Blasphemous Jew
Tony Cooper
talking about anti-Semiticism in Shakespeare's time. He mentioned
that the witches' brew in MacBeth calls for "liver of a blaspheming
Jew".
This is the first time that I'd ever heard this. A look at Bartlby at
http://www.bartleby.com/70/4141.html shows this to be true.
"MacBeth" was covered in my high school English course, and in one of
the Lit courses I took in college. I'm sure that neither text
included this. I have a book around here somewhere with "MacBeth" and
some other plays, but I can't find it.
I wonder if this reference is commonly edited out of some texts, or if
I just don't remember it. I plan to stop by a bookstore tomorrow and
skim some books to see if the phrase is edited out of them.
pondlife
in all of them, including the Cambridge edition that my class has been using
this year.
Chris Kern
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> posted the following:
>I was listening to a radio program today in which a speaker was
>talking about anti-Semiticism in Shakespeare's time. He mentioned
>that the witches' brew in MacBeth calls for "liver of a blaspheming
>Jew".
I don't see why this would be considered an anti-semitism, unless
we're just considering the word "Jew" to be anti-semitic.
-Chris
Simon R. Hughes
Because all Jews were blasphemers, not believing that Jesus is
the Messiah. "Blaspheming" is a non-restrictive adjective, in
other words.
But what about that "anti-Semiticism"?
--
Simon R. Hughes
david56
> I was listening to a radio program today in which a speaker was
> talking about anti-Semiticism in Shakespeare's time. He mentioned
> that the witches' brew in MacBeth calls for "liver of a blaspheming
> Jew".
One article too many, or it won't scan properly as whatever sort of
stanza it is. "liver of blaspheming Jew". Dum de-Dum de-Dum de-Dum.
> This is the first time that I'd ever heard this. A look at Bartlby at
> http://www.bartleby.com/70/4141.html shows this to be true.
>
> "MacBeth" was covered in my high school English course, and in one of
> the Lit courses I took in college. I'm sure that neither text
> included this. I have a book around here somewhere with "MacBeth" and
> some other plays, but I can't find it.
What is it with AUE folk and the spelling of Macbeth? I've corrected
this here several times, including once earlier this week.
> I wonder if this reference is commonly edited out of some texts, or if
> I just don't remember it. I plan to stop by a bookstore tomorrow and
> skim some books to see if the phrase is edited out of them.
It's familiar to me so I've certainly seen it or heard it in the
play.
--
David
=====
Dena Jo
> I was listening to a radio program today in which a speaker was
> talking about anti-Semiticism in Shakespeare's time. He mentioned
> that the witches' brew in MacBeth calls for "liver of a
> blaspheming Jew".
>
> This is the first time that I'd ever heard this. A look at
> Bartlby at http://www.bartleby.com/70/4141.html shows this to be
> true.
Can you cite the act, scene, and line so I can quickly look at my
edition?
--
Dena Jo
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Have I confused you? Go here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/emailme.htm
Tony Cooper
I should have phrased my question to better fit my questioning. I
have no doubt that texts with the full version have always been
available. I don't really doubt that texts with the full version are
used in teaching today.[1]
What I wonder is if the texts used in American schools in the 50s to
70s used some expurgated version that deleted or changed this line.
Did some text book editor decide that "Our students really don't need
to be exposed to this kind of controversy."?
[1] Nor do I doubt that some future text book editor, at the prodding
of some group of political correctness advocates, will purge the
phrase in the future. They will probably also take out any discussion
of the "weird sisters" since that now means "lesbians" to some. The
reference to "toe of frog" will have to go since the line brings
"cheese-eating surrender monkeys" to mind.
PETA would have the whole of the recipe struck down. The
Right-To-Lifers would have a go at "Finger of birth-strangled babe".
The homophobic groups must object to "Live elves and fairies in a
ring," with the implied suggestion of really naughty games. Death
penalty objectors would want the "murderer's gibbet" ousted.
The FDA (Federal Drug Administration) will ask for the brew to be
retired for further clinical trials, and the Canadians will offer it
on the internet at cheaper prices.
Tony Cooper
>On 25 Mar 2004, Tony Cooper posted thus:
>
>> I was listening to a radio program today in which a speaker was
>> talking about anti-Semiticism in Shakespeare's time. He mentioned
>> that the witches' brew in MacBeth calls for "liver of a
>> blaspheming Jew".
>>
>> This is the first time that I'd ever heard this. A look at
>> Bartlby at http://www.bartleby.com/70/4141.html shows this to be
>> true.
>
>Can you cite the act, scene, and line so I can quickly look at my
>edition?
Act 4, Scene 1
Dena Jo
> Act 4, Scene 1
Thank you.
It's there in my Oxford Shakespeare.
Tony Cooper
>On 26 Mar 2004, Tony Cooper posted thus:
>
>> Act 4, Scene 1
>
>Thank you.
>
>It's there in my Oxford Shakespeare.
I'm really thinking of school textbooks.
Simon R. Hughes
> I'm really thinking of school textbooks.
Congratulations! The more you practise, the longer you'll be able
to keep on going. But knock it off for the rest of today; you
have to take these things slowly.
--
Simon R. Hughes
Donna Richoux
There's an article here on The Merchant of Venice, and anti-Semitism in
Shakespeare, that says that has happened.
http://www.uh.edu/hti/curriculum_units/2002/v06/04.pdf
Censorship in literature is a good enrichment lesson regarding
Shakespeare, especially since The Merchant of Venice involves
anti-Semitism. This is by no means the only controversial
Shakespearean play taught in the high school classroom. There are
some English textbooks that censor a line in Macbeth because it may
be offensive. In the witches' incantation in Act 4, scene 1, two
lines are omitted: "Liver of blaspheming Jew, Gall of goat, and
slips of yew" (Riverside Shakespeare, 1376). A lesson on censorship
and the reasons why certain materials are censored would be a
valuable lesson in today's high school classroom.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
david56
> david56 <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Tony Cooper typed thus:
> >
> >> I was listening to a radio program today in which a speaker was
> >> talking about anti-Semiticism in Shakespeare's time. He mentioned
> >> that the witches' brew in MacBeth calls for "liver of a blaspheming
> >> Jew".
> >
> >One article too many, or it won't scan properly as whatever sort of
> >stanza it is. "liver of blaspheming Jew". Dum de-Dum de-Dum de-Dum.
> >
>
> Yer sayin' OF gets a stress? Most odd, wot?
Not at all odd. It's a doggerel type of rhyme, with that stress
pattern throughout until the last two lines:
Scale of dragon; tooth of wolf;
Witches' mummy; maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark;
Root of hemlock digg'd I' the dark;
Liver of blaspheming Jew;
Gall of goat; and slips of yew
Sliver'd in the moon's eclipse;
Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips;
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,-
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For th'ingredients of our caldron.
--
David
=====
david56
I don't think I misunderstood your thrust. It's possible that I have
been exposed to a Bowdlerised version which doesn't bring up the
Jew's liver (which I wouldn't remember, not having memorised the
play), I have certainly seen, read or heard that line in the play at
some time.
To be frank, there are other issues to be considered here distinct
from any antisemitism. What happened to the rest of the Jew? I
count murder worse than bigotry. Then there are the other poor
unfortunates whose parts have found their way into the marmite:
Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips;
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,-
I wonder how the Tartar eats without his lips. Then again, here's a
Tartar's with no nose; how does he smell? The babe won't miss his
finger, what with being birth-strangled and all, but who has brought
the drab to account for her actions? That's what I wants to know.
--
David
=====
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> To be frank, there are other issues to be considered here distinct
> from any antisemitism. What happened to the rest of the Jew? I
> count murder worse than bigotry. Then there are the other poor
> unfortunates whose parts have found their way into the marmite:
>
> Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips;
> Finger of birth-strangled babe
> Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,-
>
> I wonder how the Tartar eats without his lips.
Carefully, and avoiding any sucking action.
> Then again, here's a Tartar's with no nose; how does he smell?
Absolutely vile.
--
Cheers,
"Boom! Boom!" Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
david56
> On 26 Mar 2004, david56 wrote
>
> -snip-
>
> > To be frank, there are other issues to be considered here distinct
> > from any antisemitism. What happened to the rest of the Jew? I
> > count murder worse than bigotry. Then there are the other poor
> > unfortunates whose parts have found their way into the marmite:
> >
> > Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips;
> > Finger of birth-strangled babe
> > Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,-
> >
> > I wonder how the Tartar eats without his lips.
>
> Carefully, and avoiding any sucking action.
>
> > Then again, here's a Tartar's with no nose; how does he smell?
>
> Absolutely vile.
I will send you my "straight man" invoice directly.
--
David
=====
Tony Cooper
wrote:
This seems to prove that musing leads to interesting things. What's
said above is pretty much what I suspected.
I'm sure some of the readers here may not have been aware of the lines
and some might not have been aware the lines were censored in some
texts. Off-topic forays and musings can lead us down some interesting
paths.
Alan Jones
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1gb9l3r.1uxaehip7mzw7N%tr...@euronet.nl...
[...]
> .....There are
> some English textbooks that censor a line in Macbeth because it may
> be offensive. In the witches' incantation in Act 4, scene 1, two
> lines are omitted: "Liver of blaspheming Jew, Gall of goat, and
How does the bowdleriser keep the couplet pattern going? If "yew" is cut,
the next line doesn't make sense. If it stays, another rhyme for it has to
be found. Is there a total re-write of this section - not just the offending
"Jew" line?
Alan Jones
Harvey Van Sickle
I think the answer's in there: "In the witches' incantaton...two lines
are omitted..."
I would take that to mean that's it not a rewrite, but that the couplet
is dropped entirely.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ross Howard
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrought:
>On 26 Mar 2004, Alan Jones wrote
>
>>
>> "Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:1gb9l3r.1uxaehip7mzw7N%tr...@euronet.nl...
>> [...]
>>> .....There are
>>> some English textbooks that censor a line in Macbeth because it
>>> may be offensive. In the witches' incantation in Act 4, scene 1,
>>> two lines are omitted: "Liver of blaspheming Jew, Gall of goat,
>>> and slips of yew" (Riverside Shakespeare, 1376). [...]
>>
>> How does the bowdleriser keep the couplet pattern going? If "yew"
>> is cut, the next line doesn't make sense. If it stays, another
>> rhyme for it has to be found. Is there a total re-write of this
>> section - not just the offending "Jew" line?
>
>I think the answer's in there: "In the witches' incantaton...two lines
>are omitted..."
>
>I would take that to mean that's it not a rewrite, but that the couplet
>is dropped entirely.
But Alan's right. If you drop the Jew/yew couplet like this:
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
Then it makes the root of hemlock both "digg'd in the dark" and
"silver'd in the moon's eclipse", which is just silly -- although why
worry about screwing up the poetry when impressionable young minds
have to be protected?
--
Ross Howard
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> What is it with AUE folk and the spelling of Macbeth? I've corrected
> this here several times, including once earlier this week.
It's the written equivalent of not saying the name of the play among
theatrical folk except during performance.
Long ago I was on the fringes of a semi-professional production of
the play. The cast, when offstage, pronounced the name as if it was
spelled "McBeth." During performance, they gave "Mac" its full
value. I don't recall one slip.
"McBeth" and "MacBeth" are both fairly common surnames in the US.
"Macbeth" appears to be rare. I searched switchboard.com, which is
not case sensitive, for "Macbeth," and 49 of the first 50 came up
"MacBeth." I'd have been suspicious if not for the one exception.
--
Bob Lieblich
Not very Hibernian
Harvey Van Sickle
> david56 wrote:
> [ ... ]
> "McBeth" and "MacBeth" are both fairly common surnames in the US.
> "Macbeth" appears to be rare. I searched switchboard.com, which
> is not case sensitive, for "Macbeth," and 49 of the first 50 came
> up "MacBeth." I'd have been suspicious if not for the one
> exception.
Sliding sideways...
19th century alphabetised lists that I work with ignore the "a" in such
names -- the lists go "MacBeth/McBeth/MacCall/McCall" (and not
"MacBeth/MacCall/McBeth/McCall"). In other words, the sorting was
logical rather than mechanical.
Amongst such lists, though, one encounters a third form in which the
"Mac-X" is apostrophised -- as in "M'Intosh". (Thus "M'Intosh"
appeared in the sequence along with McIntosh, MacIntosh and
Mackintosh.) This was easily dealt with, as the alphabetiser placed it
in the list where it logically would be found.
(Incidentally, has the "M'" form disappeared entirely? I've certainly
never encountered it outside of historical lists.)
But a mechanical rather than logical sorting gives us this sort of
sequence:
MacBeth
MacCall
MacIntosh
Mackintosh
McBeth
McCall
McIntosh
Is this now how name lists are sorted, or are most sorting programmes
more sophisticated than I'm probably giving them credit for?
oYnot
"Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PkZ8c.14623$Cu5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
They could always change it to "liver of blaspheming Sue," like "runaround
Sue." I doubt if the kids would notice.
R H Draney
>
>On 26 Mar 2004, Robert Lieblich wrote
>
>> "Macbeth" appears to be rare. I searched switchboard.com, which
>> is not case sensitive, for "Macbeth," and 49 of the first 50 came
>> up "MacBeth." I'd have been suspicious if not for the one
>> exception.
>
>Sliding sideways...
>
>19th century alphabetised lists that I work with ignore the "a" in such
>names -- the lists go "MacBeth/McBeth/MacCall/McCall" (and not
>"MacBeth/MacCall/McBeth/McCall"). In other words, the sorting was
>logical rather than mechanical.
There's yet another form for a small subset of names...the tartan I'm closest to
being permitted to wear is a lowland clan from a place once called Maccus's
Well...present day spelling of the name is "Maxwell"....r
Evan Kirshenbaum
> 19th century alphabetised lists that I work with ignore the "a" in
> such names -- the lists go "MacBeth/McBeth/MacCall/McCall" (and not
> "MacBeth/MacCall/McBeth/McCall"). In other words, the sorting was
> logical rather than mechanical.
Do they really simply ignore the "a" or do they sort all the "Mc"s and
"Macs" before the rest of the "M"s? My mom's index card files always
had a separate divider between "L" and "M" for them.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Dr Robin Bignall
>On 25 Mar 2004, Tony Cooper posted thus:
>
>> I was listening to a radio program today in which a speaker was
>> talking about anti-Semiticism in Shakespeare's time. He mentioned
>> that the witches' brew in MacBeth calls for "liver of a
>> blaspheming Jew".
>>
>> This is the first time that I'd ever heard this. A look at
>> Bartlby at http://www.bartleby.com/70/4141.html shows this to be
>> true.
>
>Can you cite the act, scene, and line so I can quickly look at my
>edition?
It's in act 4, scene 1, about line 23:
THIRD WITCH: Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witch's mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark, 25
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Sliver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangl'd babe 30
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,—
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our caldron.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Don Aitken
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Harvey Van Sickle <harve...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> 19th century alphabetised lists that I work with ignore the "a" in
>> such names -- the lists go "MacBeth/McBeth/MacCall/McCall" (and not
>> "MacBeth/MacCall/McBeth/McCall"). In other words, the sorting was
>> logical rather than mechanical.
>
>Do they really simply ignore the "a" or do they sort all the "Mc"s and
>"Macs" before the rest of the "M"s? My mom's index card files always
>had a separate divider between "L" and "M" for them.
So did the ones I used to use. But, rather to my surprise, the current
West London phone book combines all the "Mac" prefixes - McDonald and
Macdonald appearing together. There is a note about it in the front
matter - "M', Mc and Mac are all treated as Mac, the next letter
determines the position" (sic). But they are not segregated from other
names; Macey comes between McEnroe and McFadden.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
The Grammer Genious
> <...>
> I wonder if this reference is commonly edited out of some texts, <...>
Why would it be? It was in my high school textbook ("Adventures
in Literature").
Just because a person happens to be Jewish, that doesn't mean he
or she cannot blaspheme.
\\P. Schultz
Tony Cooper
<schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
> > <...>
>> I wonder if this reference is commonly edited out of some texts, <...>
>
>Why would it be? It was in my high school textbook ("Adventures
>in Literature").
You're a little late. It's already been stated in the thread that
some texts did censor the lines. Your's is an interesting phrasing,
though. It says "If my book included it, there's no reason any other
wouldn't."
>Just because a person happens to be Jewish, that doesn't mean he
>or she cannot blaspheme.
Again, interesting phrasing. "...happens to be Jewish...". Sounds
like "happened to be in the mall last Tuesday." Rather trivializes
Jewishness.
Avi Jacobson
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v8h860l66li5t251h...@4ax.com...
It was in mine, in Philadelphia, ca. 1967.
Avi Jacobson
Blaspheming Jew
Avi Jacobson
> like "happened to be in the mall last Tuesday." Rather trivializes
> Jewishness.
Was it George Carlin who did the "happens to be black...happens to be gay"
routine?
CyberCypher
I'm sure you're thinking about the former prime minister of Malaysia,
who routinely mentioned that Soros "happened to be Jewish" and that his
former #2 happened to be gay (or at least happened to practice sodomy
on the side), all of which just happen to be capital crimes for
Muslims.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
R H Draney
>
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:36:34 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
><kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>Do they really simply ignore the "a" or do they sort all the "Mc"s and
>>"Macs" before the rest of the "M"s? My mom's index card files always
>>had a separate divider between "L" and "M" for them.
>
>So did the ones I used to use. But, rather to my surprise, the current
>West London phone book combines all the "Mac" prefixes - McDonald and
>Macdonald appearing together. There is a note about it in the front
>matter - "M', Mc and Mac are all treated as Mac, the next letter
>determines the position" (sic). But they are not segregated from other
>names; Macey comes between McEnroe and McFadden.
That's the rule I was always taught to follow...it was foremost in my mind when
I tried to convert a ten-thousand-name file of address labels to a
field-oriented database, and had to program the conversion program to deduce
internal capitalization since the original was all uppercase...had a lot of
trouble with the name Machan, as I remember....
Then there's the story of the insurance company that sent out a form letter to a
"Mr. Intl B. MacHines"....r
Tony Cooper
wrote:
Dunno. I haven't heard that one.
Charles Riggs
>On 26 Mar 2004, Tony Cooper posted thus:
>
>> Act 4, Scene 1
>
>Thank you.
>
>It's there in my Oxford Shakespeare.
Thank you.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net
Charles Riggs
Evan Kirshenbaum
No, but my understanding is that the intended reading was that just
because a person happens to be Jewish, that means he or she cannot
*not* blaspheme. It's non-restrictive. Not "a Jew who also
blasphemes" but "a Jew who, by definition, blasphemes". The blasphemy
being the assertion that Jesus was not the messiah.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |All tax revenue is the result of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |holding a gun to somebody's head.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Not paying taxes is against the law.
|If you don't pay your taxes, you'll
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |be fined. If you don't pay the fine,
(650)857-7572 |you'll be jailed. If you try to
|escape from jail, you'll be shot.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke
Simon R. Hughes
> The Grammer Genious <schu...@erols.com> writes:
>
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> > <...>
>>> I wonder if this reference is commonly edited out of some texts,
>>> <...>
>>
>> Why would it be? It was in my high school textbook ("Adventures in
>> Literature").
>>
>> Just because a person happens to be Jewish, that doesn't mean he or
>> she cannot blaspheme.
>
> No, but my understanding is that the intended reading was that just
> because a person happens to be Jewish, that means he or she cannot
> *not* blaspheme. It's non-restrictive. Not "a Jew who also
> blasphemes" but "a Jew who, by definition, blasphemes". The blasphemy
> being the assertion that Jesus was not the messiah.
I guess I'm killfiled by more people than I thought.
--
Simon R. Hughes
Mark Brader
> > 19th century alphabetised lists that I work with ignore the "a" in
> > such names -- the lists go "MacBeth/McBeth/MacCall/McCall" (and not
> > "MacBeth/MacCall/McBeth/McCall").
Evan Kirshenbaum:
> Do they really simply ignore the "a" or do they sort all the "Mc"s and
> "Macs" before the rest of the "M"s?
A third arrangement is common today: to alphabetize "Mc" as if spelled
"Mac", in the middle of the M's. My reference shelf includes the Concise
Columbia Encyclopedia, the Macmillan Encyclopedia, Webster's New World
Encyclopedia, the Canadian Encyclopedia, and the Facts on File Encyclo-
pedia of the 20th Century (in case this is beginning to sount ridiculous,
I should point out that all of these are one-volume publications); four
out of five use this arrangement. For example, in the WNWE, the first
10 M entries are M (the letter); M (the Roman numeral); MA; Maas; Maazel;
Mabuse; McAdam, John Loudon; macadamia; McAllen (Texas); and Macao.
The exception is the, um, FOFE20C, which alphabetizes Mac- and Mc- as
spelled. So also does last year's Toronto phone book (I haven't got
this year's at home yet). But it has the curious feature that these
names are written variously as one word or two words, not distinguished
for sorting purposes -- I'm guessing that it depends on how the name was
put into the computer originally. Thus for example there are about 20
listings with surname MCARTHUR, then one MC ARTHUR, then about 20 more
MCARTHURs, then one MC ARTHUR, then 3 more MCARTHURs, and so on.
There are also cross-references to alternate spellings, and these also
vary between having a space after MC or not, but in this case most of
them *do* have it (in the headword, that is). And this is more significant
because in alphabetizing the cross-reference, the space *is* taken as
significant. So for example these are all together
MC QUARRIE - - - ---See also MACQUARRIE
MC QUEEN - - - ---See also MACQUEEN
MC RAE - - - ---See also MACCRAE MACRAE MCCRAE MCCREA
MC RITCHIE - - - ---See also MACRITCHIE
MC TAGGART - - - ---See also MACTAGGART
MC TAVISH - - - ---See also MACTAVISH
as part of a block before all the Mc- listings. But within the Mc-
listings there are a few more, like this:
MCNEILLIE - - - ---See also MCNEELY
Sheesh.
What I have rendered here as " - - - ---See" is actually a normal inter-
word space, then, *without* further space added between characters, three
hyphens followed by an em dash and the word "See".
--
Mark Brader "The design of the lowercase e in text faces
Toronto produces strong feelings (or should do so)."
m...@vex.net -- Walter Tracy
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Donna Richoux
> But Alan's right. If you drop the Jew/yew couplet like this:
>
> Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
> Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
> Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
> Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
> Liver of blaspheming Jew,
> Gall of goat, and slips of yew
> Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
> Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
> Finger of birth-strangled babe
> Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
> Make the gruel thick and slab:
> Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
> For the ingredients of our cauldron.
>
> Then it makes the root of hemlock both "digg'd in the dark" and
> "silver'd in the moon's eclipse", which is just silly -- although why
> worry about screwing up the poetry when impressionable young minds
> have to be protected?
>
Robin pasted in a quote that had "Sliver'd". I just went to the First
Folio site ( http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/shakespeare/folio/ ) and it
also has "slivered":
1552: Roote of Hemlocke, digg'd i'th' darke:
1553: Liuer of Blaspheming Iew,
1554: Gall of Goate, and Slippes of Yew,
1555: Sliuer'd in the Moones Ecclipse:
In any case, you're right that dropping the two lines changes the
meaning. But since no one is actually going to repeat the recipe, does
it matter much?
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Richard Sabey
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:36:34 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> >Harvey Van Sickle <harve...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >
> >> 19th century alphabetised lists that I work with ignore the "a" in
> >> such names -- the lists go "MacBeth/McBeth/MacCall/McCall" (and not
> >> "MacBeth/MacCall/McBeth/McCall"). In other words, the sorting was
> >> logical rather than mechanical.
"Logical"? Only if you understand the logic of normalising Mc to Mac
and you consider this more logical than not normalising so.
> So did the ones I used to use. But, rather to my surprise, the current
> West London phone book combines all the "Mac" prefixes <snip>
This has an unfortunate effect. UK phone books used to be laid out 3
columns per page, and the surname was printed in each entry. Now, the
surname is printed in each column's first entry, but (apart from that)
is omitted from an entry if its same surname is the same as the
previous entry's.
To save paper, phone books are laid out 4 columns per page. Because
of the narrower columns, most entries whose surnames are printed need
two lines each. This happens a lot among the Macs/Mcs, where many an
entry agrees with the previous one in its primary key, but needs its
surname printed because it's a MAC following a MC or vice versa.
Another issue is how to treat surnames which have spaces. Current UK
phone books say "DE and DE LA are arranged together, so that all DE's
will be together and all DE LA's will be together, and so on". The
phone book then gives the example below, which follows this unusual rule:
DAYVILLE
DE ANGEL
DE SILVA
DE LA BERE
DE LA RUE
Note DE SILVA before DE LA BERE. Why should the particle be treated as
a separate field from the rest of the surname? In fact, the phone book
uses a different algorithm. All the DE LA's come between DE KEYZER and
DE LEMOS. DE WINNE precedes DEACKES. This shows that the particle is
not, after all, treated as a separate field.
The ordering takes account of the first space, which is good. However,
it ignores the second space: DE LALAND is between DE LA CRUZ and
DE LA MERE. This looks to me like the result of a bug.
Ross Howard
wrought:
If you're a Turk or a Tartar, it may matter -- why not lose that
couplet too, while they're about it?
And the National Geographic's sneaky redaction of the "offending"
couplet (see separate thread), improperly marked with an unbracketed
ellision, does matter, I think.
--
Ross Howard
Robert Bannister
> Long ago I was on the fringes of a semi-professional production of
> the play. The cast, when offstage, pronounced the name as if it was
> spelled "McBeth." During performance, they gave "Mac" its full
> value. I don't recall one slip.
You seem to be saying that some people distinguish, in pronunciation,
between the (mainly Irish) "Mc" names and the (mainly Scottish) "Mac"
ones. I find this very odd. I would hesitate, in this forum, to claim
that "most" people pronounce Mc and Mac the same, so now I'm asking: Who
does, in fact, pronounce them differently?
NB In names where the stress in on the first syllable, as in Mackintosh,
this would be different.
--
Rob Bannister
Micheal MacThomais
<harve...@ntlworld.com>:
> Sliding sideways...
>
> 19th century alphabetised lists that I work with ignore the "a" in such
> names -- the lists go "MacBeth/McBeth/MacCall/McCall" (and not
> "MacBeth/MacCall/McBeth/McCall"). In other words, the sorting was
> logical rather than mechanical.
>
> Amongst such lists, though, one encounters a third form in which the
> "Mac-X" is apostrophised -- as in "M'Intosh". (Thus "M'Intosh"
> appeared in the sequence along with McIntosh, MacIntosh and
> Mackintosh.) This was easily dealt with, as the alphabetiser placed it
> in the list where it logically would be found.
One theory I heard was that the M' form arose from use of an
apostrophe instead of a superscript c (because it was easier for hand
typesetting).
> (Incidentally, has the "M'" form disappeared entirely? I've certainly
> never encountered it outside of historical lists.)
No, it's still usede (as is the superscript c form). And of course
Gaels regard all these forms as funny English spellings of Gaelic
names, and make no distinction between the four of the,
Sometimes we get irritated by the English strange habit of
miscapitalising - MacIntosh instead of MacinTosh or Macintosh,,
MacNab instead of MacnAb or Macnab MacnAb (the capital is optional
but if used should be on the T and the A respectively in those two
names). Equally irritating are things like Macdonald instead of
MacDonald, where Donald is a proper name and the D should be
capitalised.. Of course most people using names like this aren't Gaels
these days, and they can spell their names how they like, but
irritating the Gaels who are forced by minions of the state to use an
Anglicisation of their names it just adds insult to injury when you
put the capital in the wrong place.
M.
[my real email address has no no in it]
Robert Bannister
> be offensive. In the witches' incantation in Act 4, scene 1, two
> lines are omitted: "Liver of blaspheming Jew, Gall of goat, and
> slips of yew" (Riverside Shakespeare, 1376). A lesson on censorship
> and the reasons why certain materials are censored would be a
> valuable lesson in today's high school classroom.
>
I wonder about this. I realise that for Shakespeare 'blaspheming Jew'
was probably a standard phrase meaning that all Jews were blasphemers by
definition, but I wonder how many modern readers would take it that way.
The obvious meaning (to a modern reader who knows nothing about the
Christian/Jew thing) would be "a Jew who is a blasphemer against his own
religion", or does "blaspheme" only apply to Christians?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Again, interesting phrasing. "...happens to be Jewish...". Sounds
> like "happened to be in the mall last Tuesday." Rather trivializes
> Jewishness.
That's crazy talk. "Happens to be" does not trivialise.
--
Rob Bannister
CyberCypher
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>
>> Long ago I was on the fringes of a semi-professional production
>> of the play. The cast, when offstage, pronounced the name as if
>> it was spelled "McBeth." During performance, they gave "Mac" its
>> full value. I don't recall one slip.
>
> You seem to be saying that some people distinguish, in
> pronunciation, between the (mainly Irish) "Mc" names and the
> (mainly Scottish) "Mac" ones. I find this very odd. I would
> hesitate, in this forum, to claim that "most" people pronounce Mc
> and Mac the same, so now I'm asking: Who does, in fact, pronounce
> them differently?
I do. "McBeth" I pronounce [mIk 'bEth] and "Macbeth" gets the /a/ of
"cat" instead of the [I].
CyberCypher
But the only people who use it are those who want their audiences to
believe that they are not being racist, male chauvanist piggish,
antiSemitic, or name-dropperist as in the case of the obvious
antiSemite Mahathir, former prime minister of Malaysia. So maybe you're
right to say that it doesn't trivialize but, in fact, paradoxically
emphasizes a trait that one is trying to play down.
"My best friend, who, by the way, just happens to be the great grandson
fourteen times removed of Abraham Lincoln and the chief of police here,
wouldn't like to know that you've stopped me for driving on the wrong
side of the road, officer".
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Tony Cooper wrote:
Exactly. I've been waiting for *someone* to challenge that moron who's
so concerned about the Jews' feelings but can't even spell "anti-Semitism."
C**per happens to be a moron, but this doesn't trivialize moronicity.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Tony Cooper
Rey! That's almost clever! Twisting "moronity" into "moronicity" to
parallel my typo. Your parents would be proud. See what they missed
by not coming to see you for the first time until after 20-plus years?
Yes sir, Old Dewlaps cranks along with 40 or 50 dull-as-dirt posts and
then pops out a zinger. Good for you.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> > Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> Again, interesting phrasing. "...happens to be Jewish...". Sounds
> >> like "happened to be in the mall last Tuesday." Rather trivializes
> >> Jewishness.
> > That's crazy talk. "Happens to be" does not trivialise.
> But the only people who use it are those who want their audiences
> to believe that they are not being racist, male chauvanist piggish,
> antiSemitic, or name-dropperist as in the case of the obvious
> antiSemite Mahathir, former prime minister of Malaysia.
With all due respect, Franke my friend, your statement is nonsense. You
are equating Joe Blow with a genuine anti-Semite, Mahathir.
> So maybe you're right to say that it doesn't trivialize but, in fact,
> paradoxically emphasizes a trait that one is trying to play down.
No, and perhaps. It all depends on who's talking and with what
intention. There are -- strictly guessing -- 95 to 98 times out of a
100 when "XYZ happens to be Jewish" neither trivializes nor emphasizes
that person's Jewishness but is merely an innocent and neutral (i.e., a
non-anti-Semitic) and useful bit of information to explain whatever.
Let's look at two near-synonymous terms for "happens to be":
*coincidentally* and *by chance*.
Michael, who happens to be Jewish....
Michael, who, coincidentally, is Jewish....
Michael, who, by chance, is Jewish....
These three sentences basically mean the same, right? In most cases,
anyone who objects to such statements as being trivializing or
anti-Semitic or negatively emphasizing Jewishness is either morbidly
hyper-sensitive, a paranoid Jew(ess), or a busybodying non-Jew. The
last is similar to those busybodying do-gooders who, uninvited, make it
their business to fight for the rights of groups they don't belong to
(race, sex, religion, etc.).
Funny, so far we haven't heard from *Jewish* AUEers whether they -- to
whom it should concern -- consider "happens to be Jewish" trivializes
their Jewishness or negatively emphasizes it. Lemme play the devil's
advocate and ask three of them for their reactions to the following
sentences; the veracity of the statements is irrelevant.
- Bob Lieblich, who happens to be Jewish, loves
Wagner's "Die Walküre."
- Dena Jo, who, coincidentally, is Jewish, has the
hots for rich Arab studs.
- Evan, who, by chance, is Jewish, is intrigued by
the architectural beauty of Catholic cathedrals.
Do you three feel I'm trivializing your Jewishness? Am I being
anti-Semitic? Do I negatively emphasize your Jewishness? *I* don't
think so, but I eagerly await your comments.
In all fairness, that phrase *can* be used derogatorily or
sarcastically, as in: "Sam Rosenzweig, who (just) happens to be Jewish
{wink, wink}, lost yet another of his decrepit buildings to fire.
Jewish lightning strikes again!"
However, in almost all cases, "happens to be Jewish" and "coincidentally
is Jewish" and "by chance is Jewish" are harmless and merely informative.
I rest my case.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
---------------------------------------
"Like most here, I rarely read Rey. ...
I recommend that you avoid Rey's posts.
They're not worth it."
-- John Dean, 21 November 2003
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Rey (I've got a cluster-fucking migraine) Aman wrote:
Is this psycho C**per an unfunny asshole, or what?
> >Robert Bannister wrote:
> >> Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> > Again, interesting phrasing. "...happens to be Jewish...". Sounds
> >> > like "happened to be in the mall last Tuesday." Rather trivializes
> >> > Jewishness.
> >> That's crazy talk. "Happens to be" does not trivialise.
> >Exactly. I've been waiting for *someone* to challenge that moron who's
> >so concerned about the Jews' feelings but can't even spell "anti-Semitism."
> >
> >C**per happens to be a moron, but this doesn't trivialize moronicity.
> Rey! That's almost clever! Twisting "moronity" into "moronicity"
> to parallel my typo.
Typo, my ass. Ignorance! Like your 5x _anti-semitisim_ "typo."
> Your parents would be proud. See what they missed by not
> coming to see you for the first time until after 20-plus years?
If you were not such a fuckin' stupid asshole, I'd tell you when they
visited me. Go back and snoop compulsively and you'll find the answer
on my site.
> Yes sir, Old Dewlaps cranks along with 40 or 50 dull-as-dirt
> posts and then pops out a zinger. Good for you.
How do you like *this* zinger, you gourd-nosed monkey-face?
"The only good C**per is a dead C**per."
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
david56
Macbeth and McBeth would be different pronunciations for me. The two
syllables in Macbeth have about the same level of stress, and the Mac
is fully sounded.
--
David
=====
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote:
>
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> > Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> >> Again, interesting phrasing. "...happens to be Jewish...".
>> >> Sounds like "happened to be in the mall last Tuesday." Rather
>> >> trivializes Jewishness.
>
>> > That's crazy talk. "Happens to be" does not trivialise.
>
>> But the only people who use it are those who want their audiences
>> to believe that they are not being racist, male chauvanist
>> piggish, antiSemitic, or name-dropperist as in the case of the
>> obvious antiSemite Mahathir, former prime minister of Malaysia.
>
> With all due respect, Franke my friend, your statement is
> nonsense. You are equating Joe Blow with a genuine anti-Semite,
> Mahathir.
Mahathir says what he says on purpose, you are correct, and he is
disingenuous about it. I think Joe Blow is not always fully aware of
why he uses the structure, "who happens to be X". Sometimes it's too
be informative because the information is relevant to the topic at
hand; in that case I say it's a stylistically inappropriate
structure. Sometimes it's because Joe just doesn't know how to fit
that information in appropriately.
>> So maybe you're right to say that it doesn't trivialize but, in
>> fact, paradoxically emphasizes a trait that one is trying to play
>> down.
>
> No, and perhaps. It all depends on who's talking and with what
> intention.
Okay, there's the crux of the matter, then: with what intention. I
can buy that and agree that my characterization was too sweeping.
I'll have to say that what I said is only *sometimes* true, not
always true.
If the information that follows "who happens to be" or "who by chance
is" or "who coincidently is" is relevant to the discussion, then it
is not trivializing or emphasizing but merely parenthesizing. My
feeling about parenthetical remarks is that they can be dispensed
with. If the information is important, then it should be integrated
into the main fabric of the discussion instead of hanging there like
a loose thread for someone to pull and unravel what one has been
saying. Is that reasonable?
I don't like PC, but I do buy the argument that whatever does no work
in a sentence or paragraph ought to be excised as one would any
neoplasm. But that is because I have been heavily influenced by
Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_, by good poetry, and by
excellent short stories, all of which either prescribe or demonstrate
that unnecessary words are best omitted.
Dena Jo
> Funny, so far we haven't heard from *Jewish* AUEers whether they
> -- to whom it should concern -- consider "happens to be Jewish"
> trivializes their Jewishness or negatively emphasizes it.
The thought would never have crossed my mind.
> - Dena Jo, who, coincidentally, is Jewish, has the
> hots for rich Arab studs.
Only the good-looking ones with really big ... bank accounts.
--
Dena Jo
Unlikely to perceive anti-Semitism, even when it does exist.
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Have I confused you? Go here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/emailme.htm
Tony Cooper
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>CyberCypher wrote:
>
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> > Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> >> Again, interesting phrasing. "...happens to be Jewish...". Sounds
>> >> like "happened to be in the mall last Tuesday." Rather trivializes
>> >> Jewishness.
>
>> > That's crazy talk. "Happens to be" does not trivialise.
>No, and perhaps. It all depends on who's talking and with what
>intention. There are -- strictly guessing -- 95 to 98 times out of a
>100 when "XYZ happens to be Jewish" neither trivializes nor emphasizes
>that person's Jewishness but is merely an innocent and neutral (i.e., a
>non-anti-Semitic) and useful bit of information to explain whatever.
>
>Let's look at two near-synonymous terms for "happens to be":
>*coincidentally* and *by chance*.
>
>
>These three sentences basically mean the same, right?
No, not at all. What you have written are not sentences. The balance
of the sentences determine sameness or lack of sameness. If we say
the rest of the sentence in each case is "is in favor of the security
barriers in Jerusalem" the meaning changes in each sentence.
"Michael, who happens to be Jewish, is in favor of the security
barriers in Jerusalem." can mean that Michael's viewpoint is
influenced by the fact that he's a Jew.
"Michael, who, coincidentally, is Jewish is in favor of the security
barriers in Jerusalem." means there is some other factor involved
somewhere else in the context that makes his Jewishness a coincidence
in this discussion. The meaning used in the first sentence is lost
because the emphasis changes to the coincidental factor.
"Michael, who, by chance, is Jewish is in favor of the security
barriers in Jerusalem." means that Michael's opinion was selected by
some random process. The meaning used in the first sentence is,
again, lost because the emphasis has changed to the selection of
Michael as the person quoted.
In the first complete sentence, there may or may not be trivialization
involved. The context of the complete discussion would reveal this.
The writer is trivializing if there is a "sure he does" theme to the
discussion and not trivializing if he is referring to Michael as part
of a group being interviewed.
You can make all three (complete) sentences basically the same if you
place them in the right context. Make the discussion about students
in a university class being asked their opinions, and they *might* be
the same. The first would indicate that a Jewish class member was
made this comment, the second would indicate that there is some other
issue involved (which has to be developed in context), and the third
indicates that the randomly selected spokesman is Jewish. There's no
real "sameness", but at least the meanings don't jump out as being
different.
Any way you do it, though, you need complete sentences and additional
context to make any kind of judgement about the sameness of the terms
or if trivialization might be involved. I'm surprised you'd try to
make a case with fragments.
> In most cases,
>anyone who objects to such statements as being trivializing or
>anti-Semitic or negatively emphasizing Jewishness is either morbidly
>hyper-sensitive, a paranoid Jew(ess), or a busybodying non-Jew. The
>last is similar to those busybodying do-gooders who, uninvited, make it
>their business to fight for the rights of groups they don't belong to
>(race, sex, religion, etc.).
In most cases, when someone introduces a new aspect that's presented
on equal footing, the presenter is weaseling in a meaning that changes
the original statement to suit the presenter's argument. The use of
"...trivializing or anti-Semitic or negatively emphasizing..." puts
trivializing and anti-Semitic on equal footing and implies one is part
and parcel to the other.
To trivialize his Jewishness means no more than to trivialize the
*fact* that he is Jewish in the context where this appeared.
Do you really think you can do this and not have it noted as a blatant
attempt to shift the meaning?
>Funny, so far we haven't heard from *Jewish* AUEers whether they -- to
>whom it should concern -- consider "happens to be Jewish" trivializes
>their Jewishness or negatively emphasizes it. Lemme play the devil's
>advocate and ask three of them for their reactions to the following
>sentences; the veracity of the statements is irrelevant.
>
> - Bob Lieblich, who happens to be Jewish, loves
> Wagner's "Die Walküre."
> - Dena Jo, who, coincidentally, is Jewish, has the
> hots for rich Arab studs.
> - Evan, who, by chance, is Jewish, is intrigued by
> the architectural beauty of Catholic cathedrals.
>
>Do you three feel I'm trivializing your Jewishness? Am I being
>anti-Semitic? Do I negatively emphasize your Jewishness? *I* don't
>think so, but I eagerly await your comments.
The inserted weasel pup has become full-grown and fragments have grown
to full sentences.
>However, in almost all cases, "happens to be Jewish" and "coincidentally
>is Jewish" and "by chance is Jewish" are harmless and merely informative.
>
>I rest my case.
Rey Amans, who happens to have a Ph.D., has presented a case wherein
he calls sentence fragments sentences and calls non-synonymous usages
near-synonymous.
Does the above trivialize the fact that you have a Ph.D.? Context
determines.
Z. R. Doe
>CyberCypher wrote:
>> So maybe you're right to say that it doesn't trivialize but, in fact,
>> paradoxically emphasizes a trait that one is trying to play down.
As sometimes used, the phrase non-subtly points out a supposedly telling detail
in a way that the speaker and his or her intended audience think is subtle.
>Let's look at two near-synonymous terms for "happens to be":
>*coincidentally* and *by chance*.
>
> Michael, who happens to be Jewish....
> Michael, who, coincidentally, is Jewish....
> Michael, who, by chance, is Jewish....
>
>These three sentences basically mean the same, right? In most cases,
>anyone who objects to such statements as being trivializing or
>anti-Semitic or negatively emphasizing Jewishness is either morbidly
>hyper-sensitive, a paranoid Jew(ess), or a busybodying non-Jew. The
>last is similar to those busybodying do-gooders who, uninvited, make it
>their business to fight for the rights of groups they don't belong to
>(race, sex, religion, etc.).
As a Jew, I find that the busybodying do-gooders are trying to rid the language
of the perfectly acceptable word "Jew" and are prescribing the euphemistic
"happens to be Jewish" instead. (The same people insist that people do not
"die," they "pass away.")
The phrase "happens to be..." may also be used as a means of politely
distancing oneself from the person one is speaking about. The "...unlike us" is
understood.
I would not expect to hear this if the speaker were black:
-My editor, who happens to be black, ...
I would not expect to hear this if the speaker were Jewish:
-My editor, who happens to be Jewish, ...
I would not expect to hear these at all, about members of majority groups:
-The president of ABC, who happens to be a man, ...
-The goalie, who happens to be white, ...
-Kenneth Lay, who happens to be Christian, ...
I would not say:
-The man who sat next to me on the plane happened to be Jewish.
I would say:
-The man who happened to sit next to me on the plane was Jewish.
> - Bob Lieblich, who happens to be Jewish, loves
> Wagner's "Die Walküre."
> - Dena Jo, who, coincidentally, is Jewish, has the
> hots for rich Arab studs.
> - Evan, who, by chance, is Jewish, is intrigued by
> the architectural beauty of Catholic cathedrals.
>
>Do you three feel I'm trivializing your Jewishness? Am I being
>anti-Semitic? Do I negatively emphasize your Jewishness? *I* don't
>think so, but I eagerly await your comments.
These are, of course, examples of the neutral, descriptive usage.
>In all fairness, that phrase *can* be used derogatorily or
>sarcastically, as in: "Sam Rosenzweig, who (just) happens to be Jewish
>{wink, wink}, lost yet another of his decrepit buildings to fire.
>Jewish lightning strikes again!"
That's an unusually heavy-handed example of the derogatory usage.
Wood Avens
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>I wonder about this. I realise that for Shakespeare 'blaspheming Jew'
>was probably a standard phrase meaning that all Jews were blasphemers by
>definition, but I wonder how many modern readers would take it that way.
>The obvious meaning (to a modern reader who knows nothing about the
>Christian/Jew thing) would be "a Jew who is a blasphemer against his own
>religion", or does "blaspheme" only apply to Christians?
Don't you think that the average modern reader (or member of modern
audience) would simply think it was just another bit of out-dated
Shakespearian language which you'd only need to bother about if you
were studying the play for a test, and that anyway it's all of a piece
with eye of newt and root of mandrake and the rest - nasty things
which might not exist anyway, and only there to make the witches look
horrible?
--
Wood Avens
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Rolleston
>Pathetic T*ny "Please Shit On Me!" C**per wrote:
>>
>> Rey! That's almost clever! Twisting "moronity" into "moronicity"
>> to parallel my typo.
>
>Typo, my ass. Ignorance! Like your 5x _anti-semitisim_ "typo."
An unwilled misspelling would be a typo, but there are levels
of volition. Concealed forces operate beyond the reach of the
conscious mind. The unconscious tugs this way and that. One
time we may write "Peter Daniels", another time the transpositional
form "Altered Penis" [http://tinyurl.com/233g9]. Equally, the fingers
may hammer out "Reinhold Aman", or they may stumble under the
influence of hidden psychological pressures: "Horned Animal".
By extreme good fortune, my name consists of useless letters.
R.
Edwin Petree
news:ma7e60hc7vcpl0ari...@4ax.com:
> By extreme good fortune, my name consists of useless letters.
Are they useless in all languages?
Rolleston
In the enumerable infinite set of all languages, past and present,
natural and artificial, a rude word anagrammatically equivalent to
my name must exist. I cannot say whether it will disgust as much
as the permuted form "Peter Daniels".
R.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
[...]
> >Let's look at two near-synonymous terms for "happens to be":
> >*coincidentally* and *by chance*.
[snippage by C**per]
> >These three sentences basically mean the same, right?
> No, not at all. What you have written are not sentences. The
> balance of the sentences determine sameness or lack of sameness.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OY! Just shut your stupid mouth, peasant.
[snipped the usual C**perian diarrhetic load of bullshit]
> Rey Amans, who happens to have a Ph.D., has presented a case wherein
> he calls sentence fragments sentences and calls non-synonymous usages
> near-synonymous.
What an asshole. This irrelevant and bluffing garbage from an
illiterate jerk that [sic] commits more _faux pas_ than anyone else in
AUE: He's ignorant of spelling and has to use a spelling checker; he's
ignorant of grammar (see above); and he's ignorant of semantics. In
addition to the above, his recent howler concerning the meaning of
"predilection" is perfect proof of his anti-semanticistisim.
CyberCypher
[...]
R.I.P. Tony Cooper,
aka "AUE Pooper",
who, trying his hand
but not his brain,
which was, alas,
in Disneyland,
to write a bit
about semantics,
grammar, and the like,
drowned in his own shit.
Flush.
Robert Bannister
I think you've hit the nail on the head: emphasises a trait, whilst
simultaneously playing it down.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote on 27 Mar 2004:
>>>piggish, antiSemitic, or name-dropperist as in the case of the
>>>obvious antiSemite Mahathir, former prime minister of Malaysia.
>>
>>With all due respect, Franke my friend, your statement is
>>nonsense. You are equating Joe Blow with a genuine anti-Semite,
>>Mahathir.
>
>
> Mahathir says what he says on purpose, you are correct, and he is
> disingenuous about it.
I find all this quite amusing: for us down here, Mahathir is primarily
anti-Australian, with more than a touch of anti-Western thrown in. I
don't doubt that he is anti-Semitic too, since he is anti everything
that does not agree with him, but I was surprised you two picked on this
aspect of his peculiar Weltanschauung.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Any way you do it, though, you need complete sentences and additional
> context to make any kind of judgement about the sameness of the terms
> or if trivialization might be involved. I'm surprised you'd try to
> make a case with fragments.
Whilst I agree that complete sentences are necessary, I cannot agree
with your conclusions about the above sentences. I find the third
example slightly odd, but see no essential difference in meaning between
the first two.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
The first examples would seem plausible to me if accompanied by "too" or
"also". The others would need to be in a special context - "ABC" would
need to be a largely women's association; the goalie would need to be in
a team called something like "The African-American All-Stars". I don't
know whether Kenneth Lay is a real person or not, so I can't comment.
I see the "happens to be" as equivalent to "as it turns out, is" or "as
you may be surprised to hear, is".
--
Rob Bannister
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote:
>
>> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote on 27 Mar 2004:
>
>>>>piggish, antiSemitic, or name-dropperist as in the case of the
>>>>obvious antiSemite Mahathir, former prime minister of Malaysia.
>>>
>>>With all due respect, Franke my friend, your statement is
>>>nonsense. You are equating Joe Blow with a genuine anti-Semite,
>>>Mahathir.
>>
>> Mahathir says what he says on purpose, you are correct, and he is
>> disingenuous about it.
>
> I find all this quite amusing: for us down here, Mahathir is
> primarily anti-Australian, with more than a touch of anti-Western
> thrown in.
Yes, I'm not surprised that he is also anti-Australian. Australia is
a large and economically powerful nation in that part of the world,
and much more successful in every way than Malaysia, especially the
Muslim Malay sector of Malaysia.
> I don't doubt that he is anti-Semitic too, since he is
> anti everything that does not agree with him, but I was surprised
> you two picked on this aspect of his peculiar Weltanschauung.
>
Why? He regularly attacked George Soros, "who happens to be Jewish",
for conspiring against the Malaysian national currency, and in his
final international speech as P.M. of Malaysia, at an world
conference of Islamic leaders,
'In the speech delivered on October 16 at the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) in Putrajaya (the administrative capital of
Malaysia), the Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made the
news, and was accused of anti-semitism, for stating that "1.3 billion
Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews".'
http://www.luc.edu/depts/history/ghazzal/opinions/mahathir.htm
That Soros is a Jew has nothing to do with anything except Mahathir's
need to assert his anti-Semitism and to blame the Jews for all the
world's woes --- and isn't it amazing that so few can do so much to
so many? He has, if I remember correctly, also claimed that a handful
of Zionist Jews determine American foreign policy (what little there
is of it that is not ad hoc, that is), a line that both he, Muslims
in general, and fundy Xians in general in the USA parrot whenever
they have nothing more interesting to say.
CyberCypher
In the case of Kenneth Lay, famous in the USA for his financial
exploits with Enron Corp. and not yet indicted, much less in jail, is
indeed at least a nominal Christian, yet he does not abide by the "Do
unto to others" rule of his savior and god; but, then, neither do the
most vocal of Christians in America or the rest of the world.
Tony Cooper
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>> "Michael, who happens to be Jewish, is in favor of the security
>> barriers in Jerusalem." can mean that Michael's viewpoint is
>> influenced by the fact that he's a Jew.
>>
>> "Michael, who, coincidentally, is Jewish is in favor of the security
>> barriers in Jerusalem." means there is some other factor involved
>> somewhere else in the context that makes his Jewishness a coincidence
>> in this discussion. The meaning used in the first sentence is lost
>> because the emphasis changes to the coincidental factor.
>>
>Whilst I agree that complete sentences are necessary, I cannot agree
>with your conclusions about the above sentences. I find the third
>example slightly odd, but see no essential difference in meaning between
>the first two.
"Happens to be" is an observation that points out the person - in this
case - is Jewish. "Coincidentally" requires some other element
present. He can't be coincidentally a Jew without there being some
other factor that points to him being a Jew or without some other
event that has a connection.
"Happens to be" stands alone. "Coincidentally" doesn't.
Tony Cooper
I apologize. I forgot that you are an "Editor" and that your function
here is to correct others and that you should not be expected to
defend your own poorly written, poorly thought out attempts to weasel
around a non-point.
Rey uses a sentence fragment and calls it a sentence. His defense?
Cooper's an asshole.
Rey claims words are "near-synonymous" based on non-developed thoughts
expressed in fragments. His defense? Cooper is a peasant.
Rey weasels in additional meaning with equal-footing "or"s. His
defense? Cooper can't spell and uses a spelling checker.
Rey tried to refute a statement and failed miserably. His defense?
Cooper commits _faux pas_.
Rey got his ears pinned back. His defense? Cooper's illiterate.
That "Editor" racket is sweet! I wouldn't want to trivialize it,
though.
Skitt
Tony Cooper rakstija:
One could go for "incidentally" to escape the ties of "coincidentally".
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> One could go for "incidentally" to escape the ties of "coincidentally".
I agree. Good point, Skitt.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> I would not expect to hear this if the speaker were Jewish:
> -My editor, who happens to be Jewish, ...
I happen to be Jewish, and I don't share your expectation, although
it's quite possible that I'd stick a "too" at the end.
> I would not expect to hear these at all, about members of majority
> groups:
> -The president of ABC, who happens to be a man, ...
> -The goalie, who happens to be white, ...
> -Kenneth Lay, who happens to be Christian, ...
It's not hard to think up situations in which all of those would be
perfectly reasonable.
> I would not say:
> -The man who sat next to me on the plane happened to be Jewish.
>
> I would say:
> -The man who happened to sit next to me on the plane was Jewish.
That's completely different from a non-restrictive clause in the
middle of a sentence.
>> - Bob Lieblich, who happens to be Jewish, loves
>> Wagner's "Die Walküre."
>> - Dena Jo, who, coincidentally, is Jewish, has the
>> hots for rich Arab studs.
>> - Evan, who, by chance, is Jewish, is intrigued by
>> the architectural beauty of Catholic cathedrals.
>>
>>Do you three feel I'm trivializing your Jewishness? Am I being
>>anti-Semitic? Do I negatively emphasize your Jewishness? *I* don't
>>think so, but I eagerly await your comments.
>
> These are, of course, examples of the neutral, descriptive usage.
Exactly. Although I'm not quite as comfortable with "by chance" as
with the others or with others like "it so happens" or "it turns out".
Or even the somewhat similar "by a stroke of luck".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |As the judge remarked the day that
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | he acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |To be smut
|It must be ut-
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |Terly without redeeming social
(650)857-7572 | importance.
| Tom Lehrer
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
dcw
Micheal MacThomais <tthomso...@no.btinternet.no.com> wrote:
>An Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:47:05 GMT, sgrìobh Harvey Van Sickle
><harve...@ntlworld.com>:
>One theory I heard was that the M' form arose from use of an
>apostrophe instead of a superscript c (because it was easier for hand
>typesetting).
>
>> (Incidentally, has the "M'" form disappeared entirely? I've certainly
>> never encountered it outside of historical lists.)
>
>No, it's still usede (as is the superscript c form).
It used to be "M`", not "M'", but you don't often see that now.
(The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors says "the turned
comma is usual here, not the apos.")
David
Matti Lamprhey
> Edwin Petree wrote:
> >Rolleston wrote:
> >
> >> By extreme good fortune, my name consists of useless letters.
> >
> >Are they useless in all languages?
>
> In the enumerable infinite set of all languages, past and present,
> natural and artificial, a rude word anagrammatically equivalent to
> my name must exist.
I thought we'd already established that you were Nose-troll.
> I cannot say whether it will disgust as much
> as the permuted form "Peter Daniels".
En France, il est "le Pedestrian"; ça suffit.
Matti
mUs1Ka
m.
Sara Lorimer
> I don't
> know whether Kenneth Lay is a real person or not, so I can't comment.
You lucky, lucky man.
--
SML
Dalg! Glidj! Blimlimlim!
http://pirate-women.com
R H Draney
>
>zr...@aol.commentary (Z. R. Doe) writes:
>
>> I would not expect to hear these at all, about members of majority
>> groups:
>> -The president of ABC, who happens to be a man, ...
>> -The goalie, who happens to be white, ...
>> -Kenneth Lay, who happens to be Christian, ...
>
>It's not hard to think up situations in which all of those would be
>perfectly reasonable.
Something very much like the middle one appeared last year in the obituary of
Jeanne Crain...I commented on the oddity of the expression in alt.obituaries,
but in her case the reason for its inclusion should be obvious....r
Tony Cooper
wrote:
Just guessing, but I think the reason is her role in "Pinky". This
movie was recently mentioned on a list of movies that I mentioned in
another thread.
R H Draney
>>Jeanne Crain...I commented on the oddity of the expression in alt.obituaries,
>>but in her case the reason for its inclusion should be obvious....r
>
>Just guessing, but I think the reason is her role in "Pinky". This
>movie was recently mentioned on a list of movies that I mentioned in
>another thread.
Yes...to provide more context, the first paragraph of the obituary mentioned
"Pinky" and the reason it was so memorable, and the second began a synopsis of
her other credits with "Crain, who was white"...someone was kind enough to
Google up a list of other appearances of the phrase, and most of them were part
of things like "who was White Plains city manager in the 1950s"....r
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote on 28 Mar 2004:
>>I find all this quite amusing: for us down here, Mahathir is
>>primarily anti-Australian, with more than a touch of anti-Western
>>thrown in.
>
>
> Yes, I'm not surprised that he is also anti-Australian. Australia is
> a large and economically powerful nation in that part of the world,
> and much more successful in every way than Malaysia, especially the
> Muslim Malay sector of Malaysia.
It didn't help when the then PM, Paul Keating, called him
'recalcitrant', and more recently PM, John Howard, said something
equally uncomplimentary about him.
>
>
>>I don't doubt that he is anti-Semitic too, since he is
>>anti everything that does not agree with him, but I was surprised
>>you two picked on this aspect of his peculiar Weltanschauung.
>>
>
> Why? He regularly attacked George Soros, "who happens to be Jewish",
> for conspiring against the Malaysian national currency,
Sorry, I don't think I've heard of Soros, so I hadn't come across this.
and in his
> final international speech as P.M. of Malaysia, at an world
> conference of Islamic leaders,
>
> 'In the speech delivered on October 16 at the Organization of the
> Islamic Conference (OIC) in Putrajaya (the administrative capital of
> Malaysia), the Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made the
> news, and was accused of anti-semitism, for stating that "1.3 billion
> Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews".
I remember that one - it cause quite a furore in our press. I believe
Mahathir later went on to "explain" that he had been taken out of
context and that it wasn't "really" anti-Jewish - it just seemed that
way to everyone who doesn't think in the peculiar way that he does. We
shall see what the new Malaysian leader is like: in many ways, Mahathir
was a moderate for that part of the world, although Indonesia now seems
to be distancing itself from fundamental Muslims.
--
Rob Bannister
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote:
>
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote on 28 Mar 2004:
>
[...]
>
> Sorry, I don't think I've heard of Soros, so I hadn't come across
> this.
Soros is a big-time American currency speculator.
>> and in his
>> final international speech as P.M. of Malaysia, at an world
>> conference of Islamic leaders,
>>
>> 'In the speech delivered on October 16 at the Organization of the
>> Islamic Conference (OIC) in Putrajaya (the administrative capital
>> of Malaysia), the Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made
>> the news, and was accused of anti-semitism, for stating that "1.3
>> billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews".
>
> I remember that one - it cause quite a furore in our press. I
> believe Mahathir later went on to "explain" that he had been taken
> out of context and that it wasn't "really" anti-Jewish - it just
> seemed that way to everyone who doesn't think in the peculiar way
> that he does.
He has said that the Jews invented everything that the rich and
powerful Western nations now use to run the world, so while there are
relatively few Jews in the world, they control the world by proxy.
Nothing anti-Semitic in that idea at all.
> We shall see what the new Malaysian leader is like:
Whatever he turns out to be, he has the confidence of most of the
Muslims in Malaysia, including almost all of those who voted for the
fundamentalist party after Mahathir railroaded his former #2 into
prison for sodomy and corruption. The fundies just lost all but one
of their seats in the legislature and are crying foul, just like the
KMT in Taiwan about their narrow defeat by President Chen of the DPP.
In both cases, "It's unfair! We lost!" is the battle cry.
> in many ways, Mahathir was a moderate for that part of the world,
> although Indonesia now seems to be distancing itself from
> fundamental Muslims.
I'm doubtful that the current Indonesian government can do much
serious distancing unless it can do a lot of serious economic reform
and demonstrate that sane ideas are the way to a sound economy.
Peter Moylan
>Then there's the story of the insurance company that sent out a form letter to a
>"Mr. Intl B. MacHines"....r
And the letter to Allys-Chalmers that started "Dear Miss Charmers".
--
Peter Moylan Peter....@newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Robert Lieblich
>
> R H Draney infrared:
>
> >Then there's the story of the insurance company that sent out a form letter to a
> >"Mr. Intl B. MacHines"....r
>
> And the letter to Allys-Chalmers that started "Dear Miss Charmers".
I don't see what's so unusual about misspelling the surname.
The first name was "Allis," not "Allys." Trying to check other
information at various Websites, I found that the hyphen occurs
about half the time (best guess on my part is that it was included
in the official name). The company is still in business but no
longer makes road and farm equipment. I don't guarantee any of
this, "Allis" aside, but I think it's right.
--
Bob Lieblich
Hi, Allis
Maria Conlon
> It used to be "M`", not "M'", but you don't often see that now.
> (The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors says "the turned
> comma is usual here, not the apos.")
>
> David
Is the "turned comma" the official name in England for what appears* to
be a single opening quote mark (above)?
* to me, an American
By the way, that particular bit of punctuation doesn't seem to be used
much here in that fashion. (Now, several people may inform the group
that I'm wrong about that. And I could be.)
Also by the way, I thought a "comma" was limited to the bottom of the
line...
Maria Conlon
/When it's you against the world, back the world. (Zappa)/
Michael West
> dcw wrote:
>> It used to be "M`", not "M'", but you don't often see that now.
>> (The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors says "the turned
>> comma is usual here, not the apos.")
>>
>> David
>
> Is the "turned comma" the official name in England for what appears*
> to be a single opening quote mark (above)?
>
> * to me, an American
>
> By the way, that particular bit of punctuation doesn't seem to be used
> much here in that fashion. (Now, several people may inform the group
> that I'm wrong about that. And I could be.)
>
> Also by the way, I thought a "comma" was limited to the bottom of the
> line...
Surely you've heard the British misnomer, "inverted commas",
for quote marks? (Only half of the pair is inverted; the other
half is merely raised.)
--
Michael West
dcw
Maria Conlon <mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>dcw wrote:
>> It used to be "M`", not "M'", but you don't often see that now.
>> (The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors says "the turned
>> comma is usual here, not the apos.")
>>
>> David
>
>be a single opening quote mark (above)?
>
>* to me, an American
"Turned" is printing jargon for "upside-down", "inverted", etc. It crops
up frequently in describing IPA characters; e.g. schwa is represented by
a turned "e". Mathematicians are familiar with turned "A" and "E".
I don't know why they used the term here, since an opening-quote mark
looks exactly like a turned comma.
>By the way, that particular bit of punctuation doesn't seem to be used
>much here in that fashion. (Now, several people may inform the group
>that I'm wrong about that. And I could be.)
>
>Also by the way, I thought a "comma" was limited to the bottom of the
>line...
So it's at the top when it's turned.
David
Maria Conlon
> > Maria Conlon wrote:
>> dcw wrote:
>>> It used to be "M`", not "M'", but you don't often see that now.
>>> (The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors says "the turned
>>> comma is usual here, not the apos.")
>>
>> Is the "turned comma" the official name in England for what appears*
>> to be a single opening quote mark (above)?
>>
>> * to me, an American
>
> "Turned" is printing jargon for "upside-down", "inverted", etc. It
> crops up frequently in describing IPA characters; e.g. schwa is
> represented by a turned "e". Mathematicians are familiar with turned
> "A" and "E".
> I don't know why they used the term here, since an opening-quote mark
> looks exactly like a turned comma.
Perhaps the "turned comma" term was used first? Thus, tradition rules?
>
>> By the way, that particular bit of punctuation doesn't seem to be
>> used much here in that fashion. (Now, several people may inform the
>> group that I'm wrong about that. And I could be.)
>>
>> Also by the way, I thought a "comma" was limited to the bottom of the
>> line...
>
> So it's at the top when it's turned.
Well, even though a single opening quote was available with lead type,
moving a comma up and rotating it was probably equally easy to do. So,
it would come down to whichever piece of type was handy, I guess.
Maria Conlon
Do you make a "pineapple turned cake"?
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney infrared:
>
>>Then there's the story of the insurance company that sent out a form letter to a
>>"Mr. Intl B. MacHines"....r
>
>And the letter to Allys-Chalmers that started "Dear Miss Charmers".
On "Sanford and Son", Redd Foxx's character occasionally called the real-world
newspaper, the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, and asked to speak to Harold....r
mUs1Ka
>
>> Then there's the story of the insurance company that sent out a form
>> letter to a "Mr. Intl B. MacHines"....r
>
m.
Cece
A comma has the dot at the top; a turned comma has the dot at the
bottom. There is another symbol, curved the same direction as the
open-quote or turned comma, that has the dot at the top. This symbol
is used phonetically to represent the glottal stop in Hawai'ian and to
represent various other sounds in languages other than English. So,
is it the turned comma, or the one I have no name for?
Cece
R H Draney
You don't happen to work for "Computer Music" magazine in Bath, by any
chance?...that's the way they keep addressing my subscription...(they get it
right when they bill me for the renewal)....
I've met some odd misspellings of my name...the one that most impressed me would
have to have been "R. Hdraney"....r
rolleston
!
R.
rolleston
> > natural and artificial, a rude word anagrammatically equivalent to
> > my name must exist.
>
> I thought we'd already established that you were Nose-troll.
Is that rude?
R.
Dean Tiegs
> A comma has the dot at the top; a turned comma has the dot at the
> bottom. There is another symbol, curved the same direction as the
> open-quote or turned comma, that has the dot at the top. This
> symbol is used phonetically to represent the glottal stop in
> Hawai'ian and to represent various other sounds in languages other
> than English. So, is it the turned comma, or the one I have no name
> for?
In Unicode there are several characters with glyphs similar to what
you describe:
201B ‛ SINGLE HIGH-REVERSED-9 QUOTATION MARK
= SINGLE REVERSED COMMA QUOTATION MARK
* glyph variant of 2018 ‘
see also (modifier letter reversed comma - 02BD ʽ)
02BD ʽ MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED COMMA
* weak aspiration
* spacing clone of Greek rough breathing mark
see also (combining reversed comma above - 0314 ̔)
see also (armenian modifier letter left half ring - 0559 ՙ)
see also (single high-reversed-9 quotation mark - 201B ‛)
02BF ʿ MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING
* transliteration of Arabic ain (voiced pharyngeal fricative)
see also (armenian modifier letter left half ring - 0559 ՙ)
see also (arabic letter ain - 0639 ع)
02C1 ˁ MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED GLOTTAL STOP
* typographical alternate for 02BF ʿ
see also (latin letter pharyngeal voiced fricative - 0295 ʕ)
--
Dean Tiegs, NE¼-20-52-25-W4
“Confortare et esto robustus”
http://telusplanet.net/public/dctiegs/