"The lesser breed without the Law"
Arne H. Wilstrup
but how do you interpret this?
Any comments from native speakers - or scholars - are welcome.
Arne H. Wilstrup
Denmark
the Omrud
> Above is a part of a poem from Rudyard Kipling (Recessional) -
> but how do you interpret this?
> Any comments from native speakers - or scholars - are welcome.
It's difficult to know what it means out of context, but "without" often
means "outside of". There is a Green Hill.
--
David
Django Cat
... far away... so, I always wondered, why would a Green Hill *need* a city
wall?
DC
--
John Dean
> Above is a part of a poem from Rudyard Kipling (Recessional) -
> but how do you interpret this?
> Any comments from native speakers - or scholars - are welcome.
>
It's *not* actually part of a poem by Kipling. The relevant verse in
Recessional is:
If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget lest we forget!
There are those who claim Kipling meant non-caucasians but I think most
serious critics go along with Orwell's thesis that he meant the Germans.
In this context 'without the Law' may mean outlaws or may mean those not
possessing a Law or civilised code of conduct.
See the discussion hear last month.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Default User
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_(poem)>
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Above is a part of a poem from Rudyard Kipling (Recessional) -
>but how do you interpret this?
>Any comments from native speakers - or scholars - are welcome.
>
There are various interpretations.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudyard_Kipling#Death_and_legacy
Many who condemn him feel that Kipling's writing was inseparable from his
social and political views, they point to his portrayals of Indian
characters, which often supported the colonialist view that the Indians
and other colonised peoples were incapable of surviving without the help
of Europeans, claiming that these portrayals are racist. However, one can
also find a remarkably cosmopolitan spirit in much of his writing as well
and a surprising respect for non-Europeans occasionally surfaces. An
example supporting this argument can be seen by denying any irony in the
mention of "lesser breeds without the Law" in "Recessional" and the
reference to colonised people in general, as "half-devil and half-child"
in the poem "The White Man's Burden". However, George Orwell in his essay
on Rudyard Kipling states that the lesser breeds referred to in
"Recessional" are ‘almost certainly’ the Germans, and Orwell goes on to
claim that the poem is a denunciation of power politics, both British and
German.
....
Those who defend Kipling from accusations of racism point out that much of
the apparent racism in his writing is spoken by fictional characters, not
by him, and thus accurately depicts the characters. They see irony or
alternative meanings in poems written in the author's own voice, including
"The White Man's Burden" and "Recessional".[citation needed]
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Above is a part of a poem from Rudyard Kipling (Recessional) -
>but how do you interpret this?
>Any comments from native speakers - or scholars - are welcome.
Wogs.
A manifestation of Brit imperialism, which was at its height when Kipling
wrote it.
--
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
Steve Hayes
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> Those who defend Kipling from accusations of racism point out that much of
> the apparent racism in his writing is spoken by fictional characters, not
> by him, and thus accurately depicts the characters. They see irony or
> alternative meanings in poems written in the author's own voice, including
> "The White Man's Burden" and "Recessional".[citation needed]
One of the books that influenced me when I was at school was Kiplings "Kim",
which I first read when i was about 13 or 14, and have read several times
since. It piqued my interest in religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, and
Kipling has a sympathetic portrayal of characters from the different peoples
of India that makes one want to meet them.
I loved the first part of the book, which was strong on such descriptions, and
found the second part rather boring, once Kim went to school and was trained
for his career as a secret agent in "the great game".
It was easy for me as a teenager to get lost in the details, and fail to see
the wood for the trees. But the wood, the overarching purpose, the "great
game", was British imperialism, and the Russian rivals were not given the same
sympathetic portrayal as the British subjects in India.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
> > Above is a part of a poem from Rudyard Kipling (Recessional) -
> > but how do you interpret this?
> > Any comments from native speakers - or scholars - are welcome.
The explicit comparison is to the Jews of the Bible, who are
contrasted with Gentiles because the Jews have (or are within) the Law
that God gave them. (Us.) However, I don't think Kipling exactly
means the Torah here.
> It's *not* actually part of a poem by Kipling. The relevant verse in Recessional is:
>
> If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
> Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
> Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
> Or lesser breeds without the Law
> Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
> Lest we forget lest we forget!
>
> There are those who claim Kipling meant non-caucasians
Speaking of Jews, I might wonder whether he meant non-Aryans (a phrase
he uses two or three times in /Something of Myself/, with overt but
mitigated anti-semitism). Both the word you mentioned and mine
exclude Indians from "the lesser breeds".
> but I think most
> serious critics go along with Orwell's thesis that he meant the Germans.
> In this context 'without the Law' may mean outlaws or may mean those not
> possessing a Law or civilised code of conduct.
> See the discussion hear last month.
Since I didn't participate in that, I'll make a suggestion: "without
the Law" is a compressed way of saying "ignorant of the practical laws
of humanity," e.g., that strength comes from adversity ("blood [is]
the price of admiralty") and boasting leads to humiliation. I have no
further citations, but I think Kipling really believed that such an
understanding brought Britain to its position at the time. Examples
include the Prooshian Bates, Kim's mentor, and Mowgli's.
--
Jerry Friedman
the Omrud
> the Omrud wrote:
>
>> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>>> Above is a part of a poem from Rudyard Kipling (Recessional) - but
>>> how do you interpret this? Any comments from native speakers - or
>>> scholars - are welcome.
>> It's difficult to know what it means out of context, but "without"
>> often means "outside of". There is a Green Hill.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_(poem)>
OK, then it means "outside the Law", being the Law of God, presumably.
--
David
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>
>It was easy for me as a teenager to get lost in the details, and fail to see
>the wood for the trees. But the wood, the overarching purpose, the "great
>game", was British imperialism, and the Russian rivals were not given the same
>sympathetic portrayal as the British subjects in India.
I take it that by "British subjects in India" you mean the subjects of the
book rather than the subjects of British rule in India.
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:6om9qiF...@mid.individual.net...
> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>> Above is a part of a poem from Rudyard Kipling
>> (Recessional) -
>> but how do you interpret this?
>> Any comments from native speakers - or scholars - are
>> welcome.
>>
>
> It's *not* actually part of a poem by Kipling.
Why is it not at part of a poem by Kipling? I think that a
quotation of a poem (or from a book) is merely "a part of the
poem (or book) in question - please, tell me what I have
misunderstood here :-O
Arne H. Wilstrup
you all! :-)
Arne H. Wilstrup
Denmark.
Don Phillipson
news:umeci4ln9etnahjk8...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:01:47 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <n...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Above is a part of a poem from Rudyard Kipling (Recessional) -
> >but how do you interpret this?
> Wogs.
>
> A manifestation of Brit imperialism, which was at its height when Kipling
> wrote it.
This seems not likely:
1. Kipling used the word Law often and with special weight
(cf. "law of the jungle" in the Mowgli stories, the unwritten
but strict laws of loyalty that govern Kim and all those
stories about subalterns on campaign etc.)
2. "Lesser breeds" are not (only) non-Europeans but
any "race" lacking the Law. Kipling may have had in
mind the recent expose of atrocities in the Belgian
Congo, which demonstrated the incapacity of the
Belgians to run a humane and just empire (or at
least King Leopold, cf. also the Vachel Lindsay poem.)
3. Kipling probably addressed Recessional to the
new imperial power of the USA. He had traveled
there extensively and lived in Vermont for a couple
of years. Recessional was written one year before
the Spanish-American War (when the USA acquired
control of Cuba and the Phillipine Islands.) Kipling
saw Americans as fellow Anglo-Saxons, i.e. a People
of the Law competent to rule others -- but the same
poem points out no empire lasts for ever:
"Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre."
The best commentators on Kipling seem to be
George Orwell and T.S. Eliot (who as a director of
Faber publishers had Kipling's poems republished
at a period when he was very unfashionable, and
explained why in a preface.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
John Dean
You said "The lesser breed without the Law" in your subject line and 'Above
is a part of a poem from Rudyard Kipling' in the body of your message.
"Or lesser breeds without the Law" is part of a poem by Kipling. In contrast
to your version, there is no definite article and 'breeds' is plural.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Steve Hayes
No, I meant the subjects of British rule in India, who were enabled to enjoy
their picturesque ways of life thanks to the Pax Brittanica.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Yabbut wogs begin at Calais.
Or south of the Trent (for people who live north of the Trent -- at least so I
was told by one of them).
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:37:20 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:47:38 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It was easy for me as a teenager to get lost in the details, and fail to see
>>>the wood for the trees. But the wood, the overarching purpose, the "great
>>>game", was British imperialism, and the Russian rivals were not given the same
>>>sympathetic portrayal as the British subjects in India.
>>
>>I take it that by "British subjects in India" you mean the subjects of the
>>book rather than the subjects of British rule in India.
>
>No, I meant the subjects of British rule in India, who were enabled to enjoy
>their picturesque ways of life thanks to the Pax Brittanica.
OK. Thanks.
Arne H. Wilstrup
All right - Actually I found the sentence in a book about
multiculturalism. And you're right: breeds is in plural.
The book says; "The imperial idea of 'the White Man's burden'
of ruling 'the lesser breeds without the Law' was regarded as
an embarrassing anachronism if not a matter of shame amongst
white youth". (from Tariq Modood: Is Multiculturalism
Appropriate for the Twenty-first Century?).
I did understand the meaning apart from the latter quotation
'the lesser breeds without the Law" and I was pondering over
the word law with capital letter (Law). "The lesser breeds
..."did not give any meaning until a Danish person thought of
Kipling's poem. From there I could investigate further on, but
the sentence did still not give any meaning at all, unless I
was thinking of the segregation-laws in the USA in the end of
the 19th century with the notion that the negroes were not
human beings, but just breeds from the Devil.
The behavior of the whites who treated their fellow men as
lesser than nothing - and so did the English in India - made
me think whether this was the meaning of the quotation in the
poem. I could not, however, be sure, so I asked about it in
this group and have already got several suggestions.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>
>Yabbut wogs begin at Calais.
>
The wogs are migrating. According to which report you read, London is the 7th,
6th, 5th or even 4th largest French city.
>Or south of the Trent (for people who live north of the Trent -- at least so I
>was told by one of them).
--
Martin Ambuhl
Because the Kipling line
"Or lesser breeds without the Law"
cannot be quoted as your
"The lesser breed without the Law"
The difference in number and difference in definite article make your
phrase not part of the Kipling poem and the phrases must have very
different interpretations.
Mike Lyle
> I have got several input about the subject. For this I thank
> you all! :-)
Arne, it's always a pleasure to help. But I've noticed that many
foreigners use "input" in this way: but most native speakers don't. I
regard it as, at best, bad business or geek jargon, and only use it in
electrical or computing contexts, not for ideas.
--
Mike.
Default User
I would strongly disagree, at least for here in the USA. "Input" to
mean "ideas" or "contributions" is pretty standard. I don't consider it
to be jargon, but common terminology well understood in the context.
Even though I am an engineer, I don't restrict the term in that way.
Naturally, things might be quite different in the UK.
The only objection I would have with his usage is that it should be "a
lot of input" or "several inputs".
Arne H. Wilstrup
meddelelsen news:gg7gc6$tk5$1...@news.motzarella.org...
I couldn't disagree more - in my field (english teaching as a
foreign language) linguists talk about methods of teaching and
learning a foreign language. They talk about the input method,
the output method and several others, so I must disagree with
you that most native speakers don't. I am not trying to be
stubborn here - it might be a word which is not used on a
daily basis, but when we talk about language acquisition and
use language for special purposes (LSP), the word is not only
a well-known term, but also a word used by native speakers,
cf. Swain, Schmitt etc.
The dictionaries have also input for many things - cf. Longman
Dictionary of Contemporary English:
Input: [uncountable and countable] ideas, advice, money, or
effort that you put into a job or activity in order to help it
succeed.
With this example: We value the input of everyone who
answered the questionnaire. - Or: I do not need your input on
the subject.
Concise Oxford English Dictionary 11.ed. has:
what is put in, taken in, or operated on by a process or
system. A person's contribution: her input on issues was
appreciated.
Collins has:
in*put
input inputs inputting
The form input is used in the present tense and is the
past tense and past participle.
Input consists of information or resources that a group or
project receives.
We listen to our employees and value their input...
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
[C, U] input (into / to sth) | input (of sth) time, knowledge,
ideas, etc. that you put into work, a project, etc. in order
to make it succeed; the act of putting sth in:
Her specialist input to the discussions has been very useful.
I’d appreciate your input on this. There has been a big input
of resources into the project from industry.
And English Dictionary Penguin reference has:
...Work, suggestions, advice etc. that somebody contributes, a
contribution
I am not a native speaker, but I lack your explanation why
these excellent dictionaries should be all wrong! :-)
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:6op05uF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> The only objection I would have with his usage is that it
> should be "a
> lot of input" or "several inputs".
Well, when 'input' is used as an uncountable noun meaning
"material" or used as in the input-hypothesis, there is no
plural ending.
John O'Flaherty
But "several" precludes uncountable. It always implies multiplicity.
--
John
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:ttngi4t50t7ojkj8e...@4ax.com...
Well, I stand corrected here. Thank you. :-)
Mike Lyle
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> skrev i
> meddelelsen news:gg7gc6$tk5$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>>> I have got several input about the subject. For this I
>>> thank
>>> you all! :-)
>>
>> Arne, it's always a pleasure to help. But I've noticed that
>> many foreigners use "input" in this way: but most native
>> speakers don't. I regard it as, at best, bad business or
>> geek jargon, and only use it in electrical or computing
>> contexts, not for ideas.
>
>
> And English Dictionary Penguin reference has:
>
> ...Work, suggestions, advice etc. that somebody contributes, a
> contribution
>
> I am not a native speaker, but I lack your explanation why
> these excellent dictionaries should be all wrong! :-)
I said "most native speakers don't", not "native speakers don't". That
doesn't contradict the dictionaries at all. But Brian has corrected me
as far as AmE is concerned, and perhaps more BrE speakers do than I had
realised. The technical terms used in training language teachers,
though, aren't to be taken as ordinary English (I don't think it was
used when I was an EFL teacher, but could be wrong). I still don't
recommend the usage in non-technical language: something like
"contribution" or "suggestion" is more precise.
--
Mike.
tony cooper
I can't imagine offending a non-technical American by using "input".
"Give me your input on this" has almost replaced "Give me your
thoughts on this" across-the-board.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> said:
and in the computing and network senses it's a countable noun, i.e. it
becomes (or at least, it can become) "inputs" in the plural. Certainly
it needs an s if prefixed by "several".
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
> The only objection I would have with his usage is that it should be "a
> lot of input" or "several inputs".
>
Sorry, I posted before realizing you had already made this point.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
>
> 2. "Lesser breeds" are not (only) non-Europeans but
> any "race" lacking the Law. Kipling may have had in
> mind the recent expose of atrocities in the Belgian
> Congo, which demonstrated the incapacity of the
> Belgians to run a humane and just empire (or at
> least King Leopold, cf. also the Vachel Lindsay poem.)
I think your final parenthesis is necessary, because at that time the
Congo was the personal property of the King, and not a colony of
Belgium as a nation.
--
athel
Arne H. Wilstrup
meddelelsen news:t7ehi4ljtrt8vj75h...@4ax.com...
>
> I can't imagine offending a non-technical American by using
> "input".
> "Give me your input on this" has almost replaced "Give me
> your
> thoughts on this" across-the-board.
My "input" from various dictionaries does not contradict what
is appropriate in BrE.
The examples given in the dictionaries are almost all from
colloquial language in British English, but I stand corrected
about the plural -s in the word input with the word several
before the word 'input'.
I have,hovwever, not seen any book about SLA (Secondary
Language Acquisition) where "input" was in plural, and my
lecturer corrected me every time I put it in the pluaral form
in my assignments. But it might be because of the use of the
terminogy in a technical situation?
In Danish we have two words for "sound": the word "sound" in
singular is also singular in spite of the talking of plural
things: "language sound" (Danish: (sprog)-lyd) when we are
dealing with linguistic terms, and "sounds" in colloquial
language in plural form.
It might be the same thing in some words in BrE?
At least you differ between the word "people" and "peoples"
and other words: money and moneys (the latter in a certain
situation e.g. archaic and according to the language used in
law terminology)
Well, the main thing is that you actually can say "thank you
for the input(s)" in BrE according to the dictionaries, but it
might be that you do not use it in many situations
colloquially?
Anyhow, I think that my thanks have been understood, don't you
think? :-)
Arne H. Wilstrup
meddelelsen news:6osvolF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> I think your final parenthesis is necessary, because at that
> time the Congo was the personal property of the King, and
> not a colony of Belgium as a nation.
Not quite - who had given him this land? What did he do with
it? how do you differ from a conquered land being a private
place for a king far far away and colonization also
instituated by a king far far away?
Look e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR_Congo -
Chuck Riggs
In office settings, it has been my experience that psychobabble such
as "Give me your input" and "Give us your input", are particularly
popular with stuffed shirts: pompous types, that is, who have allowed
their egos free rein.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
tony cooper
wrote:
Evidently, The Associated Press writers are stuffed shirts:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/orl-apec2308nov23,0,511919.story
Maria C.
>
> In office settings, it has been my experience that psychobabble such
> as "Give me your input" and "Give us your input", are particularly
> popular with stuffed shirts: pompous types, that is, who have allowed
> their egos free rein.
Ah, but you have been out of the office setting for some time now.
Actually, so have I (about five years), but "give me your input" is used
in many a setting these days -- not just in workplaces. I wouldn't
hesitate to use it just about anywhere.
While there is some office jargon I found (and still find) awful,
"input" is not in that category. "Take a decision" is one example of
what I find awful (or do I mean stupid?).
More examples of office jargon:
"Let's circle back," (meaning "follow up" or "I'll get back to you").
"Hit the ground running" meaning, I guess, get to work quickly.
"Out of pocket," which we've discussed before in AUE. Means
"unavailable."
"Ramp up," or just "ramp" -- meaning take to the next step. It may make
sense, but I don't particularly like it --especially when used on
machine buttons. (One probably has to RTFM before knowing, for sure,
what pushing thd Ramp button does.)
"Circle the wagons" as used in "let's circle the wagons and get everyone
together." I associate "circle the wagons" with US pioneers heading west
in the old days (19 C) in covered wagons ("conestogas"). They formed a
circle with the wagons when there was an attack on them. The idea wasn't
so much to get everyone together, but to form a protective ring (of
wagons) around the people so they had a chance to fight and survive. I'm
not sure if the modern "circle the wagons" includes the "attack" part;
it seems to mean, simply, "get together." I could be wrong.
"Going forward" meaning "we're moving on to another topic, and won't
discuss the previous one again." So "going forward" means more than just
going forward; it also means "don't even think of looking back."
"Incentivise." Also discussed in AUE not long ago. It's certainly
shorter than "provide an incentive," assuming that's what it means.
"Problem" is generally a negative term, and thus frequently not allowed
in business discussions and written communications. "Challenge" is much
better. "Issue" is also better -- and even shorter.
There are hundreds of examples online.
--
Maria C.
Irwell
'Burrowing', political appointees going for career appointments as their
party goes out of power.
Mike Lyle
[...]> But Brian has corrected me
> as far as AmE is concerned, and perhaps more BrE speakers do than I
> had realised.
Blast! Sorry, Paul. I realized my error while drifting off to sleep last
night.
[...]
--
Mike.
John Varela
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>
>> In office settings, it has been my experience that psychobabble such
>> as "Give me your input" and "Give us your input", are particularly
>> popular with stuffed shirts: pompous types, that is, who have allowed
>> their egos free rein.
>
> Ah, but you have been out of the office setting for some time now.
> Actually, so have I (about five years), but "give me your input" is used
> in many a setting these days -- not just in workplaces. I wouldn't
> hesitate to use it just about anywhere.
"Input" and "output" are EE terms. I'm surprised at Chuck calling them
psychobabble. They traveled with the EEs to become computer terms.
There used to be objection to using nouns "input" and "output" in other
than their technical meanings. There was even objection to verbs
"input" and "output" within the technical context. Those battles were
lost decades ago.
EE has lots of terms that are literally, even colorfully descriptive of
electrical and electronic functions. Chopper. Limiter. High-pass,
low-pass, and band-pass. Diddle voltage. I'm sure Chuck can come up
with more.
> "Out of pocket," which we've discussed before in AUE. Means
> "unavailable."
I've never heard "out of pocket" used in any but the pecuniary sense.
> "Ramp up," or just "ramp" -- meaning take to the next step. It may make
> sense, but I don't particularly like it --especially when used on
> machine buttons. (One probably has to RTFM before knowing, for sure,
> what pushing thd Ramp button does.)
I take that as another EE term, related to viewing a linearly rising
voltage on an oscilloscope.
Lots of technical jargon is taken into common use by people who think
it makes them sound sophisticated or knowledgeable. Other examples
include "outside the envelope" and the ever-popular "parameters" and
"massive".
> "Circle the wagons" as used in "let's circle the wagons and get everyone
> together." I associate "circle the wagons" with US pioneers heading west
> in the old days (19 C) in covered wagons ("conestogas"). They formed a
> circle with the wagons when there was an attack on them. The idea wasn't
> so much to get everyone together, but to form a protective ring (of
> wagons) around the people so they had a chance to fight and survive. I'm
> not sure if the modern "circle the wagons" includes the "attack" part;
> it seems to mean, simply, "get together." I could be wrong.
I've always understood "circle the wagons" to mean "adopt a defensive
posture".
> "Problem" is generally a negative term, and thus frequently not allowed
> in business discussions and written communications. "Challenge" is much
> better. "Issue" is also better -- and even shorter.
"Opportunity for improvement" is best, especially when talking to a
boss, a customer, or the GAO.
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
tony cooper
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:38:06 -0500, Maria C. wrote
>(in article <hqhWk.9389$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>):
>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> In office settings, it has been my experience that psychobabble such
>>> as "Give me your input" and "Give us your input", are particularly
>>> popular with stuffed shirts: pompous types, that is, who have allowed
>>> their egos free rein.
>>
>> Ah, but you have been out of the office setting for some time now.
>> Actually, so have I (about five years), but "give me your input" is used
>> in many a setting these days -- not just in workplaces. I wouldn't
>> hesitate to use it just about anywhere.
>
>"Input" and "output" are EE terms. I'm surprised at Chuck calling them
>psychobabble. They traveled with the EEs to become computer terms.
>
>There used to be objection to using nouns "input" and "output" in other
>than their technical meanings. There was even objection to verbs
>"input" and "output" within the technical context. Those battles were
>lost decades ago.
>
>EE has lots of terms that are literally, even colorfully descriptive of
>electrical and electronic functions. Chopper. Limiter. High-pass,
>low-pass, and band-pass. Diddle voltage. I'm sure Chuck can come up
>with more.
Regarding the comments about "input" used in non-technical settings in
the UK, the following is from a novel by Peter Robinson, copyright
1997:
"What I mean," Riddle said, pacing and poking at things again, "is
that as an experienced senior police officer, your input might be
useful. But let your underlings do the legwork. Let them go
gallivanting off to Leeds chasing wild geese...."
He is speaking to DCI Alan Banks.
John Dean
But in 1997 it might well be seen as an offshoot of the technological
revolution. Even coppers had computers then. And it had been used pre-war in
electrical circuitry (eg "1902 Encycl. Brit. XXVII. 574/2 The useful return
or 'output' at the terminals of a large machine may amount to as much as 95
per cent. of the mechanical energy which forms the 'input'.")
Whereas 'input' has a much longer, non-technological pedigree.
To pick off a few OED cites:
1753 Scots Mag. Aug. 421/1 An input of four guineas was run for by a
white galloway+and a bay mare.
1893 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. CLXXXIII. 228 The pressure in the large
systemic veins becomes raised during vagus action, because the quantity of
blood which passes from them into the right ventricle (which we may refer to
as the 'input' of the heart), in a given time, is diminished.
1926 J. D. Black Production Economics iii. xi. 277 The term input+will be
used+to refer to the amounts of the production elements that are used in
turning out any product.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, Coop.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
An expression a rare few of the Navy officers I worked with, and
slightly more of the non-commissioned officers I came into contact
with, liked very much was "Let's run it up the flagpole...", but even
there, it was only the pompous individuals who carried on that way,
not the well-adjusted people.
In my opinion, etcetera.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:38:06 -0500, Maria C. wrote
> (in article <hqhWk.9389$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>):
>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> In office settings, it has been my experience that psychobabble
>>> such as "Give me your input" and "Give us your input", are
>>> particularly popular with stuffed shirts: pompous types, that is,
>>> who have allowed their egos free rein.
>>
>> Ah, but you have been out of the office setting for some time now.
>> Actually, so have I (about five years), but "give me your input" is
>> used in many a setting these days -- not just in workplaces. I
>> wouldn't hesitate to use it just about anywhere.
>
> "Input" and "output" are EE terms. I'm surprised at Chuck calling them
> psychobabble. They traveled with the EEs to become computer terms.
According to the OED, they hit computer science (1948) and psychology
(1954) at around the same time. Economists were talking about "input"
by 1926. Interestingly, while they cite the engineering sense to
1902, there's an earlier, broader sense (though still given the same
subsense number), first cited to 1893 in a medical context (referring
to the "'input' of the heart").
There's also an earlier sense of "a sum of money put in" cited to
1753, which makes it hard to check those dates, but I do see
[Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating]
a use in an astronomical context by 1890:
... under these conditions the average temperature of the gas will
remain constant; but the moment the input is less than the output
the mass of gas must cool, so that we have next to consider what
will happen to a mass of gas cooling under these circumstances.
J. Norman Lockyer, "The History of a
Star", _The Popular Science Monthly_,
November, 1890
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell
|you. (If you're not that certain,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.)
(650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix