people seem to be selling "beaker
>mugs" which I think might be a trick to increase search engine hits.
>
Beaker 10oz (28cl) - Red".
<http://www.nobleexpress.co.uk/cp/single-handed-polycarbonate-beaker-10oz
-28cl-red/AG306>
>Those of us who live in houses have mugs. People who live in exclusive
>executive accommodations may have beakers.
handle, probably in the '50s, maybe when the family lived in a council
flat. I think it might have been dedicated to evening drinks such as
Ovaltine or cocoa. The features I attached, I don't know how
justifiably, to its being a beaker were its being plastic, thin,
lightweight and of curved vertical cross-section.
--
Iain Archer
Iain Archer
Jan 4, 2015, 1:03:12 PM1/4/15
to
Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 at
09:42:41:
--
Iain Archer
09:42:41:
>I have read something along the lines of "a beaker of the needful"
>probably in Wodehouse (so who knows when it was written-his works
>spanned many decades). The meaning would have been a glass of an
>alcoholic spirit of some sort.
Possibly a nod to Keats's "O for a beaker full of the warm South".
>probably in Wodehouse (so who knows when it was written-his works
>spanned many decades). The meaning would have been a glass of an
>alcoholic spirit of some sort.
--
Iain Archer
Tony Cooper
Jan 4, 2015, 1:05:55 PM1/4/15
to
watch in the US. Most of the shows available on the channels that
show such things are set just a few years after the period shown in
"Call The Midwife". More up-to-date than "Downton Abbey", but just
after rationing ended.
Our PBS stations purchase old British shows at bargain rates to fill
their time slots. The latest show added here was "Executive Stress".
Penelope Keith and Peter Bowles are probably more qualified today to
act in a show similar to "Waiting For God".
Django Cat
Jan 4, 2015, 1:12:31 PM1/4/15
to
Katy Jennison wrote:
> > I am a native speaker of British English, living in Britain.
> >
> > In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a
> > handle-less plastic "glass".
> >
> > Since then I have only heard it in the context of archaeology.
>
> I second that.
And I third it.
> > I am a native speaker of British English, living in Britain.
> >
> > In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a
> > handle-less plastic "glass".
> >
> > Since then I have only heard it in the context of archaeology.
>
> I second that.
DC
--
Django Cat
Jan 4, 2015, 1:15:39 PM1/4/15
to
misuses what she thinks are higher status words in place of what she
sees as commonplace terms. Therein lies the humour (OSIU).
DC
--
Django Cat
Jan 4, 2015, 1:20:18 PM1/4/15
to
to home:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn2FB1P_Mn8
DC
--
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 2:25:05 PM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 10:11:51 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
comedies, and they've gone directly to poor Mexican-Americans interacting
with wealthy Anglos (*Cristela* and *Jane the Virgin*, specifically).
> Those who feel that "Keeping Up Appearances" is a comprehensive guide
> to current British usage also know that "Leave It To Beaver" is a
> comprehensive guide to current American usage.
Can't you tell the difference between 1990 and 1960? That's not just
senility, that's Alzheimers.
> While I have been - unjustly - maligned for comments critical of the
> State of New Jersey, it is obvious that there is some sort of time
> warp in that area that delays broadcast of current television shows
> for about 25 years. This a currently-running ad for television sets
> in New Jersey:
No network television is broadcast from New Jersey. I believe the
signals still come from the Empire State Building and have not been
switched to the still unfinished 1 World Trade Center. I don't know
where the Philadelphia stations broadcast from.
> https://img1.etsystatic.com/011/1/6939617/il_340x270.429880581_oif3.jpg
I guess you thought I wouldn't look and so no one would bother to call
you on yet another lie.
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:07:59 +0000, Katy Jennison
> <ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:
> >On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
> >> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
> >> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
> >> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
> >Strangely, "Keeping Up Appearances" has never been ranked as an
> >infallible guide to BrE usage. I'm trying to think of a comparable US
> >sitcom, but I confess I rarely watch the things; but I don't imagine
> >they're infallible guides to AmE, either.
We've only very recently gotten a handful of class-conflict-based
> <ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:
> >On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
> >> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
> >> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
> >> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
> >Strangely, "Keeping Up Appearances" has never been ranked as an
> >infallible guide to BrE usage. I'm trying to think of a comparable US
> >sitcom, but I confess I rarely watch the things; but I don't imagine
> >they're infallible guides to AmE, either.
comedies, and they've gone directly to poor Mexican-Americans interacting
with wealthy Anglos (*Cristela* and *Jane the Virgin*, specifically).
> Those who feel that "Keeping Up Appearances" is a comprehensive guide
> to current British usage also know that "Leave It To Beaver" is a
> comprehensive guide to current American usage.
Can't you tell the difference between 1990 and 1960? That's not just
senility, that's Alzheimers.
> While I have been - unjustly - maligned for comments critical of the
> State of New Jersey, it is obvious that there is some sort of time
> warp in that area that delays broadcast of current television shows
> for about 25 years. This a currently-running ad for television sets
> in New Jersey:
No network television is broadcast from New Jersey. I believe the
signals still come from the Empire State Building and have not been
switched to the still unfinished 1 World Trade Center. I don't know
where the Philadelphia stations broadcast from.
> https://img1.etsystatic.com/011/1/6939617/il_340x270.429880581_oif3.jpg
I guess you thought I wouldn't look and so no one would bother to call
you on yet another lie.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 2:28:19 PM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 10:18:55 AM UTC-5, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
> In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
> > last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
> > "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
> > seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>
>
> > It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
> > last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
> > "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
> > seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>
> I don't (not being an expert) understand why people, in this case you,
> PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
> handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
> what you're doing above.
Because there was a lengthy discussion, not long ago, about this particular
> PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
> handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
> what you're doing above.
item, and most if not all the Brits insisted that the "beaker" sort of
coffee cup could not possibly have a handle; it in fact resembled
the laboratory glassware with which it shares its name. I noted that
I wouldn't be able to check in with Hyacinth and Elizabeth because the
series was on hiatus during seasonal special broadcasts on Thirteen.
> If others refer to it as a beaker, it makes it a bit more difficult to
> communicate for those of us who would call it a mug, but with exchange
> of information (You dummyu!, it's a beaker) and some patient
> understanding (My dear sir, the container that you have, which you call
> a mug, I call a beaker, mmmmkay?)
>
> Let it be so, please?
Where were you during that discussion?
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 2:31:00 PM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 10:23:19 AM UTC-5, the Omrud wrote:
a beaker could not have a handle. And the word and the object appear
in almost every episode of KUA. This first-one-back-after-the-holidays
happened to have particularly clear views of the object.
> On 04/01/2015 15:18, Charles Bishop wrote:
> > In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
> >> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
> >> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
> >> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
> > I don't (not being an expert) understand why people, in this case you,
> > PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
> > handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
> > what you're doing above.
>
> > In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
> >> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
> >> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
> >> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
> > I don't (not being an expert) understand why people, in this case you,
> > PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
> > handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
> > what you're doing above.
>
> To be fair, I believe that Peter is referring back to the fact that
> every BrE poster here insisted that it's always called a mug in BrE.
> This is contradicted by an eposide of KUA. I need to know the context,
> but as others have said, Hyacinth Bucket is not a reliable source for BrE.
No, most of them said it wouldn't be a mug, but (almost?) all of them said
> every BrE poster here insisted that it's always called a mug in BrE.
> This is contradicted by an eposide of KUA. I need to know the context,
> but as others have said, Hyacinth Bucket is not a reliable source for BrE.
a beaker could not have a handle. And the word and the object appear
in almost every episode of KUA. This first-one-back-after-the-holidays
happened to have particularly clear views of the object.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 2:35:32 PM1/4/15
to
LotSW was on Thirteen for a short time -- I tried an episode and couldn't
make head nor tail of it. It's apparently still carried on a different
Public Television station, but a low-powered one whose signal does not
reach me. (I could sometimes get it when I lived in Spuyten Duyvil.)
I did purchase the DVDs of *Chef!* and *Vicar of Dilbey*, because the
local stations showed only one series [AmE season] of each, and presumably
their ratings didn't justify showing the others.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 2:37:51 PM1/4/15
to
of the second-language-challenged character distasteful
> How about One Foot in the Grave? The Vicar of Dibley? The IT Crowd and
> Black Books?
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 2:40:51 PM1/4/15
to
I won't take the risk of sampling even a single one. But the cult
around it makes Trekkies look sane.
Ian Noble
Jan 4, 2015, 2:46:48 PM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 5:33:15 PM UTC, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 16:40:02 UTC, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > I am a native speaker of British English, living in Britain.
>
> Moi aussi.
And I.
> On Sunday, 4 January 2015 16:40:02 UTC, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > I am a native speaker of British English, living in Britain.
>
> Moi aussi.
>
> > In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a handle-less
> > plastic "glass".
>
> I associate 'beaker' either with a child's cup with a lid to
> prevent spillage:
>
> https://babyshwop.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/classiccup-blue.jpg
> http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/20137573/
(And so on, with probably another eight or so layers of qualification I haven't thought of yet. And I'm ignoring the laboratory vessel; I don't have a problem with that.)
Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)
pensive hamster
Jan 4, 2015, 3:58:11 PM1/4/15
to
the 1960s WIWAL, but it was never as good as 'Z Cars' or 'Bonanza'.
It was mostly the sink plungers on the Daleks that undermined my
'willing suspension of disbelief'. And The Doctor's silly scarf.
The BBC has promoted it quite heavily ('Who will play the new
Doctor Who?' Like I should care), and I did watch 5 mins of a
more recent episode, but was rather disappointed. The original
theme music is pretty good though, that has stood the test of time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NPJ6GMXM3E
Ross
Jan 4, 2015, 5:04:49 PM1/4/15
to
word for something you drank out of _in their ordinary everyday English_ (or
in anybody else's for that matter). What they were explaining was what
the word "beaker" denoted for them (laboratory equipment, archaeological
finds). Even in 1887 OED says it is "now chiefly in literary use" in its
original sense. So it's a poetic word for something you drink from; and
poems do not generally go into details of size, shape or whether it has
handles. Mrs B.'s affectation is to use this poetic word for an ordinary
coffee mug. On your evidence, it seems to be a standing joke.
Ian P Noble
Jan 4, 2015, 6:55:35 PM1/4/15
to
>When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup"...
Sorry for line-lengths; Google Groups stikes again. Trying
eternal-september instead.
Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
R H Draney
Jan 4, 2015, 7:03:05 PM1/4/15
to
Ian Noble filted:
>
>When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup" (po=
>ssibly hyphenated). It definitely isn't, in my usage, a beaker; like others=
> here, to me being a beaker precludes a handle (and the one my 2 year-old g=
>randdaughter currently uses is most definitely referred to by her parents a=
>s a cup). If the vessel has a handle, it's almost certainly a cup or a mug,=
> depending on size and shape. Except if it's made of glass or similar, and =
>not obviously a cup, it's a glass. Although it could be a glass beaker. Exc=
>en't thought of yet. And I'm ignoring the laboratory vessel; I don't have a=
> problem with that.)
There seem to be two basic forms for a glass "tankard":
http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/84559_large.jpg
http://splendids.com/images/products/large/58664.jpg
Subtract the handle, and the canonical vessel becomes a "schooner":
http://www.modadirect.com/uploads/6/3/4/4/6344494/5495653_orig.jpg
A "mug" is invariantly stoneware....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup" (po=
>ssibly hyphenated). It definitely isn't, in my usage, a beaker; like others=
> here, to me being a beaker precludes a handle (and the one my 2 year-old g=
>randdaughter currently uses is most definitely referred to by her parents a=
>s a cup). If the vessel has a handle, it's almost certainly a cup or a mug,=
> depending on size and shape. Except if it's made of glass or similar, and =
>not obviously a cup, it's a glass. Although it could be a glass beaker. Exc=
>ept when it's a tankard, of course.
>
>(And so on, with probably another eight or so layers of qualification I hav=
>
>en't thought of yet. And I'm ignoring the laboratory vessel; I don't have a=
> problem with that.)
There seem to be two basic forms for a glass "tankard":
http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/84559_large.jpg
http://splendids.com/images/products/large/58664.jpg
Subtract the handle, and the canonical vessel becomes a "schooner":
http://www.modadirect.com/uploads/6/3/4/4/6344494/5495653_orig.jpg
A "mug" is invariantly stoneware....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
R H Draney
Jan 4, 2015, 7:08:47 PM1/4/15
to
Charles Bishop filted:
chalice from the palace has the brew that is true....r
>
>If others refer to it as a beaker, it makes it a bit more difficult to
>communicate for those of us who would call it a mug, but with exchange
>of information (You dummyu!, it's a beaker) and some patient
>understanding (My dear sir, the container that you have, which you call
>a mug, I call a beaker, mmmmkay?)
Just remember: the pellet with the potion's in the vessel with the pestle; the
>If others refer to it as a beaker, it makes it a bit more difficult to
>communicate for those of us who would call it a mug, but with exchange
>of information (You dummyu!, it's a beaker) and some patient
>understanding (My dear sir, the container that you have, which you call
>a mug, I call a beaker, mmmmkay?)
chalice from the palace has the brew that is true....r
Ian Noble
Jan 4, 2015, 8:02:08 PM1/4/15
to
order a pint, you may still get asked whether you "want it in a mug or
a glass?" Or it's also quite OK to note what glasses are sitting
behind the bar, and ask for the one you want explicitly.
Your first link is to the sort of vessel you're likely to get if you
ask for a "mug" (although it's a little more squat than the tradtional
UK "dimple mug"). The third is one possible shape that you'll get if
you ask for a "glass"; the cross-section can vary a bit - another
common shape has straight sides sloping gently outwards, with a bulge
an inch or so below the rim that stops glasses sticking together when
stacked; but whatever shape you get, it *won't* have a handle.
Alternatively... ...I always drink my many daily cups of tea from a
"mug". Apart from the lurid colour (mine is black) and the travel lid
(which I discarded within about 30 seconds of buying it) it looks like
this: http://www.shinyshack.com/product.php?prid=215603
Despite the apparent heresy of drinking tes from a plastic vessl, it
is absolutely THE best "tea cup" I've found, bar none.
Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 11:47:12 PM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 3:58:11 PM UTC-5, pensive hamster wrote:
> I agree, I think 'Dr Who' is greatly over-rated. I used to watch it in
> the 1960s WIWAL, but it was never as good as 'Z Cars' or 'Bonanza'.
> It was mostly the sink plungers on the Daleks that undermined my
> 'willing suspension of disbelief'. And The Doctor's silly scarf.
Lots of the equipment on the original *Star Trek*, such as the phasers,
> I agree, I think 'Dr Who' is greatly over-rated. I used to watch it in
> the 1960s WIWAL, but it was never as good as 'Z Cars' or 'Bonanza'.
> It was mostly the sink plungers on the Daleks that undermined my
> 'willing suspension of disbelief'. And The Doctor's silly scarf.
was made of salt shakers purchased at modern design shops.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 11:51:46 PM1/4/15
to
by Hyacinth, and everyone insisted it was a quite ordinary word for a
drinking vessel that resembled a laboratory beaker in being roughly
cylindrical and handleless, but made of a heavier material than proper
dinnerware.
No one remotely suggested the current consensus that it was Hyacinth
misusing what she perceived to be a U term.
This new interpretation is much the most credible, and needs only some
evidence that it was perceived in some circles as a U term, or it was
used for something that a social climber could perceive as a U term for
a vessel for drinking coffee.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 4, 2015, 11:53:50 PM1/4/15
to
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 6:55:35 PM UTC-5, Ian P Noble wrote:
> >When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup"...
>
> Sorry for line-lengths; Google Groups stikes again. Trying
> eternal-september instead.
why can't you simply press the Enter key when you get near where a line
> >When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup"...
>
> Sorry for line-lengths; Google Groups stikes again. Trying
> eternal-september instead.
break should be?
Ross
Jan 5, 2015, 1:09:43 AM1/5/15
to
What I suggested differs from what you report as the emerging consensus in that
I don't see it as a "U term", in the strict Ross/Mitford/Waugh sense, i.e.
one used by the upper classes as a marker. It's just a bit of literary
language used whimsically, or to demonstrate one's familiarity with the
poets.
Ian Noble
Jan 5, 2015, 4:30:34 AM1/5/15
to
- extending text beyond the window rather than wrapping it into
something readable. Browsing via, e.g., Google Groups, you don't see
any problem, or realise that others may be having it - so any such
enters would be, on the face of it, totally spurious, and the
possibility of needing to do so wouldn't even occur to most users.
Cheers - Ian
Django Cat
Jan 5, 2015, 5:52:03 AM1/5/15
to
Hyacinth sees it that way.
DC
--
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jan 5, 2015, 8:05:31 AM1/5/15
to
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:37:29 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 04/01/2015 15:59, Don Phillipson wrote:
>> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>>
>>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this drinking
>>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>>> attempts to sound posh.
>>
>> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
>
>Well, er, no it isn't/wasn't. It may be a non-standard term, or it may
>be a technical term, or it may be a term used by the aristocracy (with
>which I am unaccountably unfamiliar) but it's not been in ordinary use
>in my lifetime.
I first met the word "beaker" when I was a young boy (1940s/50s). As far
as I recall, in my experience the word went out of general use after
that except in the laboratory sense.
I can't be 100% certain, but I think that in my limited experince as a
young bay a beaker was a plastic handleless drinking vessel. At that
time the plastic would have been Bakelite. It is possible that my
parents used the word "beaker" to distinguish it from a "glass" or a
"cup" or "mug".
I recall something similar to this, but less colourful:
http://www.69aliverpool.co.uk/450-mottled-bakelite-tumbler-1940s
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
wrote:
>On 04/01/2015 15:59, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>> [Richard's last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>>>> is seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>>
>> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>> [Richard's last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>>>> is seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>>
>> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>>
>>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this drinking
>>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>>> attempts to sound posh.
>>
>> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
>
>Well, er, no it isn't/wasn't. It may be a non-standard term, or it may
>be a technical term, or it may be a term used by the aristocracy (with
>which I am unaccountably unfamiliar) but it's not been in ordinary use
>in my lifetime.
I first met the word "beaker" when I was a young boy (1940s/50s). As far
as I recall, in my experience the word went out of general use after
that except in the laboratory sense.
I can't be 100% certain, but I think that in my limited experince as a
young bay a beaker was a plastic handleless drinking vessel. At that
time the plastic would have been Bakelite. It is possible that my
parents used the word "beaker" to distinguish it from a "glass" or a
"cup" or "mug".
I recall something similar to this, but less colourful:
http://www.69aliverpool.co.uk/450-mottled-bakelite-tumbler-1940s
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jan 5, 2015, 8:13:43 AM1/5/15
to
On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:05:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>young bay
young boy
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>young bay
young boy
Iain Archer
Jan 5, 2015, 9:15:08 AM1/5/15
to
the Omrud wrote on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 at 14:07:52 GMT
Previously on aue, in "Monticello" thread, Peter T. Daniels wrote on
Sun, 14 Dec 2014 at 15:23:00 GMT
>On Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:08:47 PM UTC-5, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> On 14/12/2014 19:12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Sunday, December 14, 2014 1:01:41 PM UTC-5, the Omrud wrote:
>> >> On 14/12/2014 14:38, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >>> On Sunday, December 14, 2014 2:50:37 AM UTC-5, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Afternoon tea" implies a certain refinement, such as china cups and
>> >>>> saucers rather than a mug,
>> >>>
>> >>> a beaker? (cf. Hyacinth Bucket.)
>> >>
>> >> A beaker doesn't have a handle, so it's not a mug or a cup.
>> >
>> > I'm pretty sure I can see Elizabeth holding her beaker by a handle,
>> > rather than trying to wrap a hand around a scalding-hot cylinder (as
>> > happened at the Thai restaurant Friday evening). My cousin thought
>> > to wrap his still-folded napkin around it in order to be able to hold it.
>>
>> I'll just turn the Omrud's sentence round for you: if it has a handle,
>> it isn't a beaker.
>
>It would never have occurred to me that a drinking vessel could be named
>with the word for a piece of laboratory glassware, if I didn't see in
>nearly every episode Hyacinth providing Elizabeth with a "beaker" in place
>of her Royal Doulton with the Hand-painted Periwinkles.
>]
Beakers can have handles. See:
"The plastic ‘Sweet Dreams’ beaker designed by A H Woodfull for
Cadbury Bournvita in 1949. " With handle:
<http://www.shelfappeal.com/4-heaped-teaspoons/>
A definitely plastic Sweet Dreams version:
<http://plasticbydesign.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/bourne-vita.html>.
"Mug and saucer, cane-coloured earthenware." ?Originally called a
beaker. "The Bournvita original beaker and stand were first introduced
in September 1933." With handle:
<http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O176042/bournvita-mug-and-saucer-josia
h-wedgwood-and/>
"Beaker of earthenware." With handle:
<http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O149979/beaker-ravilious-eric/>
Three pages of hits returned to a Google search on "beaker of cocoa".
Several seem to be from C21 fiction, but two that are not include:
"He said he felt quite fit and went below deck [on a destroyer] for a
boiled egg, a beaker of cocoa, biscuits and a slice of bread."
-- Waiting For Hitler: Voices From Britain on the Brink of Invasion
By Midge Gillies, 2006 [via Google Books]
"I remember having to have a spoonfull of codliver oil, then a beaker of
cocoa to take the taste away.", from a forum post by 'flashbang' in
thread "What's your earliest memory of starting school?".
<http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=131817&page=3>
From looking through this writer's (a grandmother in at least her
fifties) other contributions to the forum, I've not found anything to
indicate anything at all U or aspirational about her or her background:
"My mum and dad used to say "stop rowering or i'll gi thee summat to
rower for"".
My own idea is that a beaker will be tall rather than squat, with mouth
possibly wider than base, and with or without handles. That will
include both those objects that are, or possibly mimic in some way, what
we now think of as laboratory beakers and some sturdy earthenware
objects that we might also call mugs.
If they are made of plastic I would call them "beaker" rather than
"mug". I think the usage by members of my UK generation is largely
influenced by the use of beakers, maybe initially earthenware but then,
in mid C20, largely plastic, to promote "sleep" drinks.
--
Iain Archer
>On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>
>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances* [Richard's
>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it is
>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>
>I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this
>drinking vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of
>her attempts to sound posh.
>
[>
>comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this
>drinking vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of
>her attempts to sound posh.
>
Previously on aue, in "Monticello" thread, Peter T. Daniels wrote on
Sun, 14 Dec 2014 at 15:23:00 GMT
>On Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:08:47 PM UTC-5, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> On 14/12/2014 19:12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Sunday, December 14, 2014 1:01:41 PM UTC-5, the Omrud wrote:
>> >> On 14/12/2014 14:38, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >>> On Sunday, December 14, 2014 2:50:37 AM UTC-5, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Afternoon tea" implies a certain refinement, such as china cups and
>> >>>> saucers rather than a mug,
>> >>>
>> >>> a beaker? (cf. Hyacinth Bucket.)
>> >>
>> >> A beaker doesn't have a handle, so it's not a mug or a cup.
>> >
>> > I'm pretty sure I can see Elizabeth holding her beaker by a handle,
>> > rather than trying to wrap a hand around a scalding-hot cylinder (as
>> > happened at the Thai restaurant Friday evening). My cousin thought
>> > to wrap his still-folded napkin around it in order to be able to hold it.
>>
>> I'll just turn the Omrud's sentence round for you: if it has a handle,
>> it isn't a beaker.
>
>It would never have occurred to me that a drinking vessel could be named
>with the word for a piece of laboratory glassware, if I didn't see in
>nearly every episode Hyacinth providing Elizabeth with a "beaker" in place
>of her Royal Doulton with the Hand-painted Periwinkles.
>]
Beakers can have handles. See:
"The plastic ‘Sweet Dreams’ beaker designed by A H Woodfull for
Cadbury Bournvita in 1949. " With handle:
<http://www.shelfappeal.com/4-heaped-teaspoons/>
A definitely plastic Sweet Dreams version:
<http://plasticbydesign.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/bourne-vita.html>.
"Mug and saucer, cane-coloured earthenware." ?Originally called a
beaker. "The Bournvita original beaker and stand were first introduced
in September 1933." With handle:
<http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O176042/bournvita-mug-and-saucer-josia
h-wedgwood-and/>
"Beaker of earthenware." With handle:
<http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O149979/beaker-ravilious-eric/>
Three pages of hits returned to a Google search on "beaker of cocoa".
Several seem to be from C21 fiction, but two that are not include:
"He said he felt quite fit and went below deck [on a destroyer] for a
boiled egg, a beaker of cocoa, biscuits and a slice of bread."
-- Waiting For Hitler: Voices From Britain on the Brink of Invasion
By Midge Gillies, 2006 [via Google Books]
"I remember having to have a spoonfull of codliver oil, then a beaker of
cocoa to take the taste away.", from a forum post by 'flashbang' in
thread "What's your earliest memory of starting school?".
<http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=131817&page=3>
From looking through this writer's (a grandmother in at least her
fifties) other contributions to the forum, I've not found anything to
indicate anything at all U or aspirational about her or her background:
"My mum and dad used to say "stop rowering or i'll gi thee summat to
rower for"".
My own idea is that a beaker will be tall rather than squat, with mouth
possibly wider than base, and with or without handles. That will
include both those objects that are, or possibly mimic in some way, what
we now think of as laboratory beakers and some sturdy earthenware
objects that we might also call mugs.
If they are made of plastic I would call them "beaker" rather than
"mug". I think the usage by members of my UK generation is largely
influenced by the use of beakers, maybe initially earthenware but then,
in mid C20, largely plastic, to promote "sleep" drinks.
--
Iain Archer
Charles Bishop
Jan 5, 2015, 11:24:52 AM1/5/15
to
In article <AN76QrLu...@gmail.com>,
Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 at
> 09:42:41:
> >I have read something along the lines of "a beaker of the needful"
> >probably in Wodehouse (so who knows when it was written-his works
> >spanned many decades). The meaning would have been a glass of an
> >alcoholic spirit of some sort.
>
> Possibly a nod to Keats's "O for a beaker full of the warm South".
Very likely, Wodehouse borrowed for many of his phrases. Something is
tugging at memory and "the blissful Hippocrene" is something he also
mentions with regard to a drink.
--
charles
Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 at
> 09:42:41:
> >I have read something along the lines of "a beaker of the needful"
> >probably in Wodehouse (so who knows when it was written-his works
> >spanned many decades). The meaning would have been a glass of an
> >alcoholic spirit of some sort.
>
> Possibly a nod to Keats's "O for a beaker full of the warm South".
Very likely, Wodehouse borrowed for many of his phrases. Something is
tugging at memory and "the blissful Hippocrene" is something he also
mentions with regard to a drink.
--
charles
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 5, 2015, 12:49:13 PM1/5/15
to
to think she would use, that word.
And Iain Archer has provided the most persuasive explanation of how it happened. He suggests it was an _archaism_.
Tony Cooper
Jan 5, 2015, 1:03:59 PM1/5/15
to
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 09:49:11 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Well, not really, it just needs that we understand that the character
>> Hyacinth sees it that way.
>
>But there must be a _reason_ for Hyacinth's use, or for Hyacinth's creator
>to think she would use, that word.
But it's *fiction*, Petey, therefore it must be a lie.
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Well, not really, it just needs that we understand that the character
>> Hyacinth sees it that way.
>
>But there must be a _reason_ for Hyacinth's use, or for Hyacinth's creator
>to think she would use, that word.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
the Omrud
Jan 5, 2015, 2:45:33 PM1/5/15
to
culture.
--
David
Ross
Jan 5, 2015, 3:35:58 PM1/5/15
to
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 5, 2015, 5:55:19 PM1/5/15
to
John Varela
Jan 5, 2015, 6:46:53 PM1/5/15
to
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 00:08:38 UTC, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
But wait! There's been a change.
--
John Varela
wrote:
--
John Varela
Ross
Jan 5, 2015, 7:04:05 PM1/5/15
to
Ross
Jan 5, 2015, 7:10:09 PM1/5/15
to
my life, that was for drinking from, and was called a "beaker". Probably
made of plastic, handle-less, and for the use of children. But I don't
think I have anything in my house now to which I'd apply that term.
So exactly how did the word, which according to OED was strictly literary
by the late 19th century, get reapplied to prosaic everyday objects some
decades later?
Ross
Jan 5, 2015, 7:17:12 PM1/5/15
to
Waiter: Was it animal or vegetable sir?
Egbert Fitzgerald: No.
Waiter: Well that leaves us mineral doesn't it sir. Now sir, was it a bit of half and half, a noggin of ale, a pipkin of porter, a stoop of stout, or a beaker of beer? (The Gay Divorcee, 1934)
Cuthbert J. Twillie: Milton, my brave, go upstairs and park your stoical presence outside the teepee of Mrs. Twillie. Number 8. I'll proceed to the local gin mill, and absorb a beaker of firewater. (My Little Chickadee, 1940)
Jack Randall: Drink?
Terry Lee: Tea if you don't mind.
Hotshot Charlie: I, too, will slosh a beaker or two of the native brew while I bask in the beauty of Mrs. Randall. (Terry and the Pirates (TV series), 1953)
Mack A. Damia
Jan 5, 2015, 7:36:33 PM1/5/15
to
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:17:09 -0800 (PST), Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
"Whumsical is more Whimsical than Whamsical."
- The Waiter (The Gay Divorcee, 1934)
--
- The Waiter (The Gay Divorcee, 1934)
--
Iain Archer
Jan 5, 2015, 8:46:10 PM1/5/15
to
Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote on Mon, 5 Jan 2015 at 16:10:06:
>So exactly how did the word, which according to OED was strictly literary
>by the late 19th century, get reapplied to prosaic everyday objects some
>decades later?
Possibly revived by archaeological work done and published in C20?
>So exactly how did the word, which according to OED was strictly literary
>by the late 19th century, get reapplied to prosaic everyday objects some
>decades later?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_%28archaeology%29
"In 1904 he introduced the term Beaker into the archaeological lexicon
to describe the late neolithic drinking vessels being found all over
Western Europe."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abercromby,_5th_Baron_Abercromby>
"Beaker people" only shows up in GB Ngrams from 1921.
--
Iain Archer
j...@mdfs.net
Jan 5, 2015, 10:15:39 PM1/5/15
to
the Omrud wrote:
> How about One Foot in the Grave? The Vicar of Dibley? The IT Crowd and
> Black Books?
You could give Auf Wiedersehen, Pet or Boys From The Black Stuff a go.
Or possibly Naked Video. A bit dated, but good demonstrations of the use
of the English language.
jgh
> How about One Foot in the Grave? The Vicar of Dibley? The IT Crowd and
> Black Books?
You could give Auf Wiedersehen, Pet or Boys From The Black Stuff a go.
Or possibly Naked Video. A bit dated, but good demonstrations of the use
of the English language.
jgh
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 5, 2015, 11:07:16 PM1/5/15
to
Richard Tobin
Jan 6, 2015, 10:25:06 AM1/6/15
to
In article <2c8bcb44-7bd7-4fff...@googlegroups.com>,
conductive than glass, realised they could make handleless vessels
that were usable for both hot and cold liquids, and wanted a name for
them. When plastic ceased to be fashionable, the name survived for
children's plastic cups.
-- Richard
Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>So exactly how did the word, which according to OED was strictly literary
>by the late 19th century, get reapplied to prosaic everyday objects some
>decades later?
I suspect that plastics manufacturers, observing that plastic is less
>So exactly how did the word, which according to OED was strictly literary
>by the late 19th century, get reapplied to prosaic everyday objects some
>decades later?
conductive than glass, realised they could make handleless vessels
that were usable for both hot and cold liquids, and wanted a name for
them. When plastic ceased to be fashionable, the name survived for
children's plastic cups.
-- Richard
Dr Nick
Jan 6, 2015, 1:53:26 PM1/6/15
to
bathroom - they were, essentially, non-glass glasses (good idea with
small boys in the house).
We had a promotional one with a little rhyme about brushing your teeth
on it:
Keep your happy smile
Sparkling clean and bright
Brush after breakfast
And last thing at night
These were the only things we had called beakers.
Dr Nick
Jan 6, 2015, 1:55:52 PM1/6/15
to
Ian Noble <ipn...@lose.sky.com.this> writes:
> On 4 Jan 2015 16:02:52 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Ian Noble filted:
>>>
>>>When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup" (po=
>>>ssibly hyphenated). It definitely isn't, in my usage, a beaker; like others=
>>> here, to me being a beaker precludes a handle (and the one my 2 year-old g=
>>>randdaughter currently uses is most definitely referred to by her parents a=
>>>s a cup). If the vessel has a handle, it's almost certainly a cup or a mug,=
>>> depending on size and shape. Except if it's made of glass or similar, and =
>>>not obviously a cup, it's a glass. Although it could be a glass beaker. Exc=
>>>ept when it's a tankard, of course.
>>>
>>>(And so on, with probably another eight or so layers of qualification I hav=
>>>en't thought of yet. And I'm ignoring the laboratory vessel; I don't have a=
>>> problem with that.)
>>
>>There seem to be two basic forms for a glass "tankard":
>>
>> http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/84559_large.jpg
>> http://splendids.com/images/products/large/58664.jpg
>>
>>Subtract the handle, and the canonical vessel becomes a "schooner":
>>
>> http://www.modadirect.com/uploads/6/3/4/4/6344494/5495653_orig.jpg
>>
>>A "mug" is invariantly stoneware....r
>
> In the UK, if you go into a more traditional, less "plastic" pub and
> order a pint, you may still get asked whether you "want it in a mug or
> a glass?" Or it's also quite OK to note what glasses are sitting
> behind the bar, and ask for the one you want explicitly.
Or "straight or handle".
> On 4 Jan 2015 16:02:52 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Ian Noble filted:
>>>
>>>When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup" (po=
>>>ssibly hyphenated). It definitely isn't, in my usage, a beaker; like others=
>>> here, to me being a beaker precludes a handle (and the one my 2 year-old g=
>>>randdaughter currently uses is most definitely referred to by her parents a=
>>>s a cup). If the vessel has a handle, it's almost certainly a cup or a mug,=
>>> depending on size and shape. Except if it's made of glass or similar, and =
>>>not obviously a cup, it's a glass. Although it could be a glass beaker. Exc=
>>>ept when it's a tankard, of course.
>>>
>>>(And so on, with probably another eight or so layers of qualification I hav=
>>>en't thought of yet. And I'm ignoring the laboratory vessel; I don't have a=
>>> problem with that.)
>>
>>There seem to be two basic forms for a glass "tankard":
>>
>> http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/84559_large.jpg
>> http://splendids.com/images/products/large/58664.jpg
>>
>>Subtract the handle, and the canonical vessel becomes a "schooner":
>>
>> http://www.modadirect.com/uploads/6/3/4/4/6344494/5495653_orig.jpg
>>
>>A "mug" is invariantly stoneware....r
>
> In the UK, if you go into a more traditional, less "plastic" pub and
> order a pint, you may still get asked whether you "want it in a mug or
> a glass?" Or it's also quite OK to note what glasses are sitting
> behind the bar, and ask for the one you want explicitly.
Or "straight or handle".
Dr Nick
Jan 6, 2015, 2:02:30 PM1/6/15
to
guide as well.
charles
Jan 6, 2015, 2:06:51 PM1/6/15
to
In article <87r3v73...@temporary-address.org.uk>, Dr Nick
Or "jug" or "straight"
--
From KT24 in Surrey
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
--
From KT24 in Surrey
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
Django Cat
Jan 6, 2015, 2:10:38 PM1/6/15
to
DC
--
musika
Jan 6, 2015, 2:35:42 PM1/6/15
to
--
Ray
UK
musika
Jan 6, 2015, 2:38:13 PM1/6/15
to
An' I know, cos I'm scum."
--
Ray
UK
the Omrud
Jan 6, 2015, 3:11:42 PM1/6/15
to
utterly useless as a guide to any accent found in Birmingham.
Execrable, they were. But I had to let it go, because I was enjoying it
so much.
There was only one character who actually sounded like a Brummy. I
looked him up - he's from Sunderland or Middlesbrough or some such place.
I speak as a child of the Industrial West Midlands
--
David
pensive hamster
Jan 6, 2015, 5:06:13 PM1/6/15
to
hacking the BBC website again ...)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29307916
22 September 2014
'Why is the Birmingham accent so difficult to mimic?
'With a second series of Birmingham-set drama Peaky Blinders in the
pipeline, the show's creator Steven Knight has admitted the city's
accent is "very difficult to get right".
[...]
'The Guardian called the accents "dodgy", while The Spectator's James
Dellingpole, who grew up just outside the city, wrote: "Some sound like
a melange of Liverpool and generic northern."
'Knight says that it is intentional. "I remember going to Birmingham City
matches as a kid and there were these other kids in Small Heath who
had their own odd, partly Scouse accent," he told the Birmingham Mail. ...'
the Omrud
Jan 6, 2015, 5:50:44 PM1/6/15
to
"Gambol" was such an ordinary word in my childhood that I only
discovered it was regional a couple of years ago. There are plenty of
others, of course. They should perhaps have included "bosting", which
means "excellent".
--
David
Mike L
Jan 6, 2015, 6:16:31 PM1/6/15
to
On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:35:36 +0000, musika <mUs...@NOSPAMexcite.com>
wrote:
"Jug" or "glass". I assume with no evidence that this kind of jug is
meant in "...and in me hand, a jug of punch."
--
Mike.
wrote:
meant in "...and in me hand, a jug of punch."
--
Mike.
pensive hamster
Jan 6, 2015, 6:39:37 PM1/6/15
to
On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:50:44 UTC, the Omrud wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 22:06, pensive hamster wrote:
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29307916
> On 06/01/2015 22:06, pensive hamster wrote:
> > 'Why is the Birmingham accent so difficult to mimic?
[...]
> There's a fault in the glossary. "Bye for now" is "Tara-abit".
> "Gambol" was such an ordinary word in my childhood that I only
> discovered it was regional a couple of years ago. There are plenty of
> others, of course. They should perhaps have included "bosting", which
> means "excellent".
The 'Brummie for beginners' glossary includes 'Mucker - if you really
> "Gambol" was such an ordinary word in my childhood that I only
> discovered it was regional a couple of years ago. There are plenty of
> others, of course. They should perhaps have included "bosting", which
> means "excellent".
like someone'.
I thought 'mucker' was fairly widespread. I am fairly sure I remember
Terry from the London-based cops and robbers TV series 'Minder'
often using the phrase 'me ol' mucker', meaning 'my old mate'.
The Urban Dictionary, on the other hand:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mucker
holds that it is a 'West Belfast term for friend or companion; can also
be a term of endearment.'
And someone called 'foclóirí cathrach' posted this comment:
'This term is not only used in West Belfast but in most nationalist
areas in the Six Counties/Northern Ireland.
'Probably comes from the Irish phrase 'mo chara' ('my friend'). '
Ross
Jan 6, 2015, 7:44:33 PM1/6/15
to
with-handle jugs that corn likker was sold in, frequently repurposed as
musical instruments.
The last lines with the "When I die..." request
Just lay me down in my native peat
With a jug of punch at my head and feet.
Full jugs seem to me more suitable grave goods than just glasses.
But maybe punch was not served this way?
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 3:29:53 AM1/7/15
to
On 4/01/2015 11:59 pm, Don Phillipson wrote:
>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>> [Richard's
>>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>>> is
>>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>
> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>
>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this drinking
>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>> attempts to sound posh.
>
> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass. The
>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>> [Richard's
>>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>>> is
>>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>
> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>
>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this drinking
>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>> attempts to sound posh.
>
> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
> range is thus from the everyday kitchen mug to the stainless steel
> tumbler formerly found in elegant bathrooms (for cleaning teeth.)
When I think "beaker", I think "plastic", although I admit the Beaker
People used stone. It may be picnic-ware or normal children's ware, but
the "mug" is a little above the "beaker" to my mind.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 3:31:13 AM1/7/15
to
On 5/01/2015 9:05 pm, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:37:29 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:37:29 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2015 15:59, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>>> [Richard's last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>>>>> is seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>>>
>>> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>>>
>>>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>>>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this drinking
>>>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>>>> attempts to sound posh.
>>>
>>> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>>> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
>>
>>>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>>> [Richard's last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle; it
>>>>> is seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>>>
>>> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>>>
>>>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>>>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this drinking
>>>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>>>> attempts to sound posh.
>>>
>>> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>>> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
>>
>> Well, er, no it isn't/wasn't. It may be a non-standard term, or it may
>> be a technical term, or it may be a term used by the aristocracy (with
>> which I am unaccountably unfamiliar) but it's not been in ordinary use
>> in my lifetime.
>
> I first met the word "beaker" when I was a young boy (1940s/50s). As far
> as I recall, in my experience the word went out of general use after
> that except in the laboratory sense.
>
> I can't be 100% certain, but I think that in my limited experince as a
> young bay a beaker was a plastic handleless drinking vessel. At that
> time the plastic would have been Bakelite. It is possible that my
> parents used the word "beaker" to distinguish it from a "glass" or a
> "cup" or "mug".
>
> I recall something similar to this, but less colourful:
>> be a technical term, or it may be a term used by the aristocracy (with
>> which I am unaccountably unfamiliar) but it's not been in ordinary use
>> in my lifetime.
>
> I first met the word "beaker" when I was a young boy (1940s/50s). As far
> as I recall, in my experience the word went out of general use after
> that except in the laboratory sense.
>
> I can't be 100% certain, but I think that in my limited experince as a
> young bay a beaker was a plastic handleless drinking vessel. At that
> time the plastic would have been Bakelite. It is possible that my
> parents used the word "beaker" to distinguish it from a "glass" or a
> "cup" or "mug".
>
> http://www.69aliverpool.co.uk/450-mottled-bakelite-tumbler-1940s
>
We never had one as kitschly beautiful as that.
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 3:31:44 AM1/7/15
to
On 5/01/2015 9:13 pm, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:05:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> young bay
> young boy
>
Thus disappears my image of you as a stag.
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:05:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> young bay
> young boy
>
Thus disappears my image of you as a stag.
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 3:34:26 AM1/7/15
to
On 5/01/2015 8:02 am, R H Draney wrote:
> Ian Noble filted:
>>
>> When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup" (po=
>> ssibly hyphenated). It definitely isn't, in my usage, a beaker; like others=
>> here, to me being a beaker precludes a handle (and the one my 2 year-old g=
>> randdaughter currently uses is most definitely referred to by her parents a=
>> s a cup). If the vessel has a handle, it's almost certainly a cup or a mug,=
>> depending on size and shape. Except if it's made of glass or similar, and =
>> not obviously a cup, it's a glass. Although it could be a glass beaker. Exc=
>> ept when it's a tankard, of course.
>>
>> (And so on, with probably another eight or so layers of qualification I hav=
>> en't thought of yet. And I'm ignoring the laboratory vessel; I don't have a=
>> problem with that.)
>
> There seem to be two basic forms for a glass "tankard":
>
> http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/84559_large.jpg
> http://splendids.com/images/products/large/58664.jpg
>
> Subtract the handle, and the canonical vessel becomes a "schooner":
>
> http://www.modadirect.com/uploads/6/3/4/4/6344494/5495653_orig.jpg
>
> A "mug" is invariantly stoneware....r
>
>
Looks like a small pint glass to me.
> Ian Noble filted:
>>
>> When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup" (po=
>> ssibly hyphenated). It definitely isn't, in my usage, a beaker; like others=
>> here, to me being a beaker precludes a handle (and the one my 2 year-old g=
>> randdaughter currently uses is most definitely referred to by her parents a=
>> s a cup). If the vessel has a handle, it's almost certainly a cup or a mug,=
>> depending on size and shape. Except if it's made of glass or similar, and =
>> not obviously a cup, it's a glass. Although it could be a glass beaker. Exc=
>> ept when it's a tankard, of course.
>>
>> (And so on, with probably another eight or so layers of qualification I hav=
>> en't thought of yet. And I'm ignoring the laboratory vessel; I don't have a=
>> problem with that.)
>
> There seem to be two basic forms for a glass "tankard":
>
> http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/84559_large.jpg
> http://splendids.com/images/products/large/58664.jpg
>
> Subtract the handle, and the canonical vessel becomes a "schooner":
>
> http://www.modadirect.com/uploads/6/3/4/4/6344494/5495653_orig.jpg
>
> A "mug" is invariantly stoneware....r
>
>
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 3:36:18 AM1/7/15
to
On 5/01/2015 9:02 am, Ian Noble wrote:
>
> In the UK, if you go into a more traditional, less "plastic" pub and
> order a pint, you may still get asked whether you "want it in a mug or
> a glass?" Or it's also quite OK to note what glasses are sitting
> behind the bar, and ask for the one you want explicitly.
Last time I was in the UK, it was "a handle or a glass?".
> On 4 Jan 2015 16:02:52 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Ian Noble filted:
>>>
>>> When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup" (po=
>>> ssibly hyphenated). It definitely isn't, in my usage, a beaker; like others=
>>> here, to me being a beaker precludes a handle (and the one my 2 year-old g=
>>> randdaughter currently uses is most definitely referred to by her parents a=
>>> s a cup). If the vessel has a handle, it's almost certainly a cup or a mug,=
>>> depending on size and shape. Except if it's made of glass or similar, and =
>>> not obviously a cup, it's a glass. Although it could be a glass beaker. Exc=
>>> ept when it's a tankard, of course.
>>>
>>> (And so on, with probably another eight or so layers of qualification I hav=
>>> en't thought of yet. And I'm ignoring the laboratory vessel; I don't have a=
>>> problem with that.)
>>
>> There seem to be two basic forms for a glass "tankard":
>>
>> http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/84559_large.jpg
>> http://splendids.com/images/products/large/58664.jpg
>>
>> Subtract the handle, and the canonical vessel becomes a "schooner":
>>
>> http://www.modadirect.com/uploads/6/3/4/4/6344494/5495653_orig.jpg
>>
>> A "mug" is invariantly stoneware....r
For certain values of "invariantly".
>
>> Ian Noble filted:
>>>
>>> When my kids were growing up, that would have been called a "sippy cup" (po=
>>> ssibly hyphenated). It definitely isn't, in my usage, a beaker; like others=
>>> here, to me being a beaker precludes a handle (and the one my 2 year-old g=
>>> randdaughter currently uses is most definitely referred to by her parents a=
>>> s a cup). If the vessel has a handle, it's almost certainly a cup or a mug,=
>>> depending on size and shape. Except if it's made of glass or similar, and =
>>> not obviously a cup, it's a glass. Although it could be a glass beaker. Exc=
>>> ept when it's a tankard, of course.
>>>
>>> (And so on, with probably another eight or so layers of qualification I hav=
>>> en't thought of yet. And I'm ignoring the laboratory vessel; I don't have a=
>>> problem with that.)
>>
>> There seem to be two basic forms for a glass "tankard":
>>
>> http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/84559_large.jpg
>> http://splendids.com/images/products/large/58664.jpg
>>
>> Subtract the handle, and the canonical vessel becomes a "schooner":
>>
>> http://www.modadirect.com/uploads/6/3/4/4/6344494/5495653_orig.jpg
>>
>> A "mug" is invariantly stoneware....r
>
> In the UK, if you go into a more traditional, less "plastic" pub and
> order a pint, you may still get asked whether you "want it in a mug or
> a glass?" Or it's also quite OK to note what glasses are sitting
> behind the bar, and ask for the one you want explicitly.
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 3:42:37 AM1/7/15
to
On 5/01/2015 3:37 am, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 10:44:37 AM UTC-5, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 04/01/2015 15:37, LFS wrote:
>>>> infallible guide to BrE usage. I'm trying to think of a comparable US
>>>> sitcom, but I confess I rarely watch the things; but I don't imagine
>>>> they're infallible guides to AmE, either.
>>>
>>> I've been trying to think what sitcom would be more helpful viewing for
>>> Mr Daniels in his quest to understand the subtle nuances of British
>>> culture. The classic Hancock and Terry and June are probably a bit
>>> dated. Last of the Summer Wine and Birds of a Feather might offer
>>> suitable fodder for discussion. Any other suggestions?
>>
>> The better ones are rather out of date as you say. Whatever Happened to
>> the Likely Lads; Porridge; Fawlty Towers, perhaps. The Young Ones?
>
> *Fawlty Towers* is some 20 years earlier than KUA. I find its mockery
> of the second-language-challenged character distasteful
>
I've seen five of them, although I won't claim I liked them all.
> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 10:44:37 AM UTC-5, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 04/01/2015 15:37, LFS wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2015 14:07, Katy Jennison wrote:
>>>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>>> [Richard's last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle;
>>>>> it is seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>>>
>>>> Strangely, "Keeping Up Appearances" has never been ranked as an
>>>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>>> [Richard's last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle;
>>>>> it is seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>>>
>>>> infallible guide to BrE usage. I'm trying to think of a comparable US
>>>> sitcom, but I confess I rarely watch the things; but I don't imagine
>>>> they're infallible guides to AmE, either.
>>>
>>> I've been trying to think what sitcom would be more helpful viewing for
>>> Mr Daniels in his quest to understand the subtle nuances of British
>>> culture. The classic Hancock and Terry and June are probably a bit
>>> dated. Last of the Summer Wine and Birds of a Feather might offer
>>> suitable fodder for discussion. Any other suggestions?
>>
>> The better ones are rather out of date as you say. Whatever Happened to
>> the Likely Lads; Porridge; Fawlty Towers, perhaps. The Young Ones?
>
> *Fawlty Towers* is some 20 years earlier than KUA. I find its mockery
> of the second-language-challenged character distasteful
>
>> How about One Foot in the Grave? The Vicar of Dibley? The IT Crowd and
>> Black Books?
>
> I have heard of exactly two of the eight ones you mention.
>> How about One Foot in the Grave? The Vicar of Dibley? The IT Crowd and
>> Black Books?
>
>
I've seen five of them, although I won't claim I liked them all.
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 3:44:43 AM1/7/15
to
and general "potteries" accents than to Liverpool, and yet I can see the
connection.
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 3:46:12 AM1/7/15
to
On 5/01/2015 12:44 am, Katy Jennison wrote:
>
> I'm not a great watcher of comedy. For the job in hand, and this might
> at first sight seem a strange choice, I nominate "Dr Who".
>
Are you saying that is not comedy?
>
> I'm not a great watcher of comedy. For the job in hand, and this might
> at first sight seem a strange choice, I nominate "Dr Who".
>
Are you saying that is not comedy?
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 3:49:16 AM1/7/15
to
On 4/01/2015 11:23 pm, the Omrud wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 15:18, Charles Bishop wrote:
>> In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
>> PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
>> handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
>> what you're doing above.
>
> To be fair, I believe that Peter is referring back to the fact that
> every BrE poster here insisted that it's always called a mug in BrE.
> This is contradicted by an eposide of KUA. I need to know the context,
> but as others have said, Hyacinth Bucket is not a reliable source for BrE.
>
As has already been mentioned, a great deal of the humour is derived
from her misuse of words in a failed attempt to sound posh.
> On 04/01/2015 15:18, Charles Bishop wrote:
>> In article <92215a2e-a986-49aa...@googlegroups.com>,
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>> [Richard's
>>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle;
>>> it is
>>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>
>> I don't (not being an expert) understand why people, in this case you,
>>
>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>> [Richard's
>>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a handle;
>>> it is
>>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>
>> PTD, do this. You would call it a mug because of its shape an having
>> handles. Why do you insist that's the only name for it? I assume that's
>> what you're doing above.
>
> To be fair, I believe that Peter is referring back to the fact that
> every BrE poster here insisted that it's always called a mug in BrE.
> This is contradicted by an eposide of KUA. I need to know the context,
> but as others have said, Hyacinth Bucket is not a reliable source for BrE.
>
As has already been mentioned, a great deal of the humour is derived
from her misuse of words in a failed attempt to sound posh.
James Hogg
Jan 7, 2015, 4:41:36 AM1/7/15
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 4/01/2015 11:59 pm, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>> [Richard's
>>>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a
>>>> handle; it
>>>> is
>>>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>
>> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>>
>>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this
>>> drinking
>>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>>> attempts to sound posh.
>>
>> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass. The
>> range is thus from the everyday kitchen mug to the stainless steel
>> tumbler formerly found in elegant bathrooms (for cleaning teeth.)
>
> When I think "beaker", I think "plastic", although I admit the Beaker
> People used stone.
They used clay.
> On 4/01/2015 11:59 pm, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2015 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> It's incontrovertible. In last evening's *Keeping Up Appearances*
>>>> [Richard's
>>>> last day before "early retirement"; Hyacinth dragged by giant dog], the
>>>> "beaker" in which Elizabeth is given her coffee clearly has a
>>>> handle; it
>>>> is
>>>> seen in at least two shots. That should make it a "mug."
>>
>> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%Obqw.442992$7A5.4...@fx17.am4...
>>
>>> I've never seen KUA, although I'm familiar with the main thrust of the
>>> comedy. Are you saying that somebody in the programme calls this
>>> drinking
>>> vessel a "beaker"? if it's Hyacinth then it's probably one of her
>>> attempts to sound posh.
>>
>> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass. The
>> range is thus from the everyday kitchen mug to the stainless steel
>> tumbler formerly found in elegant bathrooms (for cleaning teeth.)
>
> When I think "beaker", I think "plastic", although I admit the Beaker
> People used stone.
> It may be picnic-ware or normal children's ware, but
> the "mug" is a little above the "beaker" to my mind.
--
Jack Chuge
Jan 7, 2015, 5:49:38 AM1/7/15
to
Richard Tobin 於 2015-1-5 0:38 寫道:
> In article <m8bpsk$l73$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>
> In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a handle-less
> plastic "glass".
>
> Since then I have only heard it in the context of archaeology.
>
> -- Richard
>
In China, we got a word "锺" to describe the handle-less drinking
vessel, from ancient days. Nowadays, a vessel with a handle is also
called "锺".
--
Jack
No buts,no ifs,what's past has already gone.You may suck it all the time.
> In article <m8bpsk$l73$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
>
> I am a native speaker of British English, living in Britain.
>
>> Not posh but bourgeois. Beaker is (or was 1850-1975) the standard
>> British term for any drinking vessel that cannot be called a glass.
>
>
> In the 1960s and 70s I only ever heard the word used for a handle-less
> plastic "glass".
>
> Since then I have only heard it in the context of archaeology.
>
> -- Richard
>
In China, we got a word "锺" to describe the handle-less drinking
vessel, from ancient days. Nowadays, a vessel with a handle is also
called "锺".
--
Jack
No buts,no ifs,what's past has already gone.You may suck it all the time.
charles
Jan 7, 2015, 7:04:23 AM1/7/15
to
In article <53cdc020-4060-4a35...@googlegroups.com>, Ross
we were discussing a beer glass. Punch is something different
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jan 7, 2015, 8:13:42 AM1/7/15
to
On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 15:39:35 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
<pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:50:44 UTC, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 06/01/2015 22:06, pensive hamster wrote:
>
>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29307916
>> > 'Why is the Birmingham accent so difficult to mimic?
>[...]
>> There's a fault in the glossary. "Bye for now" is "Tara-abit".
>> "Gambol" was such an ordinary word in my childhood that I only
>> discovered it was regional a couple of years ago. There are plenty of
>> others, of course. They should perhaps have included "bosting", which
>> means "excellent".
>
>The 'Brummie for beginners' glossary includes 'Mucker - if you really
>like someone'.
>
>I thought 'mucker' was fairly widespread. I am fairly sure I remember
>Terry from the London-based cops and robbers TV series 'Minder'
>often using the phrase 'me ol' mucker', meaning 'my old mate'.
>
>The Urban Dictionary, on the other hand:
>
>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mucker
>
>holds that it is a 'West Belfast term for friend or companion; can also
>be a term of endearment.'
>
As an Englisman living near Belfast I've noticed a phenomenon that is
<pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:50:44 UTC, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 06/01/2015 22:06, pensive hamster wrote:
>
>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29307916
>> > 'Why is the Birmingham accent so difficult to mimic?
>[...]
>> There's a fault in the glossary. "Bye for now" is "Tara-abit".
>> "Gambol" was such an ordinary word in my childhood that I only
>> discovered it was regional a couple of years ago. There are plenty of
>> others, of course. They should perhaps have included "bosting", which
>> means "excellent".
>
>The 'Brummie for beginners' glossary includes 'Mucker - if you really
>like someone'.
>
>I thought 'mucker' was fairly widespread. I am fairly sure I remember
>Terry from the London-based cops and robbers TV series 'Minder'
>often using the phrase 'me ol' mucker', meaning 'my old mate'.
>
>The Urban Dictionary, on the other hand:
>
>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mucker
>
>holds that it is a 'West Belfast term for friend or companion; can also
>be a term of endearment.'
>
probably not unique to this area. People use words and phrases which
they believe are unique to the area but which I already know from
elsewhere in Britain. The reason seems to be that the speech they hear
or read from elsewhere (radio, TV, moveies) tends to be less colloqiual
and informal, or when it is colloquial in nature the scriptwriters have
been careful not to use words that might not be understood everywhere.
Listeners and readers are therefore unaware that some word they assume
is purely local is actually used in other places and in some cases has
widespread use.
>And someone called 'foclóirí cathrach' posted this comment:
>
>'This term is not only used in West Belfast but in most nationalist
>areas in the Six Counties/Northern Ireland.
>
>'Probably comes from the Irish phrase 'mo chara' ('my friend'). '
>
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jan 7, 2015, 11:53:21 AM1/7/15
to
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:31:41 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 5/01/2015 9:13 pm, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:05:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>> young bay
>> young boy
>>
>
>Thus disappears my image of you as a stag.
Sorry. My antlers have just dropped off.
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 5/01/2015 9:13 pm, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:05:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>> young bay
>> young boy
>>
>
>Thus disappears my image of you as a stag.
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 7:16:25 PM1/7/15
to
On 8/01/2015 12:53 am, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:31:41 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/01/2015 9:13 pm, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:05:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> young bay
>>> young boy
>>>
>>
>> Thus disappears my image of you as a stag.
>
> Sorry. My antlers have just dropped off.
>
BTW, apologies for my transitive use of "disappear". I just couldn't
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:31:41 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/01/2015 9:13 pm, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:05:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> young bay
>>> young boy
>>>
>>
>> Thus disappears my image of you as a stag.
>
> Sorry. My antlers have just dropped off.
>
think of the right word.
Robert Bannister
Jan 7, 2015, 7:18:13 PM1/7/15
to
even then.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 7, 2015, 11:47:40 PM1/7/15
to
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 7:16:25 PM UTC-5, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 8/01/2015 12:53 am, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:31:41 +0800, Robert Bannister
> > <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/01/2015 9:13 pm, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:05:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> >>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> young bay
> >>> young boy
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thus disappears my image of you as a stag.
> >
> > Sorry. My antlers have just dropped off.
> >
> BTW, apologies for my transitive use of "disappear". I just couldn't
> think of the right word.
"Transitive" isn't the right word. It's just a subject-verb inversion
> On 8/01/2015 12:53 am, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:31:41 +0800, Robert Bannister
> > <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/01/2015 9:13 pm, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:05:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> >>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> young bay
> >>> young boy
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thus disappears my image of you as a stag.
> >
> > Sorry. My antlers have just dropped off.
> >
> BTW, apologies for my transitive use of "disappear". I just couldn't
> think of the right word.
triggered by the "Thus."
Mark Brader
Jan 8, 2015, 2:57:07 AM1/8/15
to
Robert Bannister:
Don't sweat it; we won't disappear you for it just yet.
--
Mark Brader "People with whole brains, however, dispute
Toronto this claim, and are generally more articulate
m...@vex.net in expressing their views." -- Gary Larson
>>> Thus disappears my image of you as a stag.
Peter Duncanson:
>> Sorry. My antlers have just dropped off.
Robert Bannister:
> BTW, apologies for my transitive use of "disappear". I just couldn't
> think of the right word.
What transitive use? *This* is a transitive use:
> think of the right word.
Don't sweat it; we won't disappear you for it just yet.
--
Mark Brader "People with whole brains, however, dispute
Toronto this claim, and are generally more articulate
m...@vex.net in expressing their views." -- Gary Larson
Wayne Brown
Jan 8, 2015, 2:42:05 PM1/8/15
to
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 22:47:10 in article <26bdbac8-b796-40d2...@googlegroups.com> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 3:58:11 PM UTC-5, pensive hamster wrote:
>
>> I agree, I think 'Dr Who' is greatly over-rated. I used to watch it in
>> the 1960s WIWAL, but it was never as good as 'Z Cars' or 'Bonanza'.
>> It was mostly the sink plungers on the Daleks that undermined my
>> 'willing suspension of disbelief'. And The Doctor's silly scarf.
>
> Lots of the equipment on the original *Star Trek*, such as the phasers,
> was made of salt shakers purchased at modern design shops.
If you look closely at photographs of Dr. McCoy's medical instruments
you can see the little holes in the ends of some of them for the salt
to come out.
--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>
Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)
> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 3:58:11 PM UTC-5, pensive hamster wrote:
>
>> I agree, I think 'Dr Who' is greatly over-rated. I used to watch it in
>> the 1960s WIWAL, but it was never as good as 'Z Cars' or 'Bonanza'.
>> It was mostly the sink plungers on the Daleks that undermined my
>> 'willing suspension of disbelief'. And The Doctor's silly scarf.
>
> Lots of the equipment on the original *Star Trek*, such as the phasers,
> was made of salt shakers purchased at modern design shops.
If you look closely at photographs of Dr. McCoy's medical instruments
you can see the little holes in the ends of some of them for the salt
to come out.
--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>
Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)
Wayne Brown
Jan 8, 2015, 2:56:26 PM1/8/15
to
of mine. "'Allo 'Allo!" also is a favorite, but a person could get
a pretty strange idea of usage from that one. Oh, and "Yes Minister"
is another good one.
Katy Jennison
Jan 8, 2015, 3:11:10 PM1/8/15
to
English from them would be at a severe disadvantage among the yoof of today.
--
Katy Jennison
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages