Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Plural of Mother in Law
266 views
Skip to first unread message
The Welsh Windbag
Dec 17, 2011, 7:13:47 AM12/17/11
to
Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
from the OED
'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
word – mothers in law. The word “mother in laws” was considered
unacceptable. As a result, we had “fathers in law”, “brothers in law”,
“sisters in law”, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
started saying, “mother in laws”, father in laws”, “brother in laws”,
etc. So the plural of “mother in law” could be either “mothers in law”
or “mother in laws”. OED'
Is he correct?
--
Lyndon
from the OED
'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
word – mothers in law. The word “mother in laws” was considered
unacceptable. As a result, we had “fathers in law”, “brothers in law”,
“sisters in law”, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
started saying, “mother in laws”, father in laws”, “brother in laws”,
etc. So the plural of “mother in law” could be either “mothers in law”
or “mother in laws”. OED'
Is he correct?
--
Lyndon
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 17, 2011, 8:20:02 AM12/17/11
to
The entries for "mother-in-law" and "father-in-law" have no mention of
plural forms.
However, the quoted statement might come from a comment by an OED
editor.
Whatever its origin, the statement is quite reasonable. Regardless of
construction there is no difference in meaning between "mother in laws"
and "mothers in law".
The OED records words and the way they are used. If people start using
"mother in laws" then it will eventually get into the OED.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Iain Archer
Dec 17, 2011, 8:27:06 AM12/17/11
to
The Welsh Windbag wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2011
It's for him to provide a reference more specific than 'OED'. If he
can't do that, you have good reason for doubting his claim about the
original source. The quotation is certainly about in the wild. Can you
find any reference to it earlier than The Hindu, 4 September 2001?
<http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/04/stories/13040376.htm>
--
Iain Archer To email, please use Reply-To address
can't do that, you have good reason for doubting his claim about the
original source. The quotation is certainly about in the wild. Can you
find any reference to it earlier than The Hindu, 4 September 2001?
<http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/04/stories/13040376.htm>
--
Iain Archer To email, please use Reply-To address
Don Phillipson
Dec 17, 2011, 8:04:34 AM12/17/11
to
Lyndon "The Welsh Windbag" <TheWels...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sMKdnR516rTlGnHT...@bt.com...
> Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
> from the OED
>
> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
> word - mothers in law. The word "mother in laws" was considered
it is a true description of how accepted usage has changed.
"Mother in laws" used to be unambiguously condemned
as an error (actually a pattern of usage common in a
child's acquisition of language examined by S. Pinker in
The Language Instinct, Having learned there are rules
to form plurals by adding S, the child applies it uniformly,
thus:
1 team captain, 2 team captains == correct;
1 attorney-general, 2 attorney-generals == error, but this
is what the young language learner normally says.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:sMKdnR516rTlGnHT...@bt.com...
> Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
> from the OED
>
> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
> unacceptable. As a result, we had "fathers in law", "brothers in law",
> "sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
> started saying, "mother in laws", father in laws", "brother in laws",
> etc. So the plural of "mother in law" could be either "mothers in law"
> or "mother in laws". OED'
>
> Is he correct?
I do not know if it is a correct transcription from the OED but
> "sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
> started saying, "mother in laws", father in laws", "brother in laws",
> etc. So the plural of "mother in law" could be either "mothers in law"
> or "mother in laws". OED'
>
> Is he correct?
it is a true description of how accepted usage has changed.
"Mother in laws" used to be unambiguously condemned
as an error (actually a pattern of usage common in a
child's acquisition of language examined by S. Pinker in
The Language Instinct, Having learned there are rules
to form plurals by adding S, the child applies it uniformly,
thus:
1 team captain, 2 team captains == correct;
1 attorney-general, 2 attorney-generals == error, but this
is what the young language learner normally says.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
The Welsh Windbag
Dec 17, 2011, 8:46:39 AM12/17/11
to
The Welsh Windbag wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2011
>Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
>from the OED
>
>'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
>word – mothers in law. The word “mother in laws” was considered
>unacceptable. As a result, we had “fathers in law”, “brothers in law”,
>“sisters in law”, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
>started saying, “mother in laws”, father in laws”, “brother in laws”,
>etc. So the plural of “mother in law” could be either “mothers in law”
>or “mother in laws”. OED'
>
>Is he correct?
>
"Iain Archer" responded
>Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
>from the OED
>
>'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
>word – mothers in law. The word “mother in laws” was considered
>unacceptable. As a result, we had “fathers in law”, “brothers in law”,
>“sisters in law”, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
>started saying, “mother in laws”, father in laws”, “brother in laws”,
>etc. So the plural of “mother in law” could be either “mothers in law”
>or “mother in laws”. OED'
>
>Is he correct?
>
>It's for him to provide a reference more specific than 'OED'. If he can't
>do that, you have good reason for doubting his claim about the original
>source. The quotation is certainly about in the wild. Can you find any
>reference to it earlier than The Hindu, 4 September 2001?
><http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/04/stories/13040376.htm>
The Hindu reference was the earliest I found. That made me wonder about the
>do that, you have good reason for doubting his claim about the original
>source. The quotation is certainly about in the wild. Can you find any
>reference to it earlier than The Hindu, 4 September 2001?
><http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/04/stories/13040376.htm>
claim.
--
Lyndon
Donna Richoux
Dec 17, 2011, 9:08:09 AM12/17/11
to
The Welsh Windbag <TheWels...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Welsh Windbag wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2011
> >Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
> >from the OED
> >
> >'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
> >word -- mothers in law. The word "mother in laws" was considered
> The Welsh Windbag wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2011
> >Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
> >from the OED
> >
> >'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
> >unacceptable. As a result, we had "fathers in law", "brothers in law",
> >"sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
> >started saying, "mother in laws", father in laws", "brother in laws",
> >etc. So the plural of "mother in law" could be either "mothers in law"
> >or "mother in laws". OED'
> >
> >Is he correct?
> >
>
> "Iain Archer" responded
> >It's for him to provide a reference more specific than 'OED'. If he can't
> >do that, you have good reason for doubting his claim about the original
> >source. The quotation is certainly about in the wild. Can you find any
> >reference to it earlier than The Hindu, 4 September 2001?
> ><http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/04/stories/13040376.htm>
>
> The Hindu reference was the earliest I found. That made me wonder about the
> claim.
There is a collection of all the columns "Know Your English" that
> >"sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
> >started saying, "mother in laws", father in laws", "brother in laws",
> >etc. So the plural of "mother in law" could be either "mothers in law"
> >or "mother in laws". OED'
> >
> >Is he correct?
> >
>
> "Iain Archer" responded
> >It's for him to provide a reference more specific than 'OED'. If he can't
> >do that, you have good reason for doubting his claim about the original
> >source. The quotation is certainly about in the wild. Can you find any
> >reference to it earlier than The Hindu, 4 September 2001?
> ><http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/04/stories/13040376.htm>
>
> The Hindu reference was the earliest I found. That made me wonder about the
> claim.
appeared in The Hindu newspaper, at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34188629/Know-Your-English
The mother-in-law question appears on Page 49, on the page dated
September 4, 2001. There is no mention of the OED. In full:
What is the plural of "mother-in-law"?
(S. Shanthi, Kurnool)
At the beginning of this century there was only one
"mother in laws" was considered unacceptable. As a
result, we had "fathers in law", "brothers in law","
sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of
English have started saying, "mother in laws", father
in laws", "brother in laws", etc. So to get back to
result, we had "fathers in law", "brothers in law","
sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of
English have started saying, "mother in laws", father
your question, the plural of "mother in law" could be
either "mothers in law" or "mother in laws". Take
your pick.
It would be a separate question to see at what point in the pass-around
process the word "OED" got mistakenly attached.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
The Welsh Windbag
Dec 17, 2011, 9:10:05 AM12/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:13:47 -0000, "The Welsh Windbag"
<TheWels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
>from the OED
>
>'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
>word – mothers in law. The word “mother in laws” was considered
>unacceptable. As a result, we had “fathers in law”, “brothers in law”,
>“sisters in law”, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
>started saying, “mother in laws”, father in laws”, “brother in laws”,
>etc. So the plural of “mother in law” could be either “mothers in law”
>or “mother in laws”. OED'
>
>Is he correct?
"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" replied:
<TheWels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
>from the OED
>
>'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
>word – mothers in law. The word “mother in laws” was considered
>unacceptable. As a result, we had “fathers in law”, “brothers in law”,
>“sisters in law”, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
>started saying, “mother in laws”, father in laws”, “brother in laws”,
>etc. So the plural of “mother in law” could be either “mothers in law”
>or “mother in laws”. OED'
>
>Is he correct?
>I can't find that in the online OED.
>The entries for "mother-in-law" and "father-in-law" have no mention of
>plural forms.
>However, the quoted statement might come from a comment by an OED
>editor.
>Whatever its origin, the statement is quite reasonable. Regardless of
>construction there is no difference in meaning between "mother in laws"
>and "mothers in law".
>The OED records words and the way they are used. If people start using
>"mother in laws" then it will eventually get into the OED.
Thank you Peter. I understand what you are saying about the way that a
>The entries for "mother-in-law" and "father-in-law" have no mention of
>plural forms.
>However, the quoted statement might come from a comment by an OED
>editor.
>Whatever its origin, the statement is quite reasonable. Regardless of
>construction there is no difference in meaning between "mother in laws"
>and "mothers in law".
>The OED records words and the way they are used. If people start using
>"mother in laws" then it will eventually get into the OED.
dictionary reflects usage. I just wondered whether the writer was being
deliberately misleading in this case by claiming that he was quoting from
the OED.
--
Lyndon
Steve Hayes
Dec 17, 2011, 9:21:24 AM12/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:20:02 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>Whatever its origin, the statement is quite reasonable. Regardless of
>construction there is no difference in meaning between "mother in laws"
>and "mothers in law".
>
>The OED records words and the way they are used. If people start using
>"mother in laws" then it will eventually get into the OED.
I say "mothers-in-law" for the plural, "mother-in-law's" for the singular
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>Whatever its origin, the statement is quite reasonable. Regardless of
>construction there is no difference in meaning between "mother in laws"
>and "mothers in law".
>
>The OED records words and the way they are used. If people start using
>"mother in laws" then it will eventually get into the OED.
possessive, and "mother-in-laws'" for the plural possessive.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Adrian Bailey
Dec 17, 2011, 9:37:11 AM12/17/11
to
"The Welsh Windbag" <TheWels...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sMKdnR516rTlGnHT...@bt.com...
Adrian
news:sMKdnR516rTlGnHT...@bt.com...
> Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
> from the OED
>
> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
> word - mothers in law. The word "mother in laws" was considered
> from the OED
>
> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
> unacceptable. As a result, we had "fathers in law", "brothers in law",
> "sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
> started saying, "mother in laws", father in laws", "brother in laws",
> etc. So the plural of "mother in law" could be either "mothers in law"
> or "mother in laws". OED'
>
> Is he correct?
No.
> "sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
> started saying, "mother in laws", father in laws", "brother in laws",
> etc. So the plural of "mother in law" could be either "mothers in law"
> or "mother in laws". OED'
>
> Is he correct?
Adrian
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 17, 2011, 11:26:46 AM12/17/11
to
On 2011-12-17 14:21:24 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:20:02 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Whatever its origin, the statement is quite reasonable. Regardless of
>> construction there is no difference in meaning between "mother in laws"
>> and "mothers in law".
>>
>> The OED records words and the way they are used. If people start using
>> "mother in laws" then it will eventually get into the OED.
>
> I say "mothers-in-law" for the plural, "mother-in-law's" for the singular
> possessive, and "mother-in-laws'" for the plural possessive.
How often do you need the plural possessive? How many mothers-in-law
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:20:02 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Whatever its origin, the statement is quite reasonable. Regardless of
>> construction there is no difference in meaning between "mother in laws"
>> and "mothers in law".
>>
>> The OED records words and the way they are used. If people start using
>> "mother in laws" then it will eventually get into the OED.
>
> I say "mothers-in-law" for the plural, "mother-in-law's" for the singular
> possessive, and "mother-in-laws'" for the plural possessive.
have you got?
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 17, 2011, 11:30:52 AM12/17/11
to
century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 17, 2011, 11:34:34 AM12/17/11
to
attorneys-general? I'm reminded of Steve's apparent need for a plural
possessive form of "mother-in-law", and also of all the unnatural
sentences navi invents and wants to have analysed.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 17, 2011, 12:46:33 PM12/17/11
to
marriages. I had two mothers-in-law, both now RIP-ing. One can also
speak of the mothers-in-law of one's relatives as a group: "I went to
the beach with my brothers and sisters, our families and our
mothers-in-law".
If Steve has more than one current spouse and hence more than one
"active" mother-in-law I think we would be interested to hear the
details. <smile>
Don Phillipson
Dec 17, 2011, 12:00:20 PM12/17/11
to
"Athel Cornish-Bowden" <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in message
news:9l3ukq...@mid.individual.net...
> > 1 team captain, 2 team captains == correct;
> > 1 attorney-general, 2 attorney-generals == error, but this
> > is what the young language learner normally says.
> Do young language learners have much occasion to talk about
> attorneys-general? I'm reminded of Steve's apparent need for a plural
> possessive form of "mother-in-law", and also of all the unnatural
> sentences navi invents and wants to have analysed.
Actually yes, so far as we were talking about a common
pattern of error (or doubt), Canadian children encounter
quite young (before their grasp of language is complete)
"governor general," "auditor general" and other compound
nouns of this type. (The example used attorney-general
in the belief this was more familiar to more readers.)
news:9l3ukq...@mid.individual.net...
> > 1 team captain, 2 team captains == correct;
> > 1 attorney-general, 2 attorney-generals == error, but this
> > is what the young language learner normally says.
> Do young language learners have much occasion to talk about
> attorneys-general? I'm reminded of Steve's apparent need for a plural
> possessive form of "mother-in-law", and also of all the unnatural
> sentences navi invents and wants to have analysed.
pattern of error (or doubt), Canadian children encounter
quite young (before their grasp of language is complete)
"governor general," "auditor general" and other compound
nouns of this type. (The example used attorney-general
in the belief this was more familiar to more readers.)
R H Draney
Dec 17, 2011, 11:36:01 AM12/17/11
to
Donna Richoux filted:
validating the "mother in laws" form took place in under eight months....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>The mother-in-law question appears on Page 49, on the page dated
>September 4, 2001. There is no mention of the OED. In full:
>
> What is the plural of "mother-in-law"?
> (S. Shanthi, Kurnool)
>
> At the beginning of this century there was only one
> plural for this word - mothers in law. The word
> "mother in laws" was considered unacceptable. As a
> result, we had "fathers in law", "brothers in law","
> sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of
> English have started saying, "mother in laws", father
> in laws", "brother in laws", etc. So to get back to
> your question, the plural of "mother in law" could be
> either "mothers in law" or "mother in laws". Take
> your pick.
>
>It would be a separate question to see at what point in the pass-around
>process the word "OED" got mistakenly attached.
Still another separate question is why The Hindu thinks the entire process of
>The mother-in-law question appears on Page 49, on the page dated
>September 4, 2001. There is no mention of the OED. In full:
>
> What is the plural of "mother-in-law"?
> (S. Shanthi, Kurnool)
>
> At the beginning of this century there was only one
> plural for this word - mothers in law. The word
> "mother in laws" was considered unacceptable. As a
> result, we had "fathers in law", "brothers in law","
> sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of
> English have started saying, "mother in laws", father
> in laws", "brother in laws", etc. So to get back to
> your question, the plural of "mother in law" could be
> either "mothers in law" or "mother in laws". Take
> your pick.
>
>It would be a separate question to see at what point in the pass-around
>process the word "OED" got mistakenly attached.
validating the "mother in laws" form took place in under eight months....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Steve Hayes
Dec 17, 2011, 1:17:32 PM12/17/11
to
reunion, perhaps.
Peter Brooks
Dec 17, 2011, 1:15:25 PM12/17/11
to
On Dec 17, 6:26 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
wrote:
impression that there's a legion of them.
wrote:
>
>
> How often do you need the plural possessive? How many mothers-in-law
> have you got?
>
It's not unknown for a single one to still leave one with the
>
> How often do you need the plural possessive? How many mothers-in-law
> have you got?
>
impression that there's a legion of them.
Frank S
Dec 17, 2011, 1:30:08 PM12/17/11
to
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:jcigd...@drn.newsguy.com...
or "this word".
--
Frank ess
Iain Archer
Dec 17, 2011, 2:05:38 PM12/17/11
to
Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2011
more tolerable than mother-in-laws?
>It is possible to accumulate one's own mothers-in-law by serial
>marriages. I had two mothers-in-law, both now RIP-ing.
What is it that makes RIP-ing (as opposed to, say, R-ingIP or R-ingInP)
>marriages. I had two mothers-in-law, both now RIP-ing.
more tolerable than mother-in-laws?
Stan Brown
Dec 17, 2011, 3:11:14 PM12/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:13:47 -0000, The Welsh Windbag wrote:
>
> Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
> from the OED
>
> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
> word ? mothers in law. The word ?mother in laws? was considered
>
> Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
> from the OED
>
> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
> unacceptable. As a result, we had ?fathers in law?, ?brothers in law?,
> ?sisters in law?, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
> started saying, ?mother in laws?, father in laws?, ?brother in laws?,
> etc. So the plural of ?mother in law? could be either ?mothers in law?
> or ?mother in laws?. OED'
It doesn't sound like the OED's writing style to me.
Or did you mean that the *substance* is correct? I would not accept
"mother-in-laws" under any circumstances. To me it is an error,
though it is becoming increasingly common (like attorney generals).
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Hairy Monster
Dec 17, 2011, 3:19:17 PM12/17/11
to
The Welsh Windbag spouted forth:
Why are we seeking a plural? Isn't one mother-in-law enough?
--
I like being hairy, I'd rather not be a monster
--
I like being hairy, I'd rather not be a monster
LFS
Dec 17, 2011, 3:48:28 PM12/17/11
to
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
John Varela
Dec 17, 2011, 4:31:33 PM12/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:05:38 UTC, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2011
> >It is possible to accumulate one's own mothers-in-law by serial
> >marriages. I had two mothers-in-law, both now RIP-ing.
>
> What is it that makes RIP-ing (as opposed to, say, R-ingIP or R-ingInP)
> more tolerable than mother-in-laws?
RIP-ing is a nonce word and mother-in-law is not.
--
John Varela
wrote:
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2011
> >It is possible to accumulate one's own mothers-in-law by serial
> >marriages. I had two mothers-in-law, both now RIP-ing.
>
> What is it that makes RIP-ing (as opposed to, say, R-ingIP or R-ingInP)
> more tolerable than mother-in-laws?
--
John Varela
James Hogg
Dec 17, 2011, 5:49:28 PM12/17/11
to
Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:13:47 -0000, The Welsh Windbag wrote:
>> Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
>> from the OED
>>
>> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
>> word ? mothers in law. The word ?mother in laws? was considered
>> unacceptable. As a result, we had ?fathers in law?, ?brothers in law?,
>> ?sisters in law?, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
>> started saying, ?mother in laws?, father in laws?, ?brother in laws?,
>> etc. So the plural of ?mother in law? could be either ?mothers in law?
>> or ?mother in laws?. OED'
>
> It doesn't sound like the OED's writing style to me.
It's not. Your suspicion is justified.
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:13:47 -0000, The Welsh Windbag wrote:
>> Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a quote
>> from the OED
>>
>> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
>> word ? mothers in law. The word ?mother in laws? was considered
>> unacceptable. As a result, we had ?fathers in law?, ?brothers in law?,
>> ?sisters in law?, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
>> started saying, ?mother in laws?, father in laws?, ?brother in laws?,
>> etc. So the plural of ?mother in law? could be either ?mothers in law?
>> or ?mother in laws?. OED'
>
> It doesn't sound like the OED's writing style to me.
> Or did you mean that the *substance* is correct? I would not accept
> "mother-in-laws" under any circumstances. To me it is an error,
> though it is becoming increasingly common (like attorney generals).
example of father- or mother- or brother- or sister- or son- or
daughter-in-laws, so no discussion of this usage arises. The only plural
form of this kind is the bare "in-laws", as in a quotation from 1894:
The position of the 'in-laws' (a happy phrase which is attributed...to
her Majesty, than whom no one can be better acquainted with the article)
is often not very apt to promote happiness.
--
James
semir...@my-deja.com
Dec 17, 2011, 5:55:01 PM12/17/11
to
On Dec 17, 8:19 pm, Hairy Monster <someb...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> Why are we seeking a plural? Isn't one mother-in-law enough?
Never in your life have you talked with someone about
> Why are we seeking a plural? Isn't one mother-in-law enough?
your respective mothers in law?
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 17, 2011, 5:57:13 PM12/17/11
to
first.
OED:
RIP, int. and v.3
B. v.3
intr. humorous. To lie dead; to rest in peace (in death). rare.
1962 Punch 5 Sept. 334/1 We had a field mouse RIP-ing under the
cupboard.
2001 Evening Post (Wellington, N.Z.) (Nexis) 18 Aug. 2 There he
was two foot under, RIPing away nicely for hundreds and hundreds
of years.
James Hogg
Dec 17, 2011, 6:04:03 PM12/17/11
to
"they're up in heaven and R-ingIP with the big man."
--
James
James Hogg
Dec 17, 2011, 6:08:29 PM12/17/11
to
fathers-in-law, simply because a person usually has only one of each at
a time, but there are other kinds of in-laws that occur more naturally
in the plural, like my two brothers-in-law.
--
James
jgharston
Dec 17, 2011, 5:16:10 PM12/17/11
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
JGH
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 18, 2011, 2:27:42 AM12/18/11
to
convention. The orginal date was an invention several centuries after
the supposed event, in any case.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 18, 2011, 5:01:56 AM12/18/11
to
Edw.7 c.47)) it was illegal for a man to marry his deceased wife's
sister (or for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother, but
that seems to have been less controversial). Before 1835 it was
disapproved of by the hierarchy of the Church of England, but not
prohibited by law. Throughout the intervening period there were a lot
of efforts to repeal the law, but it took a long time. The people who
opposed the change saw it as the End of Civilization as We Know It
(much like the people who oppose same-sex marriages today). Those who
supported it saw it as common sense, and sometimes used the slogan "Two
wives; one mother-in-law".
Laura will know more about this than I do, but isn't it the traditional
Jewish view that a man has a positive _duty_ to marry his deceased
brother's widow?
--
athel
LFS
Dec 18, 2011, 5:20:40 AM12/18/11
to
otherwise it's strictly forbidden somewhere in Leviticus. If the
brother-in-law refuses to undertake the marriage, the widow spits in his
face and takes away one of his shoes - I have no idea why. And I'm not
sure if she can marry anyone else.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 18, 2011, 7:08:59 AM12/18/11
to
that year numbers are ordinal numbers, first, second, third, ...
nineteen hundred and ninety ninth, two thousandth, etc. Each millennium
is one thousand years long. So the first millennium is the 1st year to
the 1000th year, the second from the 1001th year to the 2000th year.
However, it is understandable that many people should consider that a
new millennium starts when the thousands digit changes: 999 to 1000,
1999 to 2000.
Similarly, many people consider that the reaching the ages of 30, 40, 50
etc is a matter of greater significance that reaching in-between ages.
When the tens digit changes the person moves into a different age
category. Someone aged 29 is in the same category, their twenties, as a
20-year-old. When they become 30 they are then in the same category as
people who are nearly in their 40s. That is even though a 30-year-old is
still in the 3rd decade of their life and will not reach the 4th decade
until aged 31.
This is psychological rather than mathematical, but when it comes to
language we are dealing in psychology rather than mathematics.
Stan Brown
Dec 18, 2011, 7:17:56 AM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:01:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> Between 1835 and 1907 (Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907 (7
> Edw.7 c.47)) it was illegal for a man to marry his deceased wife's
> sister (or for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother, but
> that seems to have been less controversial). Before 1835 it was
> disapproved of by the hierarchy of the Church of England, but not
> prohibited by law. Throughout the intervening period there were a lot
> of efforts to repeal the law, but it took a long time.
Hence, when in /Iolanthe/ the Fairy Queen proposed to send Strephon,
> Between 1835 and 1907 (Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907 (7
> Edw.7 c.47)) it was illegal for a man to marry his deceased wife's
> sister (or for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother, but
> that seems to have been less controversial). Before 1835 it was
> disapproved of by the hierarchy of the Church of England, but not
> prohibited by law. Throughout the intervening period there were a lot
> of efforts to repeal the law, but it took a long time.
an Arcadian shepherd, into Parliament, one of her prophecies was,
"He shall prick that annual blister,
Marriage with deceased wife's sister."
Stan Brown
Dec 18, 2011, 7:20:46 AM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
> >> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
> >> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
> >
> > When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>
> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
> convention.
Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
>
> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
> >> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
> >> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
> >
> > When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>
> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
> convention.
XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
Stan Brown
Dec 18, 2011, 7:24:37 AM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:08:59 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
> Similarly, many people consider that the reaching the ages of 30, 40, 50
> etc is a matter of greater significance that reaching in-between ages.
> When the tens digit changes the person moves into a different age
> category. Someone aged 29 is in the same category, their twenties, as a
> 20-year-old. When they become 30 they are then in the same category as
> people who are nearly in their 40s. That is even though a 30-year-old is
> still in the 3rd decade of their life and will not reach the 4th decade
> until aged 31.
I think you tripped yourself up there. A 30-year-old is somewhere
> Similarly, many people consider that the reaching the ages of 30, 40, 50
> etc is a matter of greater significance that reaching in-between ages.
> When the tens digit changes the person moves into a different age
> category. Someone aged 29 is in the same category, their twenties, as a
> 20-year-old. When they become 30 they are then in the same category as
> people who are nearly in their 40s. That is even though a 30-year-old is
> still in the 3rd decade of their life and will not reach the 4th decade
> until aged 31.
between 30.000000 and 30.9999999 years old, and has entered into the
fourth decade of his life. The third decade of his life, and the
thirtieth year of his life, ended on his 30th birthday.
Someone is "in his thirtieth year" during the period between his 29th
and thirtieth birthdays.
So reaching your 30th birthday means you have completed three
decades, and is analogous to reaching the end of the year 1900, which
is the end of the nineteenth century.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 18, 2011, 7:25:20 AM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:01:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
As usual that has resulted in my having greater knowledge plus a greater
awareness of my lack of knowledge.
Just a few starting points -
Judaism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage
"This article needs additional citations for verification."
Christianity (Catholic version):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01178a.htm
Islam:
http://www.zawaj.com/askbilqis/can-i-marry-my-widowed-sister-in-law/
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/widows.htm
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 18, 2011, 7:45:50 AM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:24:37 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:08:59 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> Similarly, many people consider that the reaching the ages of 30, 40, 50
>> etc is a matter of greater significance that reaching in-between ages.
>> When the tens digit changes the person moves into a different age
>> category. Someone aged 29 is in the same category, their twenties, as a
>> 20-year-old. When they become 30 they are then in the same category as
>> people who are nearly in their 40s. That is even though a 30-year-old is
>> still in the 3rd decade of their life and will not reach the 4th decade
>> until aged 31.
>
>I think you tripped yourself up there.
I may well have done.
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:08:59 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> Similarly, many people consider that the reaching the ages of 30, 40, 50
>> etc is a matter of greater significance that reaching in-between ages.
>> When the tens digit changes the person moves into a different age
>> category. Someone aged 29 is in the same category, their twenties, as a
>> 20-year-old. When they become 30 they are then in the same category as
>> people who are nearly in their 40s. That is even though a 30-year-old is
>> still in the 3rd decade of their life and will not reach the 4th decade
>> until aged 31.
>
>I think you tripped yourself up there.
> A 30-year-old is somewhere
>between 30.000000 and 30.9999999 years old, and has entered into the
>fourth decade of his life. The third decade of his life, and the
>thirtieth year of his life, ended on his 30th birthday.
>
>Someone is "in his thirtieth year" during the period between his 29th
>and thirtieth birthdays.
>
>So reaching your 30th birthday means you have completed three
>decades, and is analogous to reaching the end of the year 1900, which
>is the end of the nineteenth century.
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 18, 2011, 9:01:46 AM12/18/11
to
On 2011-12-18 12:08:59 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) said:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>>>> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>>>> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>>>
>>> When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>>
>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>> convention. The orginal date was an invention several centuries after
>> the supposed event, in any case.
>
> Regardless of the inaccuracy of the original date, the point surely is
> that year numbers are ordinal numbers, first, second, third, ...
> nineteen hundred and ninety ninth, two thousandth, etc.
Well, as I said already, I understand the arithmetic.
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>>>> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>>>> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>>>
>>> When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>>
>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>> convention. The orginal date was an invention several centuries after
>> the supposed event, in any case.
>
> Regardless of the inaccuracy of the original date, the point surely is
> that year numbers are ordinal numbers, first, second, third, ...
> nineteen hundred and ninety ninth, two thousandth, etc.
> Each millennium
> is one thousand years long. So the first millennium is the 1st year to
> the 1000th year, the second from the 1001th year to the 2000th year.
>
> However, it is understandable that many people should consider that a
> new millennium starts when the thousands digit changes: 999 to 1000,
> 1999 to 2000.
>
> Similarly, many people consider that the reaching the ages of 30, 40, 50
> etc is a matter of greater significance that reaching in-between ages.
> When the tens digit changes the person moves into a different age
> category. Someone aged 29 is in the same category, their twenties, as a
> 20-year-old. When they become 30 they are then in the same category as
> people who are nearly in their 40s. That is even though a 30-year-old is
> still in the 3rd decade of their life and will not reach the 4th decade
> until aged 31.
>
> This is psychological rather than mathematical, but when it comes to
> language we are dealing in psychology rather than mathematics.
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 18, 2011, 9:11:24 AM12/18/11
to
On 2011-12-18 12:20:46 +0000, Stan Brown said:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>>>> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>>>> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>>>
>>> When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>>
>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>> convention.
>
> Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
> XX00.
Nonsense. If that's the convention, how come there were fireworks from
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>>>> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>>>> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>>>
>>> When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>>
>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>> convention.
>
> Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
> XX00.
New Zealand to Hawaii at midnight on 31st December 1999, and none that
I can remember a year later? Conventions are not decided by logic but
by what the overwhelming majority consider correct.
Do you still worry about the loss of your 11 days back in 1752?
> I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
decided by official decree that centuries begin on 1st January XX00.
--
athel
James Hogg
Dec 18, 2011, 12:21:10 PM12/18/11
to
Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>>>> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>>>> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>>> When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>> convention.
>
> Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
> XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
People who speak certain other languages get this wrong all the time.
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>>>> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>>>> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>>> When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>> convention.
>
> Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
> XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
Swedes and others who called the last century the 1900s saw nothing
wrong in seeing the start of a new century, the 2000s, on 1 January
2000. Nothing I said would convince them otherwise.
--
James
Dr Peter Young
Dec 18, 2011, 12:42:13 PM12/18/11
to
to our "eighties", and refers to the number, not the century.
With best wishes,
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Stan Brown
Dec 18, 2011, 1:14:34 PM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:11:24 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2011-12-18 12:20:46 +0000, Stan Brown said:
> > Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
> > XX00.
>
> Nonsense. If that's the convention, how come there were fireworks from
> New Zealand to Hawaii at midnight on 31st December 1999,
Because a lot of people get it wrong.
>
> On 2011-12-18 12:20:46 +0000, Stan Brown said:
> > Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
> > XX00.
>
> Nonsense. If that's the convention, how come there were fireworks from
> New Zealand to Hawaii at midnight on 31st December 1999,
Steve Hayes
Dec 18, 2011, 1:19:04 PM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:20:46 -0500, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> >> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>> >> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>> >> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>> >
>> > When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>>
>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>> convention.
>
>Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
>XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
Ends in the year MM, surely?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> >> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>> >> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>> >> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>> >
>> > When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>>
>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>> convention.
>
>Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
>XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Stan Brown
Dec 18, 2011, 1:16:25 PM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:21:10 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
If you don't use "Nth century" but use "the XX00s", then of course
the last of "the 1900s" is 1999. But that doesn't mean that the
"1900s" is equivalent to "the twentieth century", any more than the
French "quinze jours" is equivalent to the English "fortnight".
>
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
> > XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
>
> People who speak certain other languages get this wrong all the time.
> Swedes and others who called the last century the 1900s saw nothing
> wrong in seeing the start of a new century, the 2000s, on 1 January
> 2000. Nothing I said would convince them otherwise.
That's other languages. We're talking about English.
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
> > XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
>
> People who speak certain other languages get this wrong all the time.
> Swedes and others who called the last century the 1900s saw nothing
> wrong in seeing the start of a new century, the 2000s, on 1 January
> 2000. Nothing I said would convince them otherwise.
If you don't use "Nth century" but use "the XX00s", then of course
the last of "the 1900s" is 1999. But that doesn't mean that the
"1900s" is equivalent to "the twentieth century", any more than the
French "quinze jours" is equivalent to the English "fortnight".
James Hogg
Dec 18, 2011, 1:32:35 PM12/18/11
to
Dr Peter Young wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2011 James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>>>
>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>>>>>> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>>>>>> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>>>>> When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>>>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>>>> convention.
>>> Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
>>> XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
>
>> People who speak certain other languages get this wrong all the time.
>> Swedes and others who called the last century the 1900s saw nothing
>> wrong in seeing the start of a new century, the 2000s, on 1 January
>> 2000. Nothing I said would convince them otherwise.
>
> But they're not actually referring to a century! The term is similar
> to our "eighties", and refers to the number, not the century.
>
> With best wishes,
No they're not referring to a century, only to a period of one hundred
> On 18 Dec 2011 James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>>>
>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September 2001 this
>>>>>> century was less than two years old (or only a few months old for those
>>>>>> who insist that the 21st century began on 1st January 2001).
>>>>> When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
>>>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point is
>>>> convention.
>>> Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
>>> XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
>
>> People who speak certain other languages get this wrong all the time.
>> Swedes and others who called the last century the 1900s saw nothing
>> wrong in seeing the start of a new century, the 2000s, on 1 January
>> 2000. Nothing I said would convince them otherwise.
>
> But they're not actually referring to a century! The term is similar
> to our "eighties", and refers to the number, not the century.
>
> With best wishes,
years.
--
James
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 18, 2011, 1:41:43 PM12/18/11
to
On 2011-12-18 18:14:34 +0000, Stan Brown said:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:11:24 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-18 12:20:46 +0000, Stan Brown said:
>>> Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
>>> XX00.
>>
>> Nonsense. If that's the convention, how come there were fireworks from
>> New Zealand to Hawaii at midnight on 31st December 1999,
>
> Because a lot of people get it wrong.
You're beginning to sound like Eric ranting about singular "they".
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:11:24 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-18 12:20:46 +0000, Stan Brown said:
>>> Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
>>> XX00.
>>
>> Nonsense. If that's the convention, how come there were fireworks from
>> New Zealand to Hawaii at midnight on 31st December 1999,
>
> Because a lot of people get it wrong.
In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
--
athel
Garrett Wollman
Dec 18, 2011, 4:21:08 PM12/18/11
to
In article <9l6qf7...@mid.individual.net>,
following December 31 every year in Boston.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
>at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
In more places than I could count. There are fireworks at midnight
>In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
>at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
following December 31 every year in Boston.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Leslie Danks
Dec 18, 2011, 4:31:43 PM12/18/11
to
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <9l6qf7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>>In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
>>at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
>
> In more places than I could count. There are fireworks at midnight
> following December 31 every year in Boston.
And in Aistersheim.
> In article <9l6qf7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>>In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
>>at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
>
> In more places than I could count. There are fireworks at midnight
> following December 31 every year in Boston.
--
Les
(BrE)
Evan Kirshenbaum
Dec 18, 2011, 4:46:05 PM12/18/11
to
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> >> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September
>> >> 2001 this century was less than two years old (or only a few
>> >> months old for those who insist that the 21st century began on
>> >> 1st January 2001).
>> >
>> > When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
Some of us don't have a problem with the notion that the first
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-17 22:16:10 +0000, jgharston said:
>>
>> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> >> That's an odd statement for a different reason: in September
>> >> 2001 this century was less than two years old (or only a few
>> >> months old for those who insist that the 21st century began on
>> >> 1st January 2001).
>> >
>> > When did the 1st century start in? Now add 2000.
century, which wasn't even called that while it was happening, was a
bit shorter than the others. (Strictly speaking, due to various
calendar reforms, centuries have been of several different lengths.)
>> I understand the arithmetic, but that's hardly the point. The point
>> is convention.
>
> Yes, and the convention is that the XXth century ends in the year
> XX00. I have never understood why so many people get this wrong.
the years of the century have the same thousands and hundreds digit
(and the same high-order Roman numerals), while the other says that
99% of them do, but the last one is different and shares these digits
with 99% of the next century.
I tend to wonder whether this has ever *not* been a bone of
contention. Based on
Several dissertations have appeared in the public journals on the
question, whether the year 1800 begins the nineteenth century. In
1700 there were many papers on the same subject; but it is
sufficient to consider that centuries are counted like everything
else, from one to a hundred, and therefore it is 1801 that must
begin the new century. The only thing that could occasion this
error is, the transition from 17 to 18 hundreds. It has appeared
to many people that this is changing the century.
_The Philosophical Magazine_, 2/1800
It is a singular circumstance that Dryden, as well as some other
eminent men of that day, should have follen into the errour
respecting the beginning of the century, which has found some
partisans in our own time; conceiving that the seventeenth century
closed on the 24th of March, 1699, and that the new century began
on the following day: in conformity to which notion a splendid
Jubilee was celebrated at Rome in the year 1700. By this kind of
reckoning, the second century began in the year 100 and the first,
in opposition to the decisive evidence furnished by the word
itself, consisted of only _ninety-nine_ years!
Edmond Malone, _The Critical and MIscellaneous
Prose Works of John Dryden_, 1800
it was in dispute at the beginning of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, as it clearly was at the beginning of the twentieth and
twenty-first.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If I may digress momentarily from
SF Bay Area (1982-) |the mainstream of this evening's
Chicago (1964-1982) |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
|which is completely pointless.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Tom Lehrer
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 18, 2011, 4:54:44 PM12/18/11
to
On 2011-12-18 21:21:08 +0000, Garrett Wollman said:
> In article <9l6qf7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
>> at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
>
> In more places than I could count. There are fireworks at midnight
> following December 31 every year in Boston.
Of course. They have them here in Marseilles as well. But, as you
> In article <9l6qf7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
>> at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
>
> In more places than I could count. There are fireworks at midnight
> following December 31 every year in Boston.
perfectly well realize but for some reason wish to appear obtuse, I was
referring to the fireworks to celebrate the new millennium, which were
different both in quantity and quality to those that happen every year.
--
athel
Skitt
Dec 18, 2011, 5:29:06 PM12/18/11
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> Garrett Wollman said:
do you have to attempt to switch the blame to the responder. It was
your ill-phrased inquiry that was at fault.
Nobody was *trying* to appear obtuse -- you succeeded without trying.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
> Garrett Wollman said:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
>>> at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
>>
>> In more places than I could count. There are fireworks at midnight
>> following December 31 every year in Boston.
>
> Of course. They have them here in Marseilles as well. But, as you
> perfectly well realize but for some reason wish to appear obtuse, I was
> referring to the fireworks to celebrate the new millennium, which were
> different both in quantity and quality to those that happen every year.
>
Why, after carelessly asking a silly question and getting a good answer,
>>> In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
>>> at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
>>
>> In more places than I could count. There are fireworks at midnight
>> following December 31 every year in Boston.
>
> Of course. They have them here in Marseilles as well. But, as you
> perfectly well realize but for some reason wish to appear obtuse, I was
> referring to the fireworks to celebrate the new millennium, which were
> different both in quantity and quality to those that happen every year.
>
do you have to attempt to switch the blame to the responder. It was
your ill-phrased inquiry that was at fault.
Nobody was *trying* to appear obtuse -- you succeeded without trying.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Duggy
Dec 18, 2011, 5:20:05 PM12/18/11
to
1 Jan 2000 was the start of the 2000s.
1 Jan 2001 was the start of the 20th Century.
1 Jan 2012 will be the start of the century 2012 - 2111.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Dec 18, 2011, 5:17:50 PM12/18/11
to
On Dec 19, 12:11 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
wrote:
(Although Townsville cancelled ours in 2004 and donated the money to
Tsunami relief.)
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> Nonsense. If that's the convention, how come there were fireworks from
> New Zealand to Hawaii at midnight on 31st December 1999, and none that
> I can remember a year later? Conventions are not decided by logic but
> by what the overwhelming majority consider correct.
There are fireworks every year.
> New Zealand to Hawaii at midnight on 31st December 1999, and none that
> I can remember a year later? Conventions are not decided by logic but
> by what the overwhelming majority consider correct.
(Although Townsville cancelled ours in 2004 and donated the money to
Tsunami relief.)
===
= DUG.
===
R H Draney
Dec 18, 2011, 9:52:14 PM12/18/11
to
Duggy filted:
hundred years behind the rest of the world....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>1 Jan 2000 was the start of the 2000s.
>1 Jan 2001 was the start of the 20th Century.
>1 Jan 2012 will be the start of the century 2012 - 2111.
That middle one bothers me a lot...you're somewhere in the neighborhood of a
>1 Jan 2000 was the start of the 2000s.
>1 Jan 2001 was the start of the 20th Century.
>1 Jan 2012 will be the start of the century 2012 - 2111.
hundred years behind the rest of the world....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Dec 19, 2011, 12:32:36 AM12/19/11
to
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:
> Duggy filted:
>>
>>1 Jan 2000 was the start of the 2000s.
>>1 Jan 2001 was the start of the 20th Century.
>>1 Jan 2012 will be the start of the century 2012 - 2111.
>
> That middle one bothers me a lot...you're somewhere in the
> neighborhood of a hundred years behind the rest of the world....r
Could be worse:
> Duggy filted:
>>
>>1 Jan 2000 was the start of the 2000s.
>>1 Jan 2001 was the start of the 20th Century.
>>1 Jan 2012 will be the start of the century 2012 - 2111.
>
> That middle one bothers me a lot...you're somewhere in the
> neighborhood of a hundred years behind the rest of the world....r
"Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the
fount of all wisdom. As a matter of fact they were very much
afraid if that because they'd just had this experience with this
far-away government that had centralized thought process and
planning and what have you, and then it was actually the reason
that we fought the revolution in the 16th century was to get away
from that kind of onerous crown if you will," Perry said."
Rick Perry, 10/11/11.
<URL:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/
rick-perry-revolutionary-war_n_1006349.html>
And yes, being two centuries off is only one of the problems with that
statement.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |In the beginning, there were no
SF Bay Area (1982-) |reasons, there were only causes.
Chicago (1964-1982) | Daniel Dennet
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Duggy
Dec 19, 2011, 2:19:47 AM12/19/11
to
On Dec 19, 12:52 pm, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Duggy filted:
> >1 Jan 2000 was the start of the 2000s.
> >1 Jan 2001 was the start of the 20th Century.
> >1 Jan 2012 will be the start of the century 2012 - 2111.
> That middle one bothers me a lot...you're somewhere in the neighborhood of a
> hundred years behind the rest of the world....r
The Twentieth Century since 101AD.
> Duggy filted:
> >1 Jan 2000 was the start of the 2000s.
> >1 Jan 2001 was the start of the 20th Century.
> >1 Jan 2012 will be the start of the century 2012 - 2111.
> That middle one bothers me a lot...you're somewhere in the neighborhood of a
> hundred years behind the rest of the world....r
===
= DUG.
===
John Holmes
Dec 19, 2011, 3:51:20 AM12/19/11
to
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> Duggy filted:
>>>
>>> 1 Jan 2000 was the start of the 2000s.
>>> 1 Jan 2001 was the start of the 20th Century.
>>> 1 Jan 2012 will be the start of the century 2012 - 2111.
>>
>> That middle one bothers me a lot...you're somewhere in the
>> neighborhood of a hundred years behind the rest of the world....r
>
> Could be worse:
>
> "Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the
> fount of all wisdom. As a matter of fact they were very much
> afraid if that because they'd just had this experience with this
> far-away government that had centralized thought process and
> planning and what have you, and then it was actually the reason
> that we fought the revolution in the 16th century was to get away
> from that kind of onerous crown if you will," Perry said."
>
> Rick Perry, 10/11/11.
>
>
> <URL:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/
> rick-perry-revolutionary-war_n_1006349.html>
>
> And yes, being two centuries off is only one of the problems with that
> statement.
At least he sounds genuine. He clearly doesn't believe in a centralised
> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> Duggy filted:
>>>
>>> 1 Jan 2000 was the start of the 2000s.
>>> 1 Jan 2001 was the start of the 20th Century.
>>> 1 Jan 2012 will be the start of the century 2012 - 2111.
>>
>> That middle one bothers me a lot...you're somewhere in the
>> neighborhood of a hundred years behind the rest of the world....r
>
> Could be worse:
>
> "Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the
> fount of all wisdom. As a matter of fact they were very much
> afraid if that because they'd just had this experience with this
> far-away government that had centralized thought process and
> planning and what have you, and then it was actually the reason
> that we fought the revolution in the 16th century was to get away
> from that kind of onerous crown if you will," Perry said."
>
> Rick Perry, 10/11/11.
>
>
> <URL:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/
> rick-perry-revolutionary-war_n_1006349.html>
>
> And yes, being two centuries off is only one of the problems with that
> statement.
thought process.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 19, 2011, 4:07:47 AM12/19/11
to
answer it (probably because they can't). It is perfectly obvious that
if we are discussing the beginninng of the millennium and I ask if
there were any firework displays on 31st December 2000 then I'm asking
about firework displays celebrating the new millennium, not the sort of
displays that happen every year.
Anyway, as no one seems to want to provide examples of fireworks
celebrating the new millennium on 31st December 2000, I have done some
searching, and haven't found a single one. On the other hand, for 31st
December 1999 we have:
Washington DC: 31 December 1999
(http://www.virginiahamilton.com/media/photo-gallery/millennium-celebration-in-washington-d-c-december-31-1999-january-2-2000/)
London:
31 December 1999 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/587189.stm)
Ottawa: 31 December 1999 (http://www.nccwatch.org/blunders/millenium.htm)
Auckland: 31 December 1999(http://twm.co.nz/mill_rain.html)
Pretoria: 31 December 1999
(http://www.artlink.co.za/news_article.htm?contentID=12037)
Paris: 31 December 1999
(http://photos.lehighvalleylive.com/express-times/2009/12/photos_of_the_decade_france_mi.html)
Berlin:
31 December 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennium_Bell)
Moscow: 31 December 1999 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/586476.stm)
Rome: 31 December 1999 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IMrWr1w5Tw)
Madrid: 31 December 1999 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IMrWr1w5Tw)
Lagos: 31 December 1999 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IMrWr1w5Tw)
Canberra is perhaps an exception, but that appears because they didn't
want to overshadow the 100th anniversary of the constitution a year
later, not because they had doubts about when the new millennium
started. Commenting on that, the Economost said "Calendar pedants who
rightly but vainly point out that the third millennium will begin in
2001 (there having been no year zero) must be pleased with the decision
by the government of Australia more or less to ignore the year 2000
altogether." (http://www.economist.com/node/160651). It appears that
all or most of the governments of the English-speaking (and probably
not English-speaking) world, and nearly all of the people, are wrong,
and only a handful of pedants (as the Economist calls them) are right.
--
athel
James Hogg
Dec 19, 2011, 4:19:19 AM12/19/11
to
son and...um...er...what's the third one?"
--
James
John Varela
Dec 20, 2011, 5:38:22 PM12/20/11
to
knows that digital counts from zero. If there had been a year zero,
then the years 0 to 99 would have been the first century and the
year 100 would have been the first year of the second century, the
year 200 would have been the first year of the second century, and
so on through the millennia. Regrettably, there was no year zero,
but -- this being a digital age -- it is natural to pretend that
there was.
--
John Varela
Donna Richoux
Dec 20, 2011, 6:54:46 PM12/20/11
to
John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> knows that digital counts from zero. If there had been a year zero,
> then the years 0 to 99 would have been the first century and the
> year 100 would have been the first year of the second century, the
> year 200 would have been the first year of the second century, and
> so on through the millennia. Regrettably, there was no year zero,
> but -- this being a digital age -- it is natural to pretend that
> there was.
I really don't understand why everyone jumped on the old millennium
> We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> knows that digital counts from zero. If there had been a year zero,
> then the years 0 to 99 would have been the first century and the
> year 100 would have been the first year of the second century, the
> year 200 would have been the first year of the second century, and
> so on through the millennia. Regrettably, there was no year zero,
> but -- this being a digital age -- it is natural to pretend that
> there was.
bandwagon -- didn't we have enough of these discussions ten years ago?
The original quote was NOTHING about naming the centuries and zero and
so on. It was about the mistake of writing, in 2001,
At the beginning of this century there was only one
Cast your minds back, please -- all of us had to make some adjustments
at the time, and one was to stop calling the early 1900s "the beginning
of this century." A similar question was to stop and wonder about what
was meant by an even more estabished phrase, "the turn of the century."
Using the Google Groups archive to show how people wrote in 2001, I see
nothing but this sort of mistake:
Feb 1, 2001
French mathematician Henri Poincaré postulated at the beginning of this
century that
Aug 20, 2001
I have a modest collection of "old folders" (Kodak and Zeiss mostly)
that goes back to the beginning of this century,
Nov 7, 2001
Antonio Maura was Prime Minister at the beginning of this century and
was created Duke of Maura
This doesn't have anything to do with counting. This has to do with a
habitual name for an era. It's more like writing the wrong year on a
check -- it's not because you don't know how to count, or you don't
agree as to what the year is really called.
--
Donna Richoux
John Varela
Dec 20, 2011, 9:07:47 PM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:54:46 UTC, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrote:
> John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> > knows that digital counts from zero. If there had been a year zero,
> > then the years 0 to 99 would have been the first century and the
> > year 100 would have been the first year of the second century, the
> > year 200 would have been the first year of the second century, and
> > so on through the millennia. Regrettably, there was no year zero,
> > but -- this being a digital age -- it is natural to pretend that
> > there was.
>
> I really don't understand why everyone jumped on the old millennium
> bandwagon -- didn't we have enough of these discussions ten years ago?
> The original quote was NOTHING about naming the centuries and zero and
> so on. It was about the mistake of writing, in 2001,
Well my comment was tongue in cheek so I don't know why you're
picking on me. (Think about it: if the years 0-99 were the first
century AD, which years constituted the first century BC?)
> At the beginning of this century there was only one
> plural for this word - mothers in law.
>
> Cast your minds back, please -- all of us had to make some adjustments
> at the time, and one was to stop calling the early 1900s "the beginning
> of this century." A similar question was to stop and wonder about what
> was meant by an even more estabished phrase, "the turn of the century."
>
> Using the Google Groups archive to show how people wrote in 2001, I see
> nothing but this sort of mistake:
>
> Feb 1, 2001
> French mathematician Henri Poincaré postulated at the beginning of this
> century that
>
> Aug 20, 2001
> I have a modest collection of "old folders" (Kodak and Zeiss mostly)
> that goes back to the beginning of this century,
>
> Nov 7, 2001
> Antonio Maura was Prime Minister at the beginning of this century and
> was created Duke of Maura
>
> This doesn't have anything to do with counting. This has to do with a
> habitual name for an era. It's more like writing the wrong year on a
> check -- it's not because you don't know how to count, or you don't
> agree as to what the year is really called.
I can't deal with that because I'm too busy wrestling with the idea
that I grew up in the middle years of the last century.
--
John Varela
wrote:
> John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> > knows that digital counts from zero. If there had been a year zero,
> > then the years 0 to 99 would have been the first century and the
> > year 100 would have been the first year of the second century, the
> > year 200 would have been the first year of the second century, and
> > so on through the millennia. Regrettably, there was no year zero,
> > but -- this being a digital age -- it is natural to pretend that
> > there was.
>
> I really don't understand why everyone jumped on the old millennium
> bandwagon -- didn't we have enough of these discussions ten years ago?
> The original quote was NOTHING about naming the centuries and zero and
> so on. It was about the mistake of writing, in 2001,
picking on me. (Think about it: if the years 0-99 were the first
century AD, which years constituted the first century BC?)
> At the beginning of this century there was only one
> plural for this word - mothers in law.
>
> Cast your minds back, please -- all of us had to make some adjustments
> at the time, and one was to stop calling the early 1900s "the beginning
> of this century." A similar question was to stop and wonder about what
> was meant by an even more estabished phrase, "the turn of the century."
>
> Using the Google Groups archive to show how people wrote in 2001, I see
> nothing but this sort of mistake:
>
> Feb 1, 2001
> French mathematician Henri Poincaré postulated at the beginning of this
> century that
>
> Aug 20, 2001
> I have a modest collection of "old folders" (Kodak and Zeiss mostly)
> that goes back to the beginning of this century,
>
> Nov 7, 2001
> Antonio Maura was Prime Minister at the beginning of this century and
> was created Duke of Maura
>
> This doesn't have anything to do with counting. This has to do with a
> habitual name for an era. It's more like writing the wrong year on a
> check -- it's not because you don't know how to count, or you don't
> agree as to what the year is really called.
that I grew up in the middle years of the last century.
--
John Varela
R H Draney
Dec 21, 2011, 1:26:56 AM12/21/11
to
John Varela filted:
>
>I can't deal with that because I'm too busy wrestling with the idea
>that I grew up in the middle years of the last century.
It's bad enough to think of oneself as living in the Elizabethan era....r
>I can't deal with that because I'm too busy wrestling with the idea
>that I grew up in the middle years of the last century.
Duggy
Dec 21, 2011, 2:23:54 AM12/21/11
to
On Dec 19, 7:54 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
wrote:
going to change that.
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> On 2011-12-18 21:21:08 +0000, Garrett Wollman said:
>
> > In article <9l6qf7Fsk...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
> >> In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
> >> at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
>
> > In more places than I could count. There are fireworks at midnight
> > following December 31 every year in Boston.
>
> Of course. They have them here in Marseilles as well. But, as you
> perfectly well realize but for some reason wish to appear obtuse, I was
> referring to the fireworks to celebrate the new millennium, which were
> different both in quantity and quality to those that happen every year.
Honestly, you were incredibly unclear. Blaming everyone else isn't
>
> >> In any case, how many people got it "right"? Were there any fireworks
> >> at midnight on 31st December 2000? Where?
>
> > In more places than I could count. There are fireworks at midnight
> > following December 31 every year in Boston.
>
> Of course. They have them here in Marseilles as well. But, as you
> perfectly well realize but for some reason wish to appear obtuse, I was
> referring to the fireworks to celebrate the new millennium, which were
> different both in quantity and quality to those that happen every year.
going to change that.
===
= DUG.
===
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 21, 2011, 2:59:48 AM12/21/11
to
should assume that I meant a question to which everyone knows the
answer (that fireworks display occur every year) when the context
suggested a question to which the answer is not obvious.
This morning on television they reported "an American study" that shows
that breakfast cereals contain a lot of sugar: was it really necessary
to find an American stuydy to reveal something so obvious?
--
athel
Donna Richoux
Dec 21, 2011, 6:55:10 AM12/21/11
to
John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:54:46 UTC, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> wrote:
>
> > John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> > > knows that digital counts from zero. If there had been a year zero,
> > > then the years 0 to 99 would have been the first century and the
> > > year 100 would have been the first year of the second century, the
> > > year 200 would have been the first year of the second century, and
> > > so on through the millennia. Regrettably, there was no year zero,
> > > but -- this being a digital age -- it is natural to pretend that
> > > there was.
> >
> > I really don't understand why everyone jumped on the old millennium
> > bandwagon -- didn't we have enough of these discussions ten years ago?
> > The original quote was NOTHING about naming the centuries and zero and
> > so on. It was about the mistake of writing, in 2001,
>
> Well my comment was tongue in cheek so I don't know why you're
> picking on me.
Straw, camel.
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:54:46 UTC, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> wrote:
>
> > John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> > > knows that digital counts from zero. If there had been a year zero,
> > > then the years 0 to 99 would have been the first century and the
> > > year 100 would have been the first year of the second century, the
> > > year 200 would have been the first year of the second century, and
> > > so on through the millennia. Regrettably, there was no year zero,
> > > but -- this being a digital age -- it is natural to pretend that
> > > there was.
> >
> > I really don't understand why everyone jumped on the old millennium
> > bandwagon -- didn't we have enough of these discussions ten years ago?
> > The original quote was NOTHING about naming the centuries and zero and
> > so on. It was about the mistake of writing, in 2001,
>
> Well my comment was tongue in cheek so I don't know why you're
> picking on me.
>(Think about it: if the years 0-99 were the first
> century AD, which years constituted the first century BC?)
--
Best - Donna Richoux
Stan Brown
Dec 21, 2011, 7:03:45 AM12/21/11
to
On 20 Dec 2011 22:38:22 GMT, John Varela wrote:
> We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> knows that digital counts from zero.
>
I can only hope you're joking, because "everyone" can hardly "know"
> We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> knows that digital counts from zero.
>
something that isn't true.
Counting is counting, and it is inherently digital. You can't
contrast digital counting with some other sort of counting. And it
starts at 1 with the first item, whether a computer is involved or
not.
John Dunlop
Dec 21, 2011, 8:03:33 AM12/21/11
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> How often do you need the plural possessive?
How many mothers-in-law does it take to change a light bulb? One. She
just holds it up and waits for the world to revolve around her.
--
John
> How often do you need the plural possessive?
How many mothers-in-law does it take to change a light bulb? One. She
just holds it up and waits for the world to revolve around her.
--
John
John Dunlop
Dec 21, 2011, 8:06:44 AM12/21/11
to
John Dunlop:
Scratch that. I've just read "possessive".
--
John
--
John
Peter Brooks
Dec 21, 2011, 8:33:05 AM12/21/11
to
the lightbulb in the first place suggests that she's not been to the
pukka mother-in-lawing academy. Properly trained mothers-in-law only
grasp their tipple, and then only if the neck of their son-in-law
isn't easily to hand.
Peter Brooks
Dec 21, 2011, 8:30:26 AM12/21/11
to
seems to work for them. Being unclear, doubly so. Perhaps we simply
suffer (or delight) in an under-represenation of mother-in-laws on
Usenet.
I'd see this as an indication that it's a blessed haven myself, but
that's just me.
John Varela
Dec 21, 2011, 4:49:02 PM12/21/11
to
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:03:45 UTC, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2011 22:38:22 GMT, John Varela wrote:
> > We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> > knows that digital counts from zero.
> >
>
> I can only hope you're joking, because "everyone" can hardly "know"
> something that isn't true.
>
> Counting is counting, and it is inherently digital. You can't
> contrast digital counting with some other sort of counting. And it
> starts at 1 with the first item, whether a computer is involved or
> not.
You're obviously too young to recall when core bits cost a dollar
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2011 22:38:22 GMT, John Varela wrote:
> > We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> > knows that digital counts from zero.
> >
>
> I can only hope you're joking, because "everyone" can hardly "know"
> something that isn't true.
>
> Counting is counting, and it is inherently digital. You can't
> contrast digital counting with some other sort of counting. And it
> starts at 1 with the first item, whether a computer is involved or
> not.
apiece to buy and a dollar was worth something close to a dollar,
but back in the day we packed data into words. If a file (we called
them "tables") had no more than 64 entries then we used only six
bits to encode the entry points, leaving 28 bits in the word for
storing other information. The way we got 64 entries with six bits
was by counting them as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11...
Or -- cross thread alert -- we still use 12 bits to get 4096
transponder codes.
--
John Varela
Stan Brown
Dec 21, 2011, 8:37:31 PM12/21/11
to
On 21 Dec 2011 21:49:02 GMT, John Varela wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:03:45 UTC, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > On 20 Dec 2011 22:38:22 GMT, John Varela wrote:
> > > We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> > > knows that digital counts from zero.
> > >
> >
> > I can only hope you're joking, because "everyone" can hardly "know"
> > something that isn't true.
> >
> > Counting is counting, and it is inherently digital. You can't
> > contrast digital counting with some other sort of counting. And it
> > starts at 1 with the first item, whether a computer is involved or
> > not.
>
> You're obviously too young to recall when core bits cost a dollar
> apiece to buy and a dollar was worth something close to a dollar,
Not only is that an ad hominem, it's inaccurate.
>
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:03:45 UTC, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > On 20 Dec 2011 22:38:22 GMT, John Varela wrote:
> > > We live in a digital age and everyone who has ever worked in binary
> > > knows that digital counts from zero.
> > >
> >
> > I can only hope you're joking, because "everyone" can hardly "know"
> > something that isn't true.
> >
> > Counting is counting, and it is inherently digital. You can't
> > contrast digital counting with some other sort of counting. And it
> > starts at 1 with the first item, whether a computer is involved or
> > not.
>
> You're obviously too young to recall when core bits cost a dollar
> apiece to buy and a dollar was worth something close to a dollar,
Peter Moylan
Dec 22, 2011, 7:50:29 PM12/22/11
to
Peter Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 17, 6:26 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
>>
> It's not unknown for a single one to still leave one with the
> impression that there's a legion of them.
My brother-in-law (I'm not sure whether I should call him an ex) once,
while washing the dishes at our home, said "Peter, you need a
mother-in-law". My response was "Why? I already have two."
It was only later that I learnt that the French word for a dishmop
(belle-mère) was the same as the French word for a mother-in-law.
I still don't know whether divorcing a spouse automatically implies that
the in-laws are no longer in-laws.
(If a Tasmanian man divorces his wife, is she still his sister?)
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
> On Dec 17, 6:26 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr>
> wrote:
>>
>> How often do you need the plural possessive? How many mothers-in-law
>> have you got?
>>
>> How often do you need the plural possessive? How many mothers-in-law
>>
> It's not unknown for a single one to still leave one with the
> impression that there's a legion of them.
My brother-in-law (I'm not sure whether I should call him an ex) once,
while washing the dishes at our home, said "Peter, you need a
mother-in-law". My response was "Why? I already have two."
It was only later that I learnt that the French word for a dishmop
(belle-mère) was the same as the French word for a mother-in-law.
I still don't know whether divorcing a spouse automatically implies that
the in-laws are no longer in-laws.
(If a Tasmanian man divorces his wife, is she still his sister?)
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
Dec 22, 2011, 7:58:18 PM12/22/11
to
Donna Richoux wrote:
> The Welsh Windbag <TheWels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Hindu reference was the earliest I found. That made me wonder about the
>> claim.
>
> There is a collection of all the columns "Know Your English" that
> appeared in The Hindu newspaper, at:
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/34188629/Know-Your-English
>
> The mother-in-law question appears on Page 49, on the page dated
> September 4, 2001. There is no mention of the OED. In full:
>
> What is the plural of "mother-in-law"?
> (S. Shanthi, Kurnool)
> "mother in laws" was considered unacceptable. As a
> result, we had "fathers in law", "brothers in law","
> sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of
> English have started saying, "mother in laws", father
> in laws", "brother in laws", etc. So to get back to
> your question, the plural of "mother in law" could be
> either "mothers in law" or "mother in laws". Take
> your pick.
>
> It would be a separate question to see at what point in the pass-around
> process the word "OED" got mistakenly attached.
>
Perhaps the article writer should have specified "speakers of Indian
English".
> The Welsh Windbag <TheWels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Hindu reference was the earliest I found. That made me wonder about the
>> claim.
>
> There is a collection of all the columns "Know Your English" that
> appeared in The Hindu newspaper, at:
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/34188629/Know-Your-English
>
> The mother-in-law question appears on Page 49, on the page dated
> September 4, 2001. There is no mention of the OED. In full:
>
> What is the plural of "mother-in-law"?
> (S. Shanthi, Kurnool)
>
> At the beginning of this century there was only one
> plural for this word - mothers in law. The word
> At the beginning of this century there was only one
> "mother in laws" was considered unacceptable. As a
> result, we had "fathers in law", "brothers in law","
> sisters in law", etc. Of late, native speakers of
> English have started saying, "mother in laws", father
> in laws", "brother in laws", etc. So to get back to
> your question, the plural of "mother in law" could be
> either "mothers in law" or "mother in laws". Take
> your pick.
>
> It would be a separate question to see at what point in the pass-around
> process the word "OED" got mistakenly attached.
>
Perhaps the article writer should have specified "speakers of Indian
English".
Peter Moylan
Dec 22, 2011, 8:03:59 PM12/22/11
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2011-12-17 20:19:17 +0000, Hairy Monster said:
>
>> The Welsh Windbag spouted forth:
>>
>>> Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a
>>> quote
>>> from the OED
>>>
>>> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
>>> word – mothers in law. The word “mother in laws” was considered
>>> or “mother in laws”. OED'
>>
>> Why are we seeking a plural? Isn't one mother-in-law enough?
>
> Between 1835 and 1907 (Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907 (7
> Edw.7 c.47)) it was illegal for a man to marry his deceased wife's
> sister (or for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother, but that
> seems to have been less controversial). Before 1835 it was disapproved
> of by the hierarchy of the Church of England, but not prohibited by law.
> Throughout the intervening period there were a lot of efforts to repeal
> the law, but it took a long time. The people who opposed the change saw
> it as the End of Civilization as We Know It (much like the people who
> oppose same-sex marriages today). Those who supported it saw it as
> common sense, and sometimes used the slogan "Two wives; one mother-in-law".
>
> Laura will know more about this than I do, but isn't it the traditional
> Jewish view that a man has a positive _duty_ to marry his deceased
> brother's widow?
The crime of Onan was refusing to impregnate her, not refusing to marry
her. He probably wouldn't have had this duty if the deceased brother
already had heirs.
> On 2011-12-17 20:19:17 +0000, Hairy Monster said:
>
>> The Welsh Windbag spouted forth:
>>
>>> Someone in another group has made the claim that the following is a
>>> quote
>>> from the OED
>>>
>>> 'At the beginning of this century there was only one plural for this
>>> word – mothers in law. The word “mother in laws” was considered
>>> unacceptable. As a result, we had “fathers in law”, “brothers in law”,
>>> “sisters in law”, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
>>> started saying, “mother in laws”, father in laws”, “brother in laws”,
>>> etc. So the plural of “mother in law” could be either “mothers in law”
>>> “sisters in law”, etc. Of late, native speakers of English have
>>> started saying, “mother in laws”, father in laws”, “brother in laws”,
>>> or “mother in laws”. OED'
>>
>> Why are we seeking a plural? Isn't one mother-in-law enough?
>
> Between 1835 and 1907 (Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907 (7
> Edw.7 c.47)) it was illegal for a man to marry his deceased wife's
> sister (or for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother, but that
> seems to have been less controversial). Before 1835 it was disapproved
> of by the hierarchy of the Church of England, but not prohibited by law.
> Throughout the intervening period there were a lot of efforts to repeal
> the law, but it took a long time. The people who opposed the change saw
> it as the End of Civilization as We Know It (much like the people who
> oppose same-sex marriages today). Those who supported it saw it as
> common sense, and sometimes used the slogan "Two wives; one mother-in-law".
>
> Laura will know more about this than I do, but isn't it the traditional
> Jewish view that a man has a positive _duty_ to marry his deceased
> brother's widow?
The crime of Onan was refusing to impregnate her, not refusing to marry
her. He probably wouldn't have had this duty if the deceased brother
already had heirs.
Dr Nick
Dec 23, 2011, 12:34:00 PM12/23/11
to
I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
confusing enough without adding this!).
I could have done with a print-out of this alongside my Kindle I think:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/CountOfMonteCristoRelations.svg>
although it's actually missing a crucial link to my point (that between
de Villefort and Renee): Héloïse is referred to in the book as
Valentine's mother in law when she's the current wife of her widowed
father.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Steve Hayes
Dec 23, 2011, 1:24:02 PM12/23/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:34:00 +0000, Dr Nick
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
>which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
>confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
>confusing enough without adding this!).
Quite common in the 19th century. Likewise "son-in-law" can mean stepson.
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
>which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
>confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
>confusing enough without adding this!).
It's tended to follow Fowler's recommendation of making a distinction, which
is a useful one, but older texts caqn still have the other meaning.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 23, 2011, 3:58:11 PM12/23/11
to
translation error: "belle-mère" means both step-mother and
mother-in-law, but the context usually makes clear which is meant.
--
athel
Lanarcam
Dec 23, 2011, 4:13:40 PM12/23/11
to
litterary and pejorative, it is better not to use it blindly.
<http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/visusel.exe?11;s=1504109085;r=1;nat=;sol=0;>
Stan Brown
Dec 24, 2011, 11:10:16 AM12/24/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:34:00 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
> I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
> which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
> confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
> confusing enough without adding this!).
"Principal characters", I think you mean.
> I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
> which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
> confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
> confusing enough without adding this!).
In French, if I recall correctly, "belle-mère" can mean mother-in-law
or stepmother; similarly for "belle-soeur". I suspect the translator
was ignorant of the difference in English, or simply inattentive to
the story.
Dr Nick
Dec 24, 2011, 12:42:36 PM12/24/11
to
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:34:00 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
>
>> I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
>> which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
>> confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
>> confusing enough without adding this!).
>
> "Principal characters", I think you mean.
Of course I do. I think I should try hard to find synonyms and never
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:34:00 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
>
>> I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
>> which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
>> confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
>> confusing enough without adding this!).
>
> "Principal characters", I think you mean.
try to use that word. "Chief" perhaps - which works for both the -al
noun and adjective.
> In French, if I recall correctly, "belle-mère" can mean mother-in-law
> or stepmother; similarly for "belle-soeur". I suspect the translator
> was ignorant of the difference in English, or simply inattentive to
> the story.
century.
Steve Hayes
Dec 26, 2011, 6:13:26 AM12/26/11
to
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:10:16 -0500, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:34:00 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
>
>> I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
>> which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
>> confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
>> confusing enough without adding this!).
>
>"Principal characters", I think you mean.
>
>In French, if I recall correctly, "belle-mère" can mean mother-in-law
>or stepmother; similarly for "belle-soeur". I suspect the translator
>was ignorant of the difference in English, or simply inattentive to
>the story.
But the difference in English is relatively recent.
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:34:00 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
>
>> I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
>> which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
>> confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
>> confusing enough without adding this!).
>
>"Principal characters", I think you mean.
>
>In French, if I recall correctly, "belle-mère" can mean mother-in-law
>or stepmother; similarly for "belle-soeur". I suspect the translator
>was ignorant of the difference in English, or simply inattentive to
>the story.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Dec 26, 2011, 11:40:33 AM12/26/11
to
On 2011-12-26 11:13:26 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:10:16 -0500, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:34:00 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
>>
>>> I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
>>> which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
>>> confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
>>> confusing enough without adding this!).
>>
>> "Principal characters", I think you mean.
>>
>> In French, if I recall correctly, "belle-mère" can mean mother-in-law
>> or stepmother; similarly for "belle-soeur". I suspect the translator
>> was ignorant of the difference in English, or simply inattentive to
>> the story.
>
> But the difference in English is relatively recent.
That's a bit vague. How recent is "relatively recent"? Relative to
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:10:16 -0500, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:34:00 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
>>
>>> I'm reading a translation of The Count of Monte Cristo at the moment
>>> which uses "mother in law" to mean "step mother", which I found rather
>>> confusing (I've found the relationships of the principle characters
>>> confusing enough without adding this!).
>>
>> "Principal characters", I think you mean.
>>
>> In French, if I recall correctly, "belle-mère" can mean mother-in-law
>> or stepmother; similarly for "belle-soeur". I suspect the translator
>> was ignorant of the difference in English, or simply inattentive to
>> the story.
>
> But the difference in English is relatively recent.
what? Sources? Jane Austen seems like the sort of writer who might have
written things about mothers-in-law or stepmothers: did she distinguish
between them?
--
athel
Snidely
Dec 26, 2011, 6:02:09 PM12/26/11
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> scribbled something
like ...
> It appears that [...] nearly all of the
> people, are wrong, and only a handful of pedants (as the Economist
> calls them) are right.
>
Your statement is redundant.
Pedants are Always Right.
/dps "wannabee pedant"
like ...
> It appears that [...] nearly all of the
> people, are wrong, and only a handful of pedants (as the Economist
> calls them) are right.
>
Your statement is redundant.
Pedants are Always Right.
/dps "wannabee pedant"
Steve Hayes
Dec 26, 2011, 11:55:47 PM12/26/11
to
refer to what we would describe as a stepson, and mother-in-law to describe
what we would call a stepmother. So by "relatively recent" I mean within the
last 120 years or so, as opposed to the things Evan digs up about the way
words were used in 1382 or thereabouts.
So if the translation was made in the 19th century it would have accurately
reflected contemporary English.
Mike Lyle
Dec 27, 2011, 5:22:29 PM12/27/11
to
Church Law: widowed stepmothers and wife's mothers were equally
unavailable as brides.
I knew somebody who referred to her husband's previous spouse as "my
wife-in-law".
--
Mike.
ke...@cam.ac.uk
Jan 1, 2012, 5:57:45 AM1/1/12
to
In article <87r4ztn...@temporary-address.org.uk>,
Dr Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
"ignorant of the difference" read "unaware that later generations were going to
invent a difference".
Katy
Dr Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>> In French, if I recall correctly, "belle-mère" can mean mother-in-law
>> or stepmother; similarly for "belle-soeur". I suspect the translator
>> was ignorant of the difference in English, or simply inattentive to
>> the story.
>
>I suspect so. It appears to be an anonymous translation of the mid 19th
>century.
Mother-in-law for stepmother was common in 19th-century English writing. For
>
>> In French, if I recall correctly, "belle-mère" can mean mother-in-law
>> or stepmother; similarly for "belle-soeur". I suspect the translator
>> was ignorant of the difference in English, or simply inattentive to
>> the story.
>
>I suspect so. It appears to be an anonymous translation of the mid 19th
>century.
"ignorant of the difference" read "unaware that later generations were going to
invent a difference".
Katy
Sara Lorimer
Jan 1, 2012, 9:43:49 PM1/1/12
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2011-12-17 14:21:24 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
> >
> > I say "mothers-in-law" for the plural, "mother-in-law's" for the singular
> > possessive, and "mother-in-laws'" for the plural possessive.
not interested in houses with mother-in-laws."
--
SML
Seattle-ish
> On 2011-12-17 14:21:24 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
> >
> > I say "mothers-in-law" for the plural, "mother-in-law's" for the singular
> > possessive, and "mother-in-laws'" for the plural possessive.
>
> How often do you need the plural possessive? How many mothers-in-law
> have you got?
Although I can't say for certain, it's possible that I've said "We're
> How often do you need the plural possessive? How many mothers-in-law
> have you got?
not interested in houses with mother-in-laws."
--
SML
Seattle-ish
tony cooper
Jan 1, 2012, 10:35:20 PM1/1/12
to
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Brooks
Jan 2, 2012, 4:07:02 AM1/2/12
to
On Jan 2, 5:35 am, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 18:43:49 -0800, que.sara.s...@gmail.com (Sara
>
> Lorimer) wrote:
that it's a myth.
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 18:43:49 -0800, que.sara.s...@gmail.com (Sara
>
> Lorimer) wrote:
> >Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
> >> On 2011-12-17 14:21:24 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>
> >> > I say "mothers-in-law" for the plural, "mother-in-law's" for the singular
> >> > possessive, and "mother-in-laws'" for the plural possessive.
>
> >> How often do you need the plural possessive? How many mothers-in-law
> >> have you got?
>
> >Although I can't say for certain, it's possible that I've said "We're
> >not interested in houses with mother-in-laws."
>
> Some people turn garages into mother-in-laws.
>
Well, I can see why somebody might gain that impression, but I believe
>
> >> On 2011-12-17 14:21:24 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>
> >> > I say "mothers-in-law" for the plural, "mother-in-law's" for the singular
> >> > possessive, and "mother-in-laws'" for the plural possessive.
>
> >> How often do you need the plural possessive? How many mothers-in-law
> >> have you got?
>
> >Although I can't say for certain, it's possible that I've said "We're
> >not interested in houses with mother-in-laws."
>
> Some people turn garages into mother-in-laws.
>
that it's a myth.
tony cooper
Jan 2, 2012, 9:02:59 AM1/2/12
to
"mother-in-law" can be a part of a house that has been built or
remodeled to accommodate a live-in relative. It usually has kitchen
and bath facilities allowing the relative to live somewhat privately
and apart from the rest of the family.
It our version of the Dower Cottage.
the Omrud
Jan 2, 2012, 9:55:25 AM1/2/12
to
--
David
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Jan 2, 2012, 10:05:47 AM1/2/12
to
OED:
granny flat n. a self-contained living unit for an elderly relative
forming part of or detached from the family home.
Which is ometimes know as a "granny annex", leading to:
grannex, n.
= granny annexe n. at granny n. Additions.
1983 Times 19 Sept. 3/2 Creating a 'granny flat', or 'grannex'
as they have become known in estate agents' jargon, may seem a
kindhearted act.
1985 D. May in D. J. Enright Fair of Speech 123 Estate agents
sometimes call small, self-contained parts of a house a 'granny
annex', or more recently just a grannex'.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Brooks
Jan 2, 2012, 10:15:17 AM1/2/12
to
On Jan 2, 4:55 pm, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/01/2012 14:02, tony cooper wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 01:07:02 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
> > <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/01/2012 14:02, tony cooper wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 01:07:02 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
law' used for that... most peculiar.
tony cooper
Jan 2, 2012, 2:44:55 PM1/2/12
to
house for sale - often call it a "mother-in-law suite". They are
so-called because it is usually the mother-in-law of one of primary
occupants of the house that ends up there.
I find it rather peculiar to call a part of a house a "flat" since I
associate "flat" with our term: "apartment".
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Jan 2, 2012, 3:08:55 PM1/2/12
to
"granny flat" to be referred to as a "granny apartment".
Ah yes. Searching for
"granny apartment" site:.uk
finds instances particularly properties for sale or rent outside the UK.
In Austria:
http://www.skipad.co.uk/skipropertyforsale/4-bedroom-house-kainisch/l144
[for sale]
Description for 4 bedroom house, Kainisch
The house lies in a sunny position in the village of Kainisch. The 3
beautiful lakes at Grundsee, Altausee and the famous Hallstatt are
just 10 minutes drive by car. The nearest ski area is Tauplitz just
15 minutes away. The famous ski area of Schladming that hosts the
FIS world cup is just a 30 mins drive. Quality house with lots of
wood features built to the highest standard. The house carries a
second home permit making it easy to own. The house features a
-> granny apartment with its own entrance of 40m2 with a bedroom,
perfect for visiting guests or to rent out.
Stan Brown
Jan 2, 2012, 6:10:22 PM1/2/12
to
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:02:59 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>
> While I hold out the idea that you *may* be joking, in the US a
> "mother-in-law" can be a part of a house that has been built or
> remodeled to accommodate a live-in relative. It usually has kitchen
> and bath facilities allowing the relative to live somewhat privately
> and apart from the rest of the family.
And usually has a separate entrance from the outside, too.
>
> While I hold out the idea that you *may* be joking, in the US a
> "mother-in-law" can be a part of a house that has been built or
> remodeled to accommodate a live-in relative. It usually has kitchen
> and bath facilities allowing the relative to live somewhat privately
> and apart from the rest of the family.
But I've never heard it called a mother-in-law, only a "mother-in-law
suite".
tony cooper
Jan 2, 2012, 7:11:02 PM1/2/12
to
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:10:22 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:02:59 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> While I hold out the idea that you *may* be joking, in the US a
>> "mother-in-law" can be a part of a house that has been built or
>> remodeled to accommodate a live-in relative. It usually has kitchen
>> and bath facilities allowing the relative to live somewhat privately
>> and apart from the rest of the family.
>
>And usually has a separate entrance from the outside, too.
>
>But I've never heard it called a mother-in-law, only a "mother-in-law
>suite".
Certain word usages bother certain people. "Home", used where "House"
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:02:59 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> While I hold out the idea that you *may* be joking, in the US a
>> "mother-in-law" can be a part of a house that has been built or
>> remodeled to accommodate a live-in relative. It usually has kitchen
>> and bath facilities allowing the relative to live somewhat privately
>> and apart from the rest of the family.
>
>And usually has a separate entrance from the outside, too.
>
>But I've never heard it called a mother-in-law, only a "mother-in-law
>suite".
is appropriate bothers some people. "Suite", used to describe one
room, bothers me. Many mother-in-law conversions are just one room.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages