"I'll swing for him"
RobertE
There is a saying in British usage that puzzles me: "I'll swing for him". I
know what it means when taken as a phrase - that I am very angry with
someone. But what is the allusion? I'll asked any number of people which
of the two possible explanations that I could think of is the correct one.
The results have so far been about evenly divided between the two.
Here are the two I've come up with:
- "I'm going to take a swing at him", i.e., I'm going to punch/hit/slug
him. American English has something similar in "taking a swing".
- "I'm going to kill him and be tried, convicted and hanged for it", i.e.,
because of him, I'll be swinging from the gallows.
Can anyone shed any light on this one? Something more concrete than "I
always thought it referred to X" would be helpful.
Thanks.
RobertE
david56
> There is a saying in British usage that puzzles me: "I'll swing for him". I
> know what it means when taken as a phrase - that I am very angry with
> someone. But what is the allusion? I'll asked any number of people which
> of the two possible explanations that I could think of is the correct one.
> The results have so far been about evenly divided between the two.
>
> Here are the two I've come up with:
> - "I'm going to take a swing at him", i.e., I'm going to punch/hit/slug
> him. American English has something similar in "taking a swing".
Nope.
> - "I'm going to kill him and be tried, convicted and hanged for it", i.e.,
> because of him, I'll be swinging from the gallows.
That's it. Nuff said.
--
David
=====
sand
I am unfamiliar with the phrase, but there are two possible
variations.
To swing can mean to be executed by hanging or, in old slang, a
swinger is someone easy to bed.
S&
John Dean
Slang for several centuries. As Oscar knew when he kept company with
murderers:
<< I walked, with other souls in pain,
Within another ring,
And was wondering if the man had done
A great or little thing,
When a voice behind me whispered low,
'THAT FELLOW'S GOT TO SWING.' >>
<< And I and all the souls in pain,
Who tramped the other ring,
Forgot if we ourselves had done
A great or little thing,
And watched with gaze of dull amaze
The man who had to swing. >>
--
John 'It don't mean a thing if ... maybe not' Dean
Oxford
Bob Cunningham
<jan_...@hotmail.com> said:
[...]
> To swing can mean to be executed by hanging or, in old
> slang, a swinger is someone easy to bed.
I don't know if the expression is still in vogue, but there
was a time when "to swing" meant to swap wives.
david56
It is still in vogue, at least in TV drama. I've never heard it in
real life. Feminism would probably insist that it also means to swap
husbands.
--
David
=====
Don Phillipson
news:lKOdnZwd1Lo...@nildram.net...
>
> There is a saying in British usage that puzzles me: "I'll swing for him".
I
> know what it means when taken as a phrase - that I am very angry with
> Here are the two I've come up with:
> - "I'm going to take a swing at him", i.e., I'm going to punch/hit/slug
> him. American English has something similar in "taking a swing".
>
> - "I'm going to kill him and be tried, convicted and hanged for it", i.e.,
> because of him, I'll be swinging from the gallows.
Case 2 is the source. I will swing for him
means I am so loyal I will gladly risk the
ultimate punishment for helping him.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Michael Nitabach
news:MPG.1ac6561c9...@news.individual.net:
As would logic.
--
Mike Nitabach
david56
I've never heard this used to declare loyalty. It's always been in
the sense that I will have to kill him, because he has done something
to annoy me or offend me. Usually this is a persistent fault, which
finally becomes intolerable.
--
David
=====
Bob Cunningham
I'm reminded of an astute saying of a very bright electronic
technician I used to work with: "You can get in a lot of
trouble using logic in this business".
It would probably be somewhat unusual to swap wives without
swapping husbands, but if we need a PC term, I guess "spouse
swapping" should do.
Freddy
"david56" <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ac65b07c...@news.individual.net...
I agree with the above. But almost always it is used as an empty threat.
'I'll knock his head of his block', sort of thing; or maybe, 'I'll punch his
lights out', or 'I'll kill him when I get hold of him'. I have heard the
term used by my accquaintances far more often than any of them have been
charged with murder!
> =====
John Hatpin
Isn't such an empty threat to kill a crucial moment in Twelve Angry
Men? I must see that film again.
--
John H
Yorkshire, England
david56
Not necessarily. If the men get together, decide on their aim, then
exchange partners, they have swapped wives. I'm a little hesitant to
characterise this as swapping husbands, which is an activity
instigated by the women.
Now I ruminate on it, swinging is an activity partaken by couples
with full participation in decision making, so "wife swapping" is not
entirely accurate.
Personally, I think wife swapping was invented by the chattering
metropolitan classes who couldn't comprehend that people could be
happy and satisfied with their humdrum lives in the suburbs, so there
must be something else going on.
--
David
=====
Dena Jo
> I am unfamiliar with the phrase, but there are two possible
> variations.
> To swing can mean to be executed by hanging or, in old slang, a
> swinger is someone easy to bed.
I snipped the transitive verb definitions, but check out 2a and 8b
below.
Main Entry: 1swing
Pronunciation: swi
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): swung \sw\; swing搏ng \swi-i\
Etymology: Middle English, to beat, fling, hurl, rush, from Old English
swingan to beat, fling oneself, rush; akin to Old High German swingan
to fling, rush
Date: 13th century
[..]
intransitive verb
1 : to move freely to and fro especially in suspension from an overhead
support
2 a : to die by hanging b : to hang freely from a support
3 : to move in or describe a circle or arc: a : to turn on a hinge or
pivot b : to turn in place c : to convey oneself by grasping a fixed
support <swing aboard the train>
4 a : to have a steady pulsing rhythm b : to play or sing with a lively
compelling rhythm; specifically : to play swing music
5 : to shift or fluctuate from one condition, form, position, or object
of attention or favor to another <swing constantly from optimism to
pessimism and back -- Sinclair Lewis>
6 a : to move along rhythmically b : to start up in a smooth vigorous
manner <ready to swing into action>
7 : to hit or aim at something with a sweeping arm movement
8 a : to be lively, exciting, and up-to-date b : to engage freely in
sex
--
Dena Jo
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Have I confused you? Go here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/emailme.htm
John Dean
Yeah. And Yeah.
<< [lunges wildly at Eight, who holds his ground. Several jurors hold Three
back.]
Juror #3: Let me go! I'll kill him! I'LL KILL HIM!
Juror #8: You don't *really* mean you'll kill me, do you? >>
OBaue
<< Juror #10: Bright? He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good
English.
Juror #11: Doesn't even speak good English. >>
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
>
> Now I ruminate on it, swinging is an activity partaken by couples
> with full participation in decision making, so "wife swapping" is not
> entirely accurate.
Dodgy
--
John Dean
Oxford
Tony Cooper
I've actually met a pair of "swingers". At a wedding reception some
time ago a fellow seated at the same table that I was started
discussing this. I forget how he led into the conversation, but he
was quite open about it.
I must have had a shocked look on my face because he asked me why I
thought the practice was objectionable. I didn't know what to tell
him. My shocked look was because both he and his wife were very
large, very overweight, and very unattractive people. That shocked
look on my face was really the effect of wondering if there were times
that no one picked up their keys.
Evidently, there are quite a few "swingers" in this area. See:
http://www.key-party.com/us/Florida/SANFORD/ for clubs in the Central
Florida area.
One of the clubs on that list is in "The Villages". This is a large
retirement community out in the boonies. I don't know if one has to
be over 65 to buy a home or condo there, but I can't imagine any
youngster of 50 or so wanting to. Residents are not allowed to have
minors like grandchildren stay with them over a one week visit.
I somehow imagine a Swingers party having bowls of little pills to
stimulate the senses sitting around. I suppose that the Swingers
parties in "The Villages" have bowls containing Digitalis. I also
suppose that "safe sex" means having a defibrillator next to the bed.
Frances Kemmish
>
> Personally, I think wife swapping was invented by the chattering
> metropolitan classes who couldn't comprehend that people could be
> happy and satisfied with their humdrum lives in the suburbs, so there
> must be something else going on.
>
It's been my experience that there is never any wife-swapping going on
in your own town: it is always supposed to be happening in the next
place along. I think it must have reached the end of the line when
someone told me (when I lived in New Mills) that Chinley was a hotbed of
car-key parties.
At least it wasn't High Lane.
Fran
Django Cat
annoying younger ones, as in:-
"so help me I'll swing for him one of these days..."
or maybe that was just my family...
DCC
M. J. Powell
Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> writes
Did you check the Great Metropolis of Glossop?
Mike
M.J.Powell
david56
> I've actually met a pair of "swingers". At a wedding reception some
> time ago a fellow seated at the same table that I was started
> discussing this. I forget how he led into the conversation, but he
> was quite open about it.
>
> I must have had a shocked look on my face because he asked me why I
> thought the practice was objectionable. I didn't know what to tell
> him. My shocked look was because both he and his wife were very
> large, very overweight, and very unattractive people. That shocked
> look on my face was really the effect of wondering if there were times
> that no one picked up their keys.
Isn't that the reason for using the keys to choose partners? So that
you don't know who you are getting?
What happens if the last woman takes the last set of keys which turn
out to belong to her husband?
--
David
=====
R H Draney
>
>What happens if the last woman takes the last set of keys which turn
>out to belong to her husband?
In the kind of circles I run in, that leads to a discussion of permutations, and
what the odds are of different numbers of women being matched with their own
husbands....
Something to rest up with after the Monty Hall paradox: if you put ten sets of
keys in the bowl, what are the odds that exactly nine of the women will get
their own husbands?...r
Rolleston
0.
R.
Rolleston
>0.
I fired off the previous answer as quickly as I could so
that I would be first to respond. Here's a small remark.
My answer is a probability. It is not expressed as "odds"
(that is, in betting notation). Expressing the answer as
odds, rather than as a probability, is tricky if zeroes are
not allowed, i.e., if we can't have something like "2 - 0".
Anyway, "0" looks nicer.
R.
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
It seems to be the birthday thing again, on a smaller scale and
backwards- 1/10*1/9*1/8*1/7 etc., or 1 in 3,628,800.
--
john
Skitt
> Bob Cunningham typed thus:
>> [...]
>>> To swing can mean to be executed by hanging or, in old
>>> slang, a swinger is someone easy to bed.
>> I don't know if the expression is still in vogue, but there
>> was a time when "to swing" meant to swap wives.
> It is still in vogue, at least in TV drama. I've never heard it in
> real life. Feminism would probably insist that it also means to swap
> husbands.
The parties I attended demanded only that a guest bring someone of the
opposite sex. As I was single at the time, that suited me just fine.
Sometimes I was the one who was brought.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through
the leather straps. -- Emo Phillips
Frances Kemmish
That was a hotbed of Transcendental Meditation. At least, I think
someone wanted it to be that, but the locals weren't interested.
Now I know why.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
I thought it was an expression of surprise.
Fran
Rolleston
>> Anyway, "0" looks nicer.
>>
>
>I thought it was an expression of surprise.
Nothing surprises me.
R.
John Hatpin
Now, which of these is Fonda? I'd have conflated #8 and #11 in those
quotes. My guess now is that Fonda's #8, and #11 is the old man.
If memory serves (which it often doesn't), the meeting between Fonda
and the old man, right at the end of the film, is wonderfully
inconclusive and very noirish.
Must see that film again (again).
Joe Fineman
> RobertE typed thus:
>
> > - "I'm going to kill him and be tried, convicted and hanged for
> > it", i.e., because of him, I'll be swinging from the gallows.
>
> That's it. Nuff said.
A use of the phrase that has puzzled me for a long time is in
Kipling's poem "The 'Eathen":
The young recruit is 'ammered -- 'e takes it very hard;
'E 'angs 'is 'ead an' mutters -- 'e sulks about the yard;
'E talks o' "cruel tyrants" which 'e'll swing for by-an'-by,
An the others 'ears an' mocks 'im, an' the boy goes orf to cry.
It seems unlikely that recruits in the 19th-century British army were
hanged for insulting their sergeants. What unpleasantness is Kipling
(or rather his stage-Cockney soldier) alluding to?
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Some think that if weapons abound they will not be used; :||
||: some, that they will be. Most prefer not to think. :||
Frances Kemmish
> david56 <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>
>>RobertE typed thus:
>>
>>
>>>- "I'm going to kill him and be tried, convicted and hanged for
>>>it", i.e., because of him, I'll be swinging from the gallows.
>>
>>That's it. Nuff said.
>
>
> A use of the phrase that has puzzled me for a long time is in
> Kipling's poem "The 'Eathen":
>
> The young recruit is 'ammered -- 'e takes it very hard;
> 'E 'angs 'is 'ead an' mutters -- 'e sulks about the yard;
> 'E talks o' "cruel tyrants" which 'e'll swing for by-an'-by,
> An the others 'ears an' mocks 'im, an' the boy goes orf to cry.
>
> It seems unlikely that recruits in the 19th-century British army were
> hanged for insulting their sergeants. What unpleasantness is Kipling
> (or rather his stage-Cockney soldier) alluding to?
It is not Kipling who is saying that the recruit will be hanged. The
recruit is saying that he will "swing for" the "cruel tyrants", i.e.
that he will kill them.
Fran
John Dean
Fonda is indeed #8 (Mr Davis). #3 is, of course, the brilliant Lee J Cobb.
#10 is Ed Begley. #11 is George Voskovec who was 52 when the film was made.
The last dialogue of the movie is between Fonda and Juror #9 Joseph Sweeney
who is revealed as Mr McCardle. He was 73 when the film was made and, I
guess, is your old man. The last lines of dialogue are:
<< Juror #9: Hey, what's your name?
Juror #8: Davis.
Juror #9: Mine's McCardle.
[Pause]
Juror #9: Well, so long. >>
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote:
>> John Dean wrote:
>>
>>> OBaue
>>> << Juror #10: Bright? He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even
>>> speak good English.
>>> Juror #11: Doesn't even speak good English. >>
>>
>> Now, which of these is Fonda? I'd have conflated #8 and #11 in those
>> quotes. My guess now is that Fonda's #8, and #11 is the old man.
>>
>> If memory serves (which it often doesn't), the meeting between Fonda
>> and the old man, right at the end of the film, is wonderfully
>> inconclusive and very noirish.
>>
>> Must see that film again (again).
>
>Fonda is indeed #8 (Mr Davis). #3 is, of course, the brilliant Lee J Cobb.
>#10 is Ed Begley. #11 is George Voskovec who was 52 when the film was made.
>The last dialogue of the movie is between Fonda and Juror #9 Joseph Sweeney
>who is revealed as Mr McCardle. He was 73 when the film was made and, I
>guess, is your old man. The last lines of dialogue are:
>
><< Juror #9: Hey, what's your name?
>Juror #8: Davis.
>Juror #9: Mine's McCardle.
>[Pause]
>Juror #9: Well, so long. >>
Thanks, John, that's the man. What a superbly dry way to end a film;
not a drop of Hollywood gush to be seen, but it's a very moving scene.
Michael West
> david56 wrote:
>> Bob Cunningham typed thus:
>>> sand said:
>
>>> [...]
>
>>>> To swing can mean to be executed by hanging or, in old
>>>> slang, a swinger is someone easy to bed.
>
>>> I don't know if the expression is still in vogue, but there
>>> was a time when "to swing" meant to swap wives.
>
>> It is still in vogue, at least in TV drama. I've never heard it in
>> real life. Feminism would probably insist that it also means to swap
>> husbands.
>
> The parties I attended demanded only that a guest bring someone of the
> opposite sex. As I was single at the time, that suited me just fine.
> Sometimes I was the one who was brought.
I guess if you have to ask "opposite to what,"
you're at the wrong party.
--
Michael West
Robert Bannister
After what I was told here recently with reference to "XOX", I thought
it meant 'big hug'.
--
Rob Bannister
Michael West
> david56 <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> RobertE typed thus:
>>
>>> - "I'm going to kill him and be tried, convicted and hanged for
>>> it", i.e., because of him, I'll be swinging from the gallows.
>>
>> That's it. Nuff said.
>
> A use of the phrase that has puzzled me for a long time is in
> Kipling's poem "The 'Eathen":
>
> The young recruit is 'ammered -- 'e takes it very hard;
> 'E 'angs 'is 'ead an' mutters -- 'e sulks about the yard;
> 'E talks o' "cruel tyrants" which 'e'll swing for by-an'-by,
> An the others 'ears an' mocks 'im, an' the boy goes orf to cry.
>
> It seems unlikely that recruits in the 19th-century British army were
> hanged for insulting their sergeants. What unpleasantness is Kipling
> (or rather his stage-Cockney soldier) alluding to?
My guess, based on no particular knowledge, but let
that be, is that the recruit is saying that he "will
swing for" striking back at the "cruel tyrants" who
(or "which," as Kipling has it) oppress him.
But then, I've never Kipled.
--
Michael West
Tony Cooper
Kipling did like his hangings. Danny Deever "shot a comrade sleepin'"
and paid the price.
Maria Conlon
> R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> Something to rest up with after the Monty Hall paradox: if you put
>> ten sets of keys in the bowl, what are the odds that exactly nine of
>> the women will get their own husbands?...r
>
> It seems to be the birthday thing again, on a smaller scale and
> backwards- 1/10*1/9*1/8*1/7 etc., or 1 in 3,628,800.
If you put ten sets of keys in the bowl, and nine of the women got their
own husband's keys, what does the tenth woman get? If she gets *her*
own husband's keys, you've gone beyond *exactly* nine.
Or are there just nine women and men, and one of the men put two sets of
keys in the bowl...? Or have there been multiple marriages between
members of the group? (That wouldn't work, though, unless there's
bigamy -- and I doubt that would work, either.)
If there are ten couples, the chances are Zero, aren't they?
--
Maria Conlon
/When it's you against the world, back the world. (Zappa)/
Please send any email to the Hot Mail address.
John Dean
'Like'? Strange choice of word. I think the poem paints a pretty grim
picture of the ceremony. And I can't, offhand, think of another Kipple that
depicts a hanging.
But I'm put in mind of on old song - McCassery or McCafferty who was put on
a charge from petty spite:
<< With a loaded rifle I did prepare
To shoot my captain on the barrack square;
It was Captain Neill that I meant to kill,
But I shot my colonel against my will.
...
In Liverpool City this young man was tried
In Strangeways, Manchester, his body lies.
And all you young soldiers who pass his grave,
Pray: Lord have mercy on McCassery. >>
--
John Dean
Oxford
Robert Lieblich
It's "Oy" Anglicized.
--
Bob Lieblich
Vay ist mir
John O'Flaherty
<mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John O'Flaherty wrote:
>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>
>>> Something to rest up with after the Monty Hall paradox: if you put
>>> ten sets of keys in the bowl, what are the odds that exactly nine of
>>> the women will get their own husbands?...r
>>
>> It seems to be the birthday thing again, on a smaller scale and
>> backwards- 1/10*1/9*1/8*1/7 etc., or 1 in 3,628,800.
>
>If you put ten sets of keys in the bowl, and nine of the women got their
>own husband's keys, what does the tenth woman get? If she gets *her*
>own husband's keys, you've gone beyond *exactly* nine.
True, and she must: the last multiplier of the series is 1/1.
>Or are there just nine women and men, and one of the men put two sets of
>keys in the bowl...? Or have there been multiple marriages between
>members of the group? (That wouldn't work, though, unless there's
>bigamy -- and I doubt that would work, either.)
>
>If there are ten couples, the chances are Zero, aren't they?
Yeah, I guess that's what R.H. was getting at.
Zero is what I'm Zero for today.
--
john
Charles Riggs
<ro...@spamkillasgaard.co.uk> wrote:
>
>There is a saying in British usage that puzzles me: "I'll swing for him". I
>know what it means when taken as a phrase - that I am very angry with
>someone. But what is the allusion?
I've never heard that but I've heard 'I'd swing for him'. In other
words, if they executed you for killing him, it would be worth it to
you. I've heard it said a number of times; it is not confined to
Britain.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net
Matti Lamprhey
> John O'Flaherty wrote:
> > R H Draney wrote:
> >>
> >> Something to rest up with after the Monty Hall paradox: if you put
> >> ten sets of keys in the bowl, what are the odds that exactly nine
> >> of the women will get their own husbands?...r
> >
> > It seems to be the birthday thing again, on a smaller scale and
> > backwards- 1/10*1/9*1/8*1/7 etc., or 1 in 3,628,800.
>
> If you put ten sets of keys in the bowl, and nine of the women got
> their own husband's keys, what does the tenth woman get? If she
> gets *her* own husband's keys, you've gone beyond *exactly* nine.
>
> Or are there just nine women and men, and one of the men put two sets
> of keys in the bowl...? Or have there been multiple marriages between
> members of the group? (That wouldn't work, though, unless there's
> bigamy -- and I doubt that would work, either.)
>
> If there are ten couples, the chances are Zero, aren't they?
If you had an infinite number of couples, what's the probability that no
wife would leave with her husband?
Matti
Django Cat
Still a major place for a night out, especially the Globe.
(http://www.globemusic.org/)
DC - nearby in Broadbottom
Gwilym Calon
news:c3imi9$28me9h$1...@ID-17016.news.uni-berlin.de...
> It is not Kipling who is saying that the recruit will be hanged. The
> recruit is saying that he will "swing for" the "cruel tyrants", i.e.
> that he will kill them.
In which regard, see:
http://mysongbook.de/msb/songs/m/mccaffer.html
for true(ish) story.
-------
GC
M. J. Powell
<nos...@notarealaddress.com> writes
snip
>
>Still a major place for a night out, especially the Globe.
>(http://www.globemusic.org/)
Are you a fan of Django Reinhart and the HC de F?:
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Django Cat
A great man, an inspirational player and we named the cat after him. (I
toyed with getting a second cat and calling it Grappelli...)
DC
Tony Cooper
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>If you had an infinite number of couples, what's the probability that no
>wife would leave with her husband?
>
About the same as the probability of a wife being ready to go when her
husband is ready to leave.
John O'Flaherty
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
If they were in the same place, there would be group intimacy beyond
mate swapping.
--
john
Gwilym Calon
news:44cr509v01m677cq4...@4ax.com...
> If they were in the same place, there would be group intimacy beyond
> mate swapping.
Phewww! Is it me, or is it hot in here?
-------
GC
Maria Conlon
>
> If you had an infinite number of couples, what's the probability that
> no wife would leave with her husband?
You haven't specified whether, in this new challenging question, the
couples are *married* couples.
If they aren't, looks like a 100% probability to me.
--
Maria Conlon
John O'Flaherty
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
That's interesting. Infinite suggests that any probability, however
small, must result in someone leaving with their own mate, but
infinite also argues that the probability would be 1/infinite. But if
they arrived together as pairs, and the party was less than infinitely
long, they should wander from each other less than infinite distance,
leaving a finite probability of s.o.s. for a small fraction (although
an infinite number) of couples. Or, maybe not.
--
john
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> >
> > If you had an infinite number of couples, what's the probability
> > that no wife would leave with her husband?
>
> You haven't specified whether, in this new challenging question, the
> couples are *married* couples.
>
> If they aren't, looks like a 100% probability to me.
No tricks -- all are married couples, and are thoroughly mixed up by
going-home time.
From an Australian viewpoint, the answer has a natural basis.
Matti
Maria Conlon
> Maria wrote...
Assuming no tricks, then (like they're all married, but not to each
other -- that is, no wife's husband is there, and no husband's wife is
there) ... I don't know. I would think that the chance that no wife
would leave with her husband was pretty small. But, perhaps there is
some custom in place whereby couples don't travel together. Or maybe the
custom is for each person to hop into the first car available, and when
the vehicle is full, it leaves and heads back to the local town.
What do you mean by "natural" basis? And why does an Australian
viewpoint come into play?
--
Maria Conlon
/I don't do "odds" the way mathematicians do, and there's a reason for
that./
John Dean
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:29:01 +0000, M. J. Powell
> <mi...@DeLeTe.pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <opr47nun...@news.freenetname.co.uk>, Django Cat
>> <nos...@notarealaddress.com> writes
>>
>> snip
>>>
>>> Still a major place for a night out, especially the Globe.
>>> (http://www.globemusic.org/)
>>
>> Are you a fan of Django Reinhart and the HC de F?:
>>
>> Mike
>
> A great man, an inspirational player and we named the cat after him.
You didn't cut any of the cat's toes off, I hope. Have you seen Belleville
Rendezvous aka Belleville Triplets?
Le Grand Homme makes a guest appearance with his Mickey Mouse cartoon hand.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Joe Fineman
> It is not Kipling who is saying that the recruit will be hanged. The
> recruit is saying that he will "swing for" the "cruel tyrants",
> i.e. that he will kill them.
Aha! Very sensible. Thank you.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Wave functions are the dreams that stuff is made on. :||
Joe Fineman
> And I can't, offhand, think of another Kipple that depicts a
> hanging.
Well, warns against one, anyway:
If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loth
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both,
An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
-- "The Young British Soldier"
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: The end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we :||
||: started and know the place for the first time. :||
Django Cat
wrote:
Yep, film of the year I thought - I went to 'Spirited Away' a week later -
much higher production values but not nearly the fun.
The cat has all digits intact, unlike her namesake, but still is a lousy
guitar player.
DC
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Joe Fineman
> In which regard, see:
> http://mysongbook.de/msb/songs/m/mccaffer.html
> for true(ish) story.
He actually killed them both with one bullet! Good shot!
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: A scientist wants to be right; a politician wants to have :||
||: been right. :||
Joe Fineman
> It's "Oy" Anglicized.
I thought "Oy!" was related to "Ow!" by umlaut.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Atheists are less often tempted to blasphemy than to :||
||: idolatry. :||
Charles Riggs
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>If you had an infinite number of couples, what's the probability that no
>wife would leave with her husband?
Assuming you're asking this of men, it could depend on his
performance, but after he'd had an infinite number of them, he'd be
like so dead none of them could leave with him, anyway.
In any case, I reckon the chance that no wife would leave with her
husband would be zero. I mean like what's the probability an odd
number wouldn't follow an even number, at least once, in an infinitely
long series of numbers?
ObAUE: the subject line should have been 'I'd swing for him'.
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>
> >If you had an infinite number of couples, what's the probability that
> >no wife would leave with her husband?
>
> Assuming you're asking this of men, it could depend on his
> performance, but after he'd had an infinite number of them, he'd be
> like so dead none of them could leave with him, anyway.
>
> In any case, I reckon the chance that no wife would leave with her
> husband would be zero. I mean like what's the probability an odd
> number wouldn't follow an even number, at least once, in an infinitely
> long series of numbers?
Interesting that you should bring in the odd/even thing, because it
plays an interesting part in this particular problem.
Matti
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> > Maria wrote...
> >> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If you had an infinite number of couples, what's the probability
> >>> that no wife would leave with her husband?
> >>
> >> You haven't specified whether, in this new challenging question,
> >> the couples are *married* couples.
> >>
> >> If they aren't, looks like a 100% probability to me.
> >
> > No tricks -- all are married couples, and are thoroughly mixed up by
> > going-home time.
> >
> > From an Australian viewpoint, the answer has a natural basis.
>
> Assuming no tricks, then (like they're all married, but not to each
> other -- that is, no wife's husband is there, and no husband's wife is
> there) ... I don't know. I would think that the chance that no wife
> would leave with her husband was pretty small. But, perhaps there is
> some custom in place whereby couples don't travel together. Or maybe
> the custom is for each person to hop into the first car available, and
> when the vehicle is full, it leaves and heads back to the local town.
This is usually encountered as The Hat-Check Problem. A number of
individuals arrive at a convention and each gives their hat to the
cloakroom attendant. On their way out the attendant gives them each a
randomly-selected hat. What's the probability of no-one leaving with
their own hat, given a dozen people turned up? A hundred people?
Etcetera.
Some will say the vastly increased permutations mean that the chance of
anyone getting the right hat becomes zero. Other will argue that, with
so many people, SOMEONE must be lucky. Others suspect that the two
tendencies may counterbalance each other so perfectly that the answer
lies somewhere in the middle...
> What do you mean by "natural" basis? And why does an Australian
> viewpoint come into play?
It's a cryptic clue for the mathematically inclined;
for anyone else, it's not at all rational.
Matti
-- who was given this problem in an exam for his degree
Michael West
> Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> It is not Kipling who is saying that the recruit will be hanged. The
>> recruit is saying that he will "swing for" the "cruel tyrants",
>> i.e. that he will kill them.
>
> Aha! Very sensible. Thank you.
Just curious -- did this post make it to your server?
http://tinyurl.com/3b87y
I think Frances beat me to the punch, but I've been
concerned about some of my posts going AWOL.
--
Michael West
david56
It's here on the German server. I had to look at "Kipled" four times
before eventually deciding that it's correct with one p.
--
David
=====
Michael West
Now you mention it, I'm not so sure.
--
Michael West
Dena Jo
> Just curious -- did this post make it to your server?
> http://tinyurl.com/3b87y
>
> I think Frances beat me to the punch, but I've been
> concerned about some of my posts going AWOL.
It showed up on the German server, the CompuServe serve, and my local
cable news server.
--
Dena Jo
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Have I confused you? Go here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/emailme.htm
Gwilym Calon
news:qoos505hc90kmm57j...@4ax.com...
> ObAUE: the subject line should have been 'I'd swing for him'.
Au contraire, the more normal form is "I'll swing for him". I have encountered
this numerous times, and it seems to me to be a standard phrase (at least in the
UK). The alternative "I'd swing for him", I have only encountered twice: the
first time when CR quoted it, and the second time when he repeated it.
-------
GC
Joe Fineman
> Joe Fineman wrote:
> > Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> >> It is not Kipling who is saying that the recruit will be
> >> hanged. The recruit is saying that he will "swing for" the "cruel
> >> tyrants", i.e. that he will kill them.
> >
> > Aha! Very sensible. Thank you.
>
>
> Just curious -- did this post make it to your server?
> http://tinyurl.com/3b87y
Yes, it did, but -- as you suspected -- I had replied to Frances's by
the time I read yours.
> I think Frances beat me to the punch, but I've been concerned about
> some of my posts going AWOL.
It would have been considerate for me to thank you as well -- by
email.
Thank you, anyway.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not :||
||: anything. :||
Michael West
> "Michael West" <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> Just curious -- did this post make it to your server?
>> http://tinyurl.com/3b87y
>
> Yes, it did, but -- as you suspected -- I had replied to Frances's by
> the time I read yours.
>
>> I think Frances beat me to the punch, but I've been concerned about
>> some of my posts going AWOL.
>
> It would have been considerate for me to thank you as well -- by
> email.
I suppose it would have been, but I'm glad
you didn't, because It would have seemed
bizarre behaviour for a.u.e. I might have
suspected you of having sinister motives.
--
Michael West
Charles Riggs
'Interesting' that you'd find it odd I brought to the discussion
something interesting and relevant. No, make that 'predictable'. So
fuck off, Matti; I'm on to your game.
Charles Riggs
<gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Charles Riggs" <cha...@aircom.net> wrote in message
>news:qoos505hc90kmm57j...@4ax.com...
>> ObAUE: the subject line should have been 'I'd swing for him'.
>
>Au contraire, the more normal form is "I'll swing for him".
It is not unusual for people to confuse 'will' and 'would', although
I've never heard anyone do so, until now, with the standard phrase
'I'd swing for him', incorrectly saying or writing 'I'll swing for
him'. That version make no sense since no-one is actually
contemplating being hanged when they use the expression, so it
contains 'would', not 'will', when correct. The mistake is reported
several times by Google, not surprisingly since it is not unusual for
people to confuse 'will' and 'would', as I said.
> I have encountered
>this numerous times, and it seems to me to be a standard phrase (at least in the
>UK).
Anything can happen in Wales.
>The alternative "I'd swing for him", I have only encountered twice: the
>first time when CR quoted it, and the second time when he repeated it.
At least one newsgroup reader in the UK, a Mark Green, knows his
grammar. From a Google search:
'But on the other hand, this is not an 'I'd swing for him' job: he
*doesn't* piss me off and I do actually think he's a pretty cool guy.'
Gwilym Calon
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:28:05 -0000, "Gwilym Calon"
> <gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Charles Riggs" <cha...@aircom.net> wrote in message
> >news:qoos505hc90kmm57j...@4ax.com...
> >> ObAUE: the subject line should have been 'I'd swing for him'.
> >
> >Au contraire, the more normal form is "I'll swing for him".
>
> It is not unusual for people to confuse 'will' and 'would', although
> I've never heard anyone do so, until now, with the standard phrase
> 'I'd swing for him', incorrectly saying or writing 'I'll swing for
> him'. That version make no sense since no-one is actually
> contemplating being hanged when they use the expression,
Au contraire (again). That is exactly what is happening. The speaker is saying:
"one day I will swing, and it will be because I have murdered him on acount of
his actions and/or position". The speaker is predicting the future. "I will" is
absolutely correct.
There is no grammatical confusion here. The standard phrase is "I'll" and that
is correct. As you wrote, "I'd", implies something else; but it is not what is
meant here.
> > I have encountered
> >this numerous times, and it seems to me to be a standard phrase (at least in
the
> >UK).
>
> Anything can happen in Wales.
True, but my experience is of the UK (not just Cymru). I have experienced the
"I'll" form of this phrase many, many times, so that it appears commonplace to
me. The "I'd" form is new to me, and as stated, only experienced in your quote.
The reason for this is given above.
> At least one newsgroup reader in the UK, a Mark Green, knows his
> grammar. From a Google search:
Ther's two now. You and him.
> 'But on the other hand, this is not an 'I'd swing for him' job: he
> *doesn't* piss me off and I do actually think he's a pretty cool guy.'
In fact, "I'd" implies an allegiance to the subject as opposed to hatred. Rather
"I would swing on his behalf" against "I will swing because of him".
-------
GC
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> >"Charles Riggs" <cha...@aircom.net> wrote...
> >> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you had an infinite number of couples, what's the probability
> >> >that no wife would leave with her husband?
> >>
> >> Assuming you're asking this of men, it could depend on his
> >> performance, but after he'd had an infinite number of them, he'd be
> >> like so dead none of them could leave with him, anyway.
> >>
> >> In any case, I reckon the chance that no wife would leave with her
> >> husband would be zero. I mean like what's the probability an odd
> >> number wouldn't follow an even number, at least once, in an
> >> infinitely long series of numbers?
> >
> >Interesting that you should bring in the odd/even thing, because it
> >plays an interesting part in this particular problem.
>
> 'Interesting' that you'd find it odd I brought to the discussion
> something interesting and relevant. No, make that 'predictable'. So
> fuck off, Matti; I'm on to your game.
It was a friendly and cluesome response, Charles, with absolutely no
intent to get at you. Wake up to a reality more pleasant than your dark
imaginings, or killfile me.
Matti
Ray Heindl
The Google results favor of "I'll swing for him" over "I'd swing for
him". The ratio is about 8:1, but the "I'd" version only returns two
hits, and both appear to be quotes from the same poem.
On a related note, in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories[1] a villain
exclaims "Jump, Archie, jump, and I'll swing for it!" The accomplice
Archie is probably being told to jump into a getaway tunnel, but I've
never understood the "swing for it" part. Would this be related to
"I'll swing for him"?
[1] "The Red-Headed League"
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply to: rahe...@xnccwx.net)
Donna Richoux
> On a related note, in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories[1] a villain
> exclaims "Jump, Archie, jump, and I'll swing for it!" The accomplice
> Archie is probably being told to jump into a getaway tunnel, but I've
> never understood the "swing for it" part. Would this be related to
> "I'll swing for him"?
>
> [1] "The Red-Headed League"
There are copies on the Web, such as here:
http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Doyle/Holmes/Adventures/Adventure02_7.
htm
It looks to me like the guy is telling his companion to get away and let
him be the one captured -- which is exactly what happens. Essentially,
"Get away, and let me be hung for the crime, not you." Isn't that right?
As I understand it, the *basic* form is "to swing for something" -- to
be hung for a crime. That's in the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue.
Often seen, I believe, as "You'll swing for this!"
The alteration "to swing for someone" which has been discussed here (and
I don't remember seeing before) adds the extra thought, "to be hung for
the crime of murdering someone."
--
Best - Donna Richoux
Michael West
And more than one poster has cited another meaning:
to be willing to follow to the death someone they admire.
--
Michael West
Robert Bannister
> "Charles Riggs" <cha...@aircom.net> wrote in message
> news:8f9060t75d8n21e07...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:28:05 -0000, "Gwilym Calon"
>><gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Charles Riggs" <cha...@aircom.net> wrote in message
>>>news:qoos505hc90kmm57j...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>ObAUE: the subject line should have been 'I'd swing for him'.
>>>
>>>Au contraire, the more normal form is "I'll swing for him".
>>
>>It is not unusual for people to confuse 'will' and 'would', although
>>I've never heard anyone do so, until now, with the standard phrase
>>'I'd swing for him', incorrectly saying or writing 'I'll swing for
>>him'. That version make no sense since no-one is actually
>>contemplating being hanged when they use the expression,
>
>
> Au contraire (again). That is exactly what is happening. The speaker is saying:
> "one day I will swing, and it will be because I have murdered him on acount of
> his actions and/or position". The speaker is predicting the future. "I will" is
> absolutely correct.
In fact, the most frequent way I've heard it was always accompanied by
"one of these days".
--
Rob Bannister
Gwilym Calon
news:4060c582$0$76776$45be...@newscene.com...
> And more than one poster has cited another meaning:
> to be willing to follow to the death someone they admire.
This seems to me to highlight the essential difference between the "I'd" version
raised by Charles Riggs, and the "I'll" version of the OP.
"I'll swing for him"
- I hate him so much that I will one day murder him and go to the gallows for
that crime.
"I'd swing for him"
- I admire him so much that I would go to the gallows in support of his cause.
-------
GC
Charles Riggs
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
I never attack you unless you, in your subtle and patronizing manner,
attack first. I have no plans to put you in my killfile since I plan
to continue defending myself when you call my posts 'nonsense' or
whatever form the derision takes. Since my presence here has bothered
you ever since I refused to bow to your demands to leave your little
buddy Tony Cooper be, I don't see why you don't killfile *me*, as I've
asked you to do numerous times. That or return to the more manly
approach of attacking me directly, as you first did with your thwarted
attempt to drive me from the group a while back. Start another of
those 'Please leave, Charles', however you entitled it, threads and we
can deal with other head-on, rather than in this roundabout way you've
adopted.
Charles Riggs
<gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Charles Riggs" <cha...@aircom.net> wrote in message
>news:8f9060t75d8n21e07...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:28:05 -0000, "Gwilym Calon"
>> <gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >"Charles Riggs" <cha...@aircom.net> wrote in message
>> >news:qoos505hc90kmm57j...@4ax.com...
>> >> ObAUE: the subject line should have been 'I'd swing for him'.
>> >
>> >Au contraire, the more normal form is "I'll swing for him".
>>
>> It is not unusual for people to confuse 'will' and 'would', although
>> I've never heard anyone do so, until now, with the standard phrase
>> 'I'd swing for him', incorrectly saying or writing 'I'll swing for
>> him'. That version make no sense since no-one is actually
>> contemplating being hanged when they use the expression,
>
>Au contraire (again). That is exactly what is happening. The speaker is saying:
>"one day I will swing, and it will be because I have murdered him on acount of
>his actions and/or position". The speaker is predicting the future. "I will" is
>absolutely correct.
I can understand how you might see it that way.
>There is no grammatical confusion here. The standard phrase is "I'll" and that
>is correct. As you wrote, "I'd", implies something else; but it is not what is
>meant here.
The 'standard' phrase as you've heard it; I've heard it the other way.
This sort of argument isn't new among members of this newsgroup.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>The alteration "to swing for someone" which has been discussed here (and
>I don't remember seeing before) adds the extra thought, "to be hung for
>the crime of murdering someone."
Oy!
Charles Riggs
>"Gwilym Calon" <gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Charles Riggs" <cha...@aircom.net> wrote in message
>> news:qoos505hc90kmm57j...@4ax.com...
>>> ObAUE: the subject line should have been 'I'd swing for him'.
>>
>> Au contraire, the more normal form is "I'll swing for him". I have
>> encountered this numerous times, and it seems to me to be a
>> standard phrase (at least in the UK). The alternative "I'd swing
>> for him", I have only encountered twice: the first time when CR
>> quoted it, and the second time when he repeated it.
>
>The Google results favor of "I'll swing for him" over "I'd swing for
>him". The ratio is about 8:1, but the "I'd" version only returns two
>hits, and both appear to be quotes from the same poem.
I get 5 for the "I'd" version and 16 for the "I'll" version -- only 10
for that version when the .uk domain results are not sought. The
sample size is way too small to draw any conclusions from Google.
Since my version makes better sense to me, I insist on announcing the
likelihood of my swinging that way. No-one, when using the expression,
really intends to swing for what someone else said or did, so I won't
be using the other version. Unless I'm in Wales some time, that is,
which has even a lower probability than my volunteering to be hanged.
Gwilym Calon
> Unless I'm in Wales some time, that is,
> which has even a lower probability than my volunteering to be hanged.
If you are there, you "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb", else "I'll
swing for you".
-------
GC
Joe Fineman
> This seems to me to highlight the essential difference between the
> "I'd" version raised by Charles Riggs, and the "I'll" version of the
> OP.
>
> "I'll swing for him"
> - I hate him so much that I will one day murder him and go to the
> gallows for that crime.
>
> "I'd swing for him"
> - I admire him so much that I would go to the gallows in support of
> his cause.
Cf. "I'd go to hell for you" as an expression of loyalty.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: If you are sitting 5 feet from me, you are seeing me as I :||
||: was 5 nanoseconds ago. :||
Ray Heindl
> Ray Heindl <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On a related note, in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories[1] a
>> villain exclaims "Jump, Archie, jump, and I'll swing for it!"
>> The accomplice Archie is probably being told to jump into a
>> getaway tunnel, but I've never understood the "swing for it"
>> part. Would this be related to "I'll swing for him"?
>>
>> [1] "The Red-Headed League"
> There are copies on the Web, such as here:
>
> http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Doyle/Holmes/Adventures/Adventure
> 02_7. htm
I was relying on Project Gutenberg's version.
> It looks to me like the guy is telling his companion to get away
> and let him be the one captured -- which is exactly what happens.
> Essentially, "Get away, and let me be hung for the crime, not
> you." Isn't that right?
Probably, although the accomplice presumably didn't get away, as there
were three constables stationed at the other end of the bolt hole. My
view of it was biased by what I thought when I first read it as a
teenager, lo these many years ago. In fact, it was the first Holmes
story I ever read. At the time I thought in terms of swinging his
fists (at the good guys) to give his partner time to escape.
> As I understand it, the *basic* form is "to swing for something"
> -- to be hung for a crime. That's in the 1811 Dictionary of the
> Vulgar Tongue. Often seen, I believe, as "You'll swing for this!"
>
> The alteration "to swing for someone" which has been discussed
> here (and I don't remember seeing before) adds the extra thought,
> "to be hung for the crime of murdering someone."
Would bank robbery have been a hanging offense back then (circa 1890),
or would "swinging for it" have been hyperbole?
Ray Heindl
> On 23 Mar 2004 21:23:55 GMT, Ray Heindl <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>The Google results favor of "I'll swing for him" over "I'd swing
>>for him". The ratio is about 8:1, but the "I'd" version only
>>returns two hits, and both appear to be quotes from the same poem.
> I get 5 for the "I'd" version and 16 for the "I'll" version --
> only 10 for that version when the .uk domain results are not
> sought.
I didn't count the "similar" hits that Google didn't bother to show
me, so I had 2 vs. 15 hits.
> The sample size is way too small to draw any conclusions
> from Google.
Agreed. The thing that struck me was that the "I'd" version hits came
from only one source.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:58:40 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
>wrote:
>
>
>>The alteration "to swing for someone" which has been discussed here (and
>>I don't remember seeing before) adds the extra thought, "to be hung for
>>the crime of murdering someone."
>
>Oy!
'hanged', of course.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Gwilym Calon" <gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk> writes:
>> "I'd swing for him"
>> - I admire him so much that I would go to the gallows in support of
>> his cause.
>
> Cf. "I'd go to hell for you" as an expression of loyalty.
"to hell and back" as I learned it.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth.
|Enormous effort and elaborate
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this
(650)857-7572 |much money
| P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Bannister
> Would bank robbery have been a hanging offense back then (circa 1890),
> or would "swinging for it" have been hyperbole?
Wasn't almost everything a hanging offence in those days?
--
Rob Bannister
Donna Richoux
> Would bank robbery have been a hanging offense back then (circa 1890),
> or would "swinging for it" have been hyperbole?
I imagine it was hyperbole, the way we casually say "Oh no, I'm dead!"
or "I'm gonna kill you" without really meaning it. The expression had
been around for a long time, by then.
Although once upon a time, people were severely punished for very
little. Where was it that I read about people being transported to
Australia for trivial crimes, like the theft of a couple of pounds? I
suppose it might have been Bryson's book on Australia, which I hate to
point to as an authority... Whoever it was pointed out that the convicts
didn't get passage back when their term was over, either.
However, there's a official list here
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/resources/ps/castle/convict.htm
with details of convicts transported to Australia. I see such petty
crimes as "Stealing cheese," "Stealing a shirt," "Stealing a pair of
shoes," and "Administering an unlawful oath."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
John Dean
There's a lot of info on-line but it's hard to say what is accurate and what
not. If you're Googling, inclusion of 'first fleet' cuts out a lot of
irrelevancies.
There's a document here:
http://www.fremantleprison.com.au/education/education5.pdf (PDF)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G204249D7 (HTML)
<< The First Fleet carried 736 criminals.They were all thieves. Over a
hundred had used
violence in carrying out their crimes (there were 31 muggers
and 71 highway robbers on board) but none were
transported for a severe crime, like murder. >>
<< John Price stole a goose; 22-year-old Elizabeth Powley took some bacon,
flour, raisins
and butter from a kitchen; and West Indian Thomas Chaddick raided a kitchen
garden for
cucumbers. 15-year-old John Wisehammer stole snuff (powdered tobacco that
was
sniffed, not smoked) and William Douglas picked a silver watch from a
gentleman’s
pocket. >>
I never got round to reading Robert Hughes' 'Fatal Shore' but I believe it
covers the topic in some detail.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Ray Heindl <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Not to mention the most mentioned (in song) theft: Charles Edward
Trevelyan's corn.
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Ray Heindl <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
The peak period for the abolition of capital punishment was 1820-1840,
and by 1845 it was no longer applied except in cases of murder.
Large-scale transportation ceased in 1838. For more detail, see
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/emay3v393.html
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Joe Fineman
> Joe Fineman <j...@TheWorld.com> writes:
>
> > "Gwilym Calon" <gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk> writes:
> >> "I'd swing for him"
> >> - I admire him so much that I would go to the gallows in support of
> >> his cause.
> >
> > Cf. "I'd go to hell for you" as an expression of loyalty.
>
> "to hell and back" as I learned it.
Really? "And back" rather weakens the rhetoric, IMO. In "knocked him
to hell and back", OTOH, it rather strengthens it.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: How far out in the binary expansion of pi does the first :||
||: ASCII text of the King James Version start? :||
Robert Bannister
The last time I looked at the First Fleet database, it seemed that most
of the thieves were in fact charged with 'stealing as a servant', which
was a much more serious offence than plain stealing. In fact, I think
it still is, although it doesn't seem to apply to bank embezzlement or
insider trading.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> The peak period for the abolition of capital punishment was 1820-1840,
> and by 1845 it was no longer applied except in cases of murder.
> Large-scale transportation ceased in 1838. For more detail, see
> http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/emay3v393.html
The other stuff was really interesting, but I was arrested by this sentence:
"The convicted felon corrupted the untried, and perhaps innocent
prisoner; and confirmed the penitent novice in crime. The unfortunate
who entered prison capable of moral improvement, went forth impure,
hardened, and irreclaimable."
I mean: nothing's changed.
--
Rob Bannister