The rule for why 'zig-zag' but not 'zag-zig'

[occam]

I had not heard of ablaut reduplication which explains something every
native speaker of English knows without knowing the why: why we say
hip-hop (but not hop-hip); ding-dong (but not dong-ding) and so on. The
rule apparently is i-a-o. Ping-pong, not pong-ping.

The other gem - which I am sure is more flexible was stated - is the
ordering of multiple adjectives before a noun. According to Mark Forsyth
the order of adjectives has to follow the sequence:
opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose + noun.

so, 'strange little green Martians' is OK, but 'green little strange
Martians' is ... odd.

Hmm...




Source: BBC program 'The Museum of Curiosity'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b088f2vz#play

[Richard Tobin]

In article <o5b0s9$5b8$1...@dont-email.me>, occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> I had not heard of ablaut reduplication which explains something every
>native speaker of English knows without knowing the why: why we say
>hip-hop (but not hop-hip); ding-dong (but not dong-ding) and so on. The
>rule apparently is i-a-o. Ping-pong, not pong-ping.

That's certainly a top tip.

-- Richard

[musika]

But not a tip-top one.


--
Ray
UK

[John Varela]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:47:13 UTC, musika <mUs...@NOSPAMexcite.com>
wrote:

That's a mish-mash.

--
John Varela

[occam]

On 13/01/2017 21:17, Stefan Ram wrote:

> I found some expressions of that type, and list the most frequent ones
> here in order of declining frequency.
> (All entries were lower-cased by me.)
>
> flip-flop, sing-song, zig-zag, hip-hop, chit-chat,
> tip-top, riff-raff, ding-dong, tittle-tattle, tic-tac,
> shilly-shally, ping-pong, tick-tack, criss-cross,
> wishy-washy, fiddle-faddle, knick-knack, dilly-dally,
> wish-wash, tick-tock, pit-pat, nick-nack, dingle-dangle,
> pitter-patter, jingle-jangle, clip-clop, chiff-chaff,
> wisch-wasch, whim-wham, prittle-prattle, mish-mash, and
> flim-flam.
>
> Similar expressions can also be found with a space.
> (All entries were lower-cased by me.)
>
> king kong, ping pong, flip flop, ding dong,
> jingle jangle, hip hop, tic tac, shilly shally,
> chit chat, tick tock, dingle dangle, dilly dally,
> chinky chunky, tittle tattle, wishy washy,
> twinkum twankum, criss cross, and tiddle taddle.
>
> (Not directly related, but by chance I also found:
> There is a wordgroup »CVCCle« in the English language with
> the incarnations »babble«, »daddle«, »diddle«, »gaggle«,
> »giggle«, »goggle«, »tattle«, and »tittle«.)
>
> The sequence »...i...a...« seems to be far more common than
> »...a...i...«. Maybe this is so, because it alludes to the
> sequence in verbs, when the present is given first and then
> the past, as in, »give-gave«?
>

Does tic-tac-toe count? It has all three in order.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <o5b3ak$14bn$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

Makes me feel tip top.

--
charles

[Lewis]

In message <o5b0s9$5b8$1...@dont-email.me>

occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> I had not heard of ablaut reduplication which explains something every
> native speaker of English knows without knowing the why: why we say
> hip-hop (but not hop-hip); ding-dong (but not dong-ding) and so on. The
> rule apparently is i-a-o. Ping-pong, not pong-ping.

> The other gem - which I am sure is more flexible was stated - is the
> ordering of multiple adjectives before a noun. According to Mark Forsyth
> the order of adjectives has to follow the sequence:
> opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose + noun.

> so, 'strange little green Martians' is OK, but 'green little strange
> Martians' is ... odd.

"Strange green little martin" is fine.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons for you are crunchy and taste
good with ketchup

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Possibly.
In BrE there is the colloquial:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bish_bash_bosh

bish bash bosh

(Britain) Indicating the completion of a task with efficiency.

It and its origin are discussed here:
http://blog.inkyfool.com/2009/12/bish-bash-bosh.html

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Bish bash bosh

Today I heard two of my colleagues use the phrase “bish bash bosh”,
to demonstrate the ease and efficiency of something they had
accomplished (“I called the client, explained the situation and
bish, bash, bosh”). Like “ding, dang, dong” (the sound made by the
bells in Frère Jacques) or “Ping, Pang, Pong” (a Japanese drinking
game or the names of the courtiers in Turandot, depending on your
frame of reference) it has an appealing if slightly nonsensical air
and I was sufficiently struck by the phrase to try to find out where
it had come from (my colleagues having no idea).

It seems that it was popularised by comedian Harry Enfield in his
Loadsamoney sketch. The first newspaper references I can find – in
the late 1980s – all refer to Harry Enfield, with the phrase gaining
wider currency throughout the late nineties and into the 2000s
(almost ten years in, I’m still not sure about the “noughties”).

There are earlier references ... 1962 ... 1924 .... I am not sure
... whether he [Harry Enfield],... invented it independently... The
construction – three one-syllable nonsense words, with the noun
changing from “i” to “a” to “o” – seems like a fairly intuitive one,
if the examples above are anything to go by.

UPDATE - Dogberry points out that tic tac, mishmash, Kit Kat, knick
knack, hiphop, clip clop and tick tock, ping pong, sing song, ding
dong, and king kong all fit a truncated version of the pattern - an
"i" followed by an "o" or an "a". So do flimflam, chit-chat,
bric-a-brac (almost) and Mary Poppins' catchphrase "spit spot".
Other phrases using all three vowels are "Slip, slap, slop" (as in
"slip on a shirt, slap on a hat, and slop on some sunscreen") and
Spike Milligan's On the Ning Nang Nong. There is a long list of
similar words here - the "i" followed by "a" or "o" pattern seems
remarkably prevalent.

<snip>

Some English irregular verbs also follow this pattern. Those with
three vowels include ring/rang/rung, sing/sang/sung,
drink/drank/drunk, sink/sank/sunk, and shrink/shrank/shrunk. Those
with two include hang /hung, sit/sat, and spit/spat.
<snip>

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

[Richard Tobin]

In article <hic-haec-hoc-...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
Stefan Ram <r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> And then there's "Hic, haec, hoc", does this ring any bells
> for anyone?

Bellum bellum bellum, belli bello bello?

-- Richard

[Peter Young]

On 14 Jan 2017 r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

> occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> writes:
>>>The sequence »...i...a...« seems to be far more common than
>>>»...a...i...«. Maybe this is so, because it alludes to the
>>>sequence in verbs, when the present is given first and then

>>Does tic-tac-toe count? It has all three in order.

> And then there's "Hic, haec, hoc", does this ring any bells
> for anyone?

Horum, harum, horum.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Jerry Friedman]

On 1/13/17 8:28 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> In sequence of decreasing frequency:
>
> And there are some sequences I did not report
> because I could not make sense of them.
>
> For example, »woll well«. But in fact, it is
> very frequent in this work:
>
> "»I woll well,« seyde Arthure, »and I had
> ony mo sperys here.«"
>
> Le Morte d'Arthur - Sir Thomas Malory (1485)
>
> Mhh, seems they spoke slang in the 15th century.

"I would well," said Arthur, "if I had any more spears here."

I don't know whether "woll" corresponds better etymologically with
"will" or "would", and I don't have access to the OED this weekend.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

The OED has "woll" in the entry for "will, v.":

2. pres. tense. 1st and 3rd pers. sing.

There are 4 groups in that sense, labelled <alpha> to <delta>.

That with the spelling "woll" in it is:

<gamma>. ME wole, ME–15 wolle, ME–15 wol(l (ME uole, ME vol); ME–16
wooll (ME -lle, whowl), dial. 17–18 wool, woul, 18 ool.

a1275 Prov. Alfred 688 in Old Eng. Misc. 137 He uole brinhin on
and tuenti to nout.
c1290 Beket 121 in S. Eng. Leg. 110 Þat þing þat god helpe wole.
1297 R. Gloucester's Chron. (Rolls) 669 Ich wolle telle þat cas.
1390 J. Gower Confessio Amantis I. 7 The werre wol no pes
purchace.
a1436 Domesday Ipswich v, in Black Bk. Admir. (Rolls) II. 31 ?if
that he wooll done his lawe.
?1473 Caxton tr. R. Le Fèvre Recuyell Hist. Troye (1894) I. lf.
14, Wole y or wole y not.
1505 F. Marsin et al. Rep. Ferdinand of Arragon in J. Gairdner
Historia Regis Henrici Septimi (1858) 261 And so wolle the kynge
my lorde do.
1557 Lds. Wharton & Eure in Lodge Illustr. Brit. Hist. (1791) I.
267 We know yor Lordship's noble wysdome woll consyder thes.
1651 Hermeticall Banquet 82 Then drink't I wooll.
1718 J. Fox Wanderer 118 Write me down,..what wool please you.
1789 C. Vallancey Vocab. Lang. Forth & Bargie in Trans. Royal
Irish Acad. 1788 2 Antiquities 34 Woul, to wish.
1802 R. Bloomfield Rural Tales 3 Ay, Kate, I wool.
1875 ‘S. Beauchamp’ N. Hamilton II. 17 ‘A thinks a ool,’ says
she.

[charles]

In article <o5dbap$288i$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

veni, vidi, vica (or Visa)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Jerry Friedman]

On 1/14/17 8:42 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:25:26 -0700, Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/17 8:28 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>>> In sequence of decreasing frequency:
>>>
>>> And there are some sequences I did not report
>>> because I could not make sense of them.
>>>
>>> For example, »woll well«. But in fact, it is
>>> very frequent in this work:
>>>
>>> "»I woll well,« seyde Arthure, »and I had
>>> ony mo sperys here.«"
>>>
>>> Le Morte d'Arthur - Sir Thomas Malory (1485)
>>>
>>> Mhh, seems they spoke slang in the 15th century.
>>
>> "I would well," said Arthur, "if I had any more spears here."
>>
>> I don't know whether "woll" corresponds better etymologically with
>> "will" or "would", and I don't have access to the OED this weekend.
>
> The OED has "woll" in the entry for "will, v.":
>
> 2. pres. tense. 1st and 3rd pers. sing.

[etc]

Thanks!

--
Jerry Friedman

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/1/17 10:02 pm, Stefan Ram wrote:

> occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> writes:
>>> The sequence »...i...a...« seems to be far more common than
>>> »...a...i...«. Maybe this is so, because it alludes to the
>>> sequence in verbs, when the present is given first and then

>> Does tic-tac-toe count? It has all three in order.
>

> And then there's "Hic, haec, hoc", does this ring any bells
> for anyone?
>

The sound of a Roman who has drink too much of this wine.

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

[Ross]

Yah, but some don't: fall/fell, blow/blew, come/came, etc etc.

I really don't think the strong verb forms have anything to do with
the expressives (ding-dong etc.).

Anyhow, in case the point hasn't been made, this is a matter of
vowel sounds, not vowel letters. There really is a strong tendency
for these pairings to feature a high front vowel followed by a
non-high/non-front one, rather than the reverse.

And "ee" looks like it will need to be included: see-saw, hee-haw, teeter-totter, etc.?

What about "long i", i.e. /ai/? There's hi-ho. Anything else?

And where does "fee-fi-fo-fum" fit in?

[CDB]

On 1/14/2017 9:02 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> writes:

>>> The sequence »...i...a...« seems to be far more common than
>>> »...a...i...«. Maybe this is so, because it alludes to the
>>> sequence in verbs, when the present is given first and then

>> Does tic-tac-toe count? It has all three in order.

> And then there's "Hic, haec, hoc", does this ring any bells for
> anyone?

Not that bell.

The progression i-a-o goes from high to low, slender to broad, lighter
to heavier; and we seem to choose that order most of the time. Thinned
versions of words often change the vowel to "i". There is an example of
the deliberate use of that contrast in the stories Little Lulu told her
young friend Annie: Witch Hazel laughed "Cackle cackle" but her
apprentice, Little Itch, went "kickle kickle".

[occam]

It does not. If I say it "fo-fi-fee-fum" does it sound any stranger?
<giggles> tee-hee
>

[Richard Heathfield]

On 15/01/17 00:45, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 14/1/17 10:02 pm, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> writes:
>>>> The sequence »...i...a...« seems to be far more common than
>>>> »...a...i...«. Maybe this is so, because it alludes to the
>>>> sequence in verbs, when the present is given first and then
>>> Does tic-tac-toe count? It has all three in order.
>>
>> And then there's "Hic, haec, hoc", does this ring any bells
>> for anyone?
>>
> The sound of a Roman who has drink too much of this wine.

Or none.

"Waiter, where's my drink? I ordered a glass of hock twenty minutes ago!"

"Yes, sir, but then you declined it."

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Robert Bannister]

On 16/1/17 7:51 am, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 15/01/17 00:45, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 14/1/17 10:02 pm, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> occam <oc...@127.0.0.1> writes:
>>>>> The sequence »...i...a...« seems to be far more common than
>>>>> »...a...i...«. Maybe this is so, because it alludes to the
>>>>> sequence in verbs, when the present is given first and then
>>>> Does tic-tac-toe count? It has all three in order.
>>>
>>> And then there's "Hic, haec, hoc", does this ring any bells
>>> for anyone?
>>>
>> The sound of a Roman who has drink too much of this wine.
>
> Or none.
>
> "Waiter, where's my drink? I ordered a glass of hock twenty minutes ago!"
>
> "Yes, sir, but then you declined it."
>

Very good. I hadn't heard that one before.