Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Seeking language anecdotes, quotes

2 views
Skip to first unread message

apitrat

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to

Hello,

I am giving a lecture about language in an intro to psych class
and am looking for quotes, anecdotes and stories about language.

If you know any, please send them to me via email. I will be
eternally thankful.

Thanks in advance,

Adrien.

Stephen Meredith

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
In article <4fq6qp$7...@bertrand.carleton.ca>, api...@ccs.carleton.ca
says...

I thought all Canadians were aware that in native Eskimo language
(Inuktituk ?) there is no word for work; there are however 14
words for what we call snow. If you're looking for the classic
world-view-as-evidenced-in-language evidence I thought this fills
the bill very nicely. Their 'work' of course is just staying alive
and the white stuff can be good for hunting (low moisture content
= quiet to move on) or good for igloos (crystaline = carvable)
and so on. Is this what you're looking for ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Meredith (A Canadian refugee from the snow and ice)
Computer Systems Officer _--_|\.__E-Mail:Stephen....@jcu.edu.au
Computer Centre / \ Telephone : +61 77 815913
James Cook University \_.--._/ Fax: +61 77 815230
Townsville v
Queensland 4811 AUSTRALIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ride: BMW R65 Drive: BMW 525 Fly: Cessna 152/172/182
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Paul J. Kriha

unread,
Mar 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/11/96
to
In article <4i0764$l...@clarknet.clark.net>,
rmc...@clark.net (Robert McGee) wrote:
>Mark Israel (mis...@scripps.edu) wrote:

[...]

>However, the older meaning you cited brings to mind my favorite bit of
>Russian folk etymology:
>
>Samoyeds-- the sled dogs-- are named for the Samoyed people of Siberia,
>whose name in turn *appears* to mean "self-eater." (Cf. _samizdat_,
>"self-published"; _samovar_, "self-boiler"; _jest'_, "to eat";
>_ljudoed_, "people-eater/cannibal.") I have no idea how the Samoyed
>folk acquired this unwholesome reputation, but I guess you have to do
>something during those six-month winters.

Probably they often ate alone, which gave them the name.

"samo-" in the above examples is not reflexive.

_samizdat_ doesn't mean "self-published", it certainly
doesn't publish itself. It means it's published by selves,
(that is by people themselves).

_samovar_ is not "self-boiler" it does not boil itself,
it boils alone by itself without any need for hearth.

_samoyed_ is not "self-eater" but "alone-eater".
Quite different to _ljudoed_.

_sebyazdat_, _sebyavar_, _sebyaed_ yes! :-)
_samosebyaed_ ouch!

:-)

Paul JK.

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Mar 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/13/96
to
In article <4hvrfl$j...@hustle.rahul.net>, Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
> Personally, I'm of the opinion that English has no word for H2O, and
>I have to use the chemical formula to express the concept. When I tell
>people this, they always reply that of course there's a word, 'water', but
>water is the word for H2O in it's liquid form. We have words for different
>states of H2O, but not H2O itself. I first thought of this when mulling
>over the myth about the Eskimos and their words for many kinds of snow but
>not generic 'snow'.

Speaking as a chemist, the word "water" does in fact have two different
meanings: (1) H2O in any phase, (2) H2O in the liquid phase.

In general scientists use "X" to mean "X in the standard phase under the
conditions we're normally interested in". Hence for an astrochemist
"water" tends to mean "H2O in the gas phase", and they would use the
phrase "liquid water" to refer to the liquid phase.

Jonathan

alan auerbach F

unread,
Mar 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/13/96
to
Still, Eskimos do have a richer snow-type vocabulary than we.

Did you know that Canadian Eskimos don't exist? They self-refer
as Inuit ("the people") and consider Eskimo ("meat/blubber-eater)
pejorative. But in the US, Eskimo is used.

--
Al.

Martin Heinz

unread,
Mar 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/14/96
to
On newsfroup alt.usage.english, alan auerbach F (aaue...@mach1.wlu.ca) said:
: Still, Eskimos do have a richer snow-type vocabulary than we.

: Did you know that Canadian Eskimos don't exist? They self-refer
: as Inuit ("the people") and consider Eskimo ("meat/blubber-eater)
: pejorative. But in the US, Eskimo is used.


Did you know that Germans have 136,478 words for beer? It's true!

Seriously, it is honorable that you would like to enlighten us, but
unfounded claims just are not very convincing. Virtually unverifiable
statement ("Eskimos have more words for whale blubber than we do")
are not very useful.

cheerio, welcome to the Internet,

Martin
--
Martin Heinz * he...@math.utexas.edu *http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/heinz
"In 1992, handguns were used in the murders of 33 people in Britain, 36 in
Sweden, 97 in Switzerland, 128 in Canada, 13 in Australia, 60 in Japan and
13,220 in the United States." [New York Times, March 2, 1994]

Hedbanger

unread,
Mar 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/14/96
to
Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:

> Personally, I'm of the opinion that English has no word for H2O, and
>I have to use the chemical formula to express the concept. When I tell
>people this, they always reply that of course there's a word, 'water', but
>water is the word for H2O in it's liquid form. We have words for different
>states of H2O, but not H2O itself. I first thought of this when mulling
>over the myth about the Eskimos and their words for many kinds of snow but
>not generic 'snow'.

>Regards,
>Carl Weidling

Thank you. That made me laugh out loud!


---
- J.Faires
- Hedbanger - hedb...@hooked.net
---
- If you're not part of the solution
- you're part of the precipitate.
---


Matthew Rabuzzi

unread,
Mar 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/16/96
to

Jonathan Jones <jaj...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes:
: Speaking as a chemist, the word "water" does in fact have two different

: meanings: (1) H2O in any phase, (2) H2O in the liquid phase.
:
: In general scientists use "X" to mean "X in the standard phase under the
: conditions we're normally interested in". Hence for an astrochemist
: "water" tends to mean "H2O in the gas phase", and they would use the
: phrase "liquid water" to refer to the liquid phase.

How about "molten ice", "snow lava", "disevaporated steam"?

.........................................................
Erin Go Tycho Brahe (the moon *is* made of Green Cheese!)
Matthew Rabuzzi

Rinehart

unread,
Mar 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/17/96
to
In article <Do88K...@info.uucp>, aaue...@mach1.wlu.ca says...

>
>Still, Eskimos do have a richer snow-type vocabulary than we.
>
>Did you know that Canadian Eskimos don't exist? They self-refer
>as Inuit ("the people") and consider Eskimo ("meat/blubber-eater)
>pejorative. But in the US, Eskimo is used.
>
>--
>Al.
Alaskan Eskimos don't usually refer to themselves as "Eskimos," either.
They are Yup'ik (western Alaska), Inupiat (North Slope), or a couple of
other smaller groups. "Eskimo" isn't really pejorative, but it's just
the word "gussuks" (non-Natives) call them.


Hedbanger

unread,
Mar 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/18/96
to
rab...@patch.tandem.com (Matthew Rabuzzi) wrote:


>How about "molten ice", "snow lava", "disevaporated steam"?

Or condensed steam...

Dew! There we go! There is another word for water.

Jean-Pierre Chanod

unread,
Mar 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/18/96
to cha...@xerox.fr
On 11 Mar 1996 00:17:57 GMT, Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
:
: Personally, I'm of the opinion that English has no word for H2O, and

Wrong. Try this: dihydrogen monoxide.

: I have to use the chemical formula to express the concept. When I tell


: people this, they always reply that of course there's a word, 'water', but
: water is the word for H2O in it's liquid form.

It is well known that dihydrogen monoxide has three states, and common
names for it are "Ice" for solid, "water" for liquid, and "water vapor" or
"fog" for gas.

: We have words for different states of H2O, but not H2O itself.

I've heard it used jokingly many years ago, as in

"Firefighters were known to use for extinguishing fires, the compound
'dihydrogen monoxide' a chemical which is known to dissolve rock,
cause irritation or skin damage when touching it in solid form, and can
cause severe burns in certain liquid formations. It can also kill
people if breathed or consumed in sufficient quantities."



Paul Robinson
General Manager
Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc.
---
Among Other things, we sell and service ideas. Call 1-800-TDARCOS from
anywhere in North America if you are interested in buying an idea to solve
one of your problems.

Paul Spinks

unread,
Mar 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/18/96
to
On 17 Mar 1996 04:04:20 GMT, Paul Robinson wrote about
"Re: Eskimo vocabulary hoax":

> On 11 Mar 1996 00:17:57 GMT, Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
> :
> : Personally, I'm of the opinion that English has no word for H2O, and

> Wrong. Try this: dihydrogen monoxide.

Wrong. That's TWO words.


Glen Ecklund

unread,
Mar 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/18/96
to
tda...@clark.net (Paul Robinson) writes:

>It is well known that dihydrogen monoxide has three states, and common
>names for it are "Ice" for solid, "water" for liquid, and "water vapor" or
>"fog" for gas.

Fog is not water vapor. It is a cloud, which is a suspension of water
droplets in air.
If a mass of water vapor descended upon you, you would not have trouble
seeing (initially), but you would have trouble breathing.
--
Glen Ecklund Email: gl...@heurikon.com
Heurikon Corporation Phone: 608-831-5500
8310 Excelsior Drive FAX: 608-831-8844
Madison, WI 53717 USA http://www.heurikon.com

Peter Hoogenboom

unread,
Mar 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/19/96
to
Jean-Pierre Chanod (cha...@xerox.fr) wrote:

: On 11 Mar 1996 00:17:57 GMT, Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
: :
: : Personally, I'm of the opinion that English has no word for H2O, and

: Wrong. Try this: dihydrogen monoxide.

I always heard hydrogen hydroxide. This isn't much of an English word,
though, in the way "water" and "ice" are. (Yes, I know that it IS,
strictly speaking, an English phrase.) I would argue that any chemical
name of H20 is as contrived as the chemical formula.

: It is well known that dihydrogen monoxide has three states, and common

: names for it are "Ice" for solid, "water" for liquid, and "water vapor" or
: "fog" for gas.

Fog is actually liquid water suspended in the air. Water vapor is not so
readily visible. Your sentence would be better if it ended "...and
'water vapor' or 'water vapour' for gas."

Peter

--
Peter Hoogenboom phoo...@wlu.edu
Department of Music, DuPont 208 hoogen...@fs.sciences.wlu.edu
Washington and Lee University phoog...@wesleyan.edu
Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 463-8697

Peter Hoogenboom

unread,
Mar 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/19/96
to
Hedbanger (hedb...@hooked.net) wrote:
: rab...@patch.tandem.com (Matthew Rabuzzi) wrote:

: >How about "molten ice", "snow lava", "disevaporated steam"?

: Or condensed steam...

: Dew! There we go! There is another word for water.

But these words are not words for H2O. Thye are words for liquid H2O.
H2O comprises ice and water vapor as well as water.

Simon Hosie

unread,
Mar 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/20/96
to
On 11 Mar 1996 00:17:57 GMT, Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
> I have to use the chemical formula to express the concept. When I tell
> people this, they always reply that of course there's a word, 'water', but
> water is the word for H2O in it's liquid form.

Paul Robinson:


> It is well known that dihydrogen monoxide has three states, and common
> names for it are "Ice" for solid, "water" for liquid, and "water vapor" or
> "fog" for gas.

What about "steam"? I think of steam before I think of water vapour or
fog.

Hung J Lu

unread,
Mar 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/20/96
to
In article <DoJBn...@logic.uc.wlu.edu>,

Peter Hoogenboom <phoo...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu> wrote:
>Hedbanger (hedb...@hooked.net) wrote:
>: rab...@patch.tandem.com (Matthew Rabuzzi) wrote:
>: >How about "molten ice", "snow lava", "disevaporated steam"?
>: Or condensed steam...
>: Dew! There we go! There is another word for water.
>
>But these words are not words for H2O. Thye are words for liquid H2O.
>H2O comprises ice and water vapor as well as water.

I call them all "water". Water is H2O, H2O is water.
If you want to specify the matter state, you can say
"water in its solid state"
"water in its liquid state"
"water in its gaseous state"
(... and if you want to be weird, you can also
include "water in its plasma state")
nothing wrong with that. An H2O molecule is a water
molecule, the concept of state is irrelevant when
you are looking at a single molecule (well, except
for the plasma state). We never say a steam molecule,
a snow molecule or an ice molecule. We say a water molecule.
Microwave ovens are tuned to the rotational frequency
of water molecules, not snow molecules, not ice molecules,
not steam molecules. Water molecules.

We hear expressions like "liquid air" all the time.

What's the fuzz about water? If you want to dwell on
with water meaning only its liquid state, it's your
own problem.

-- Ekki

Alan J. Flavell

unread,
Mar 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/20/96
to

On 17 Mar 1996, Paul Robinson wrote:

> : water is the word for H2O in it's liquid form.

(That wretched apostrophe again. Must be a bigger glut of them
than usual this year.)

> It is well known that dihydrogen monoxide has three states, and common
> names for it are "Ice" for solid, "water" for liquid, and "water vapor" or
> "fog" for gas.

^^^
Certainly not. Gaseous H2O, whatever you may call it, is
transparent. The whole point about fog is that it isn't.

best regards


Carl Weidling

unread,
Mar 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/21/96
to
In article <4inmhv$g...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,

Hung J Lu <h...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>In article <DoJBn...@logic.uc.wlu.edu>,
>Peter Hoogenboom <phoo...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu> wrote:
>>Hedbanger (hedb...@hooked.net) wrote:
>>: rab...@patch.tandem.com (Matthew Rabuzzi) wrote:
>>: >How about "molten ice", "snow lava", "disevaporated steam"?
>>: Or condensed steam...
>>: Dew! There we go! There is another word for water.
>>
>>But these words are not words for H2O. Thye are words for liquid H2O.
>>H2O comprises ice and water vapor as well as water.
>
>I call them all "water". Water is H2O, H2O is water.
...<stuff deleted for brevity>

>
>What's the fuzz about water? If you want to dwell on
>with water meaning only its liquid state, it's your
>own problem.
>
>-- Ekki

I'm guilty of starting this thread. Years ago,
when I heard the 'urban legend' that Eskimos didn't have a word for
snow, only for different kinds of snow, I heard it in a form that
struck me as unfairly disparaging, and I thought that my H2O/water
example showed that the same thing happens in English. People have
responded saying there's "dihydrogen oxide" etc, but a few hundred
years ago, native English speakers knew that steam and water and ice
were all the same substance, but they had no word that encompassed
that substance without respect to a particular form, the same as
the Eskimos reputatedly did not have a word that embraced 'snow'
without respect to a particular form of snow. A lot of people don't
seem to get the point I was trying to make and that's probably my
fault. Basically, if somebody else's language seems to have a limitation,
be sure your own language doesn't have similar limitations. One
limitation my native language has that's always bugged me is that there's
no singular for 'cattle'.
-Carl


Matthew Rabuzzi

unread,
Mar 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/22/96
to

Hedbanger <hedb...@hooked.net> writes:
: Dew! There we go! There is another word for water.

So the actor Mickey *Roric* would be a doohickey or a Dew Mickey?

Would an ode to l'eau be a *panehygric* or a panegyric?

Paul Robinson <tda...@clark.net> writes:
: It is well known that dihydrogen monoxide has three states, and common


: names for it are "Ice" for solid, "water" for liquid, and "water vapor" or
: "fog" for gas.

A bit of brumous thinking there.
Fog and steam are both halituous, true, but only steam is a gas;
fog is liquid drops suspended in the air.

.........................................................
Nubilous girls have the power to cloud men's minds
Matthew Rabuzzi

George T Amis

unread,
Mar 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/22/96
to

In article <4iqlda$d...@hustle.rahul.net>, Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
<much snipped>


>Basically, if somebody else's language seems to have a limitation,
>be sure your own language doesn't have similar limitations. One
>limitation my native language has that's always bugged me is that there's
>no singular for 'cattle'.
>-Carl
>

Actually, the singular for -cattle- (in the sense of
-bovine quadrapeds-) is -ox-, although the
word is now usually used for castrated males.

-Cattle- itself originally meant personal property in
general, and later, all livestock, before it became
limited to the bovine.

(See, e.g., SOED.)

GTA

Matthew Rabuzzi

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to

Hung J Lu <h...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> writes:
: I call them all "water". Water is H2O, H2O is water.
: If you want to specify the matter state, you can say

: "water in its solid state"
: "water in its liquid state"
: "water in its gaseous state"
: (... and if you want to be weird, you can also include
: "water in its plasma state")

And if you want to be strange or charming, on beyond that you can say
"water in its quagma state".

Though I misdoubt the molecule would hold together in either
of the -ma states...

............................................................
"I dinna ken du it, Keptain! She woon't hold taegether!" --
Three warps for Musther Spock
Matthew Rabuzzi

Carl Weidling

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
In article <4iut0r$1...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
This is interesting information, and explains the sorry state
of the situation now, but the situation still exists. The plural of
ox in my English dialect is 'oxen', and those were not oxen drives on
the old Chisholm Trail and so on.
I'm sure any English dialects that really have a need
for a singular for cattle have come up with something. This is perhaps an
example where the stress level of not having the term isn't quite
great enough for a term to be invented or resurrected.
-Carl

Alan J. Flavell

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Peter Hoogenboom wrote:

> Jean-Pierre Chanod (cha...@xerox.fr) wrote:
> : On 11 Mar 1996 00:17:57 GMT, Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
> : :
> : : Personally, I'm of the opinion that English has no word for H2O, and
>
> : Wrong. Try this: dihydrogen monoxide.
>
> I always heard hydrogen hydroxide.

It's also the zeroth member of the alcohol series ;-)

"Cheers!"


Hung J Lu

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
In article <4ivfkl$d...@gazette.loc3.tandem.com>,

Matthew Rabuzzi <rab...@patch.tandem.com> wrote:
>
>And if you want to be strange or charming, on beyond that you can say
> "water in its quagma state".

But, but, once you get into the quagma stuff, no matter how carefully
you cool your beloved quagma, you won't end up with water. The water
plasma state makes sense because it allows you to come back to water.

Water quagma is really indistinguishable from beef quagma or toothpaste
quagma. :-)

-- Ekki

kevin giansante

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
Here's one for you, from an actual student paper:

"H2O is hot water. CO2 is cold water."


Achim Recktenwald

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> [[snip]

>
> > It is well known that dihydrogen monoxide has three states, and common
> > names for it are "Ice" for solid, "water" for liquid, and "water vapor" or
> > "fog" for gas.
> ^^^
> Certainly not. Gaseous H2O, whatever you may call it, is
> transparent. The whole point about fog is that it isn't.
>

Fog is not "water vapor". Fog is composed of a multitude of tiny droplets of liquid
water. Fog id not transparent like normal liquid water, because the light is
refracted by these dropletes, and reflected on their surface. Since there are so
many of them in a cloud of fog and because the whole range of visible light is
affected, fog appears non-transparent and white.

Achim

Peter Hullah

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
Carl Weidling wrote:
> One
> limitation my native language has that's always bugged me is that there's
> no singular for 'cattle'.

Try "cow"! Not strictly true because cattle encompasses a range of species.
When you get down to the singular, you a stuck to defining the species.
This is because we've develpoed separate names for the different species of
cattle, whereas we haven't done the same for dogs, cats etc. Your problem
is not, therefore, the lack of a singular, but rather the multiplicity of
them!

Pete

--

Peter H.C. Hullah Technical Services
e-mail: Peter....@eurocontrol.fr EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
Phone: +33 1 69 88 75 49 BP 15, Rue des Bordes,
Fax: +33 1 60 85 15 04 91222 BRETIGNY SUR ORGE CEDEX
France

Peter Hullah

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
Peter Hoogenboom wrote:
>
> But these words are not words for H2O. Thye are words for liquid H2O.
> H2O comprises ice and water vapor as well as water.
>
Do you make the same comments about "salt" because we only use the name for the
solid form of NaCl? Or "rust"? Or "polythene"?

KJBlake

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
In article <3156A9...@eurocontrol.fr>, Peter Hullah
<Peter....@eurocontrol.fr> writes:

>Carl Weidling wrote:
>> One
>> limitation my native language has that's always bugged me is that
there's
>> no singular for 'cattle'.
>
>Try "cow"! Not strictly true because cattle encompasses a range of
species.
>When you get down to the singular, you a stuck to defining the species.
>This is because we've develpoed separate names for the different species
of
>cattle, whereas we haven't done the same for dogs, cats etc. Your problem
>is not, therefore, the lack of a singular, but rather the multiplicity of
>them!

Saying "cow" is the singular of "cattle" is like saying "oak" is the
singular of "trees."

Matthew Rabuzzi

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to

Hung J Lu <h...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> writes:
: Matthew Rabuzzi <rab...@patch.tandem.com> wrote:
: >
: >And if you want to be strange or charming, on beyond that you can say
: > "water in its quagma state".
: >Though I misdoubt the molecule would hold together in either of the
: >-ma states...
:
: But, but, once you get into the quagma stuff, no matter how carefully

: you cool your beloved quagma, you won't end up with water. The water
: plasma state makes sense because it allows you to come back to water.

This last I did not know -- I thought plasma was just raw nuclei, with
no chemical bonds. Thanks for dispelling my incorrect dogma
(three barks for Musther Mark?).

................................................................
Q. How is a quagga like the aftermath of vandalism in Singapore?
A. They're both a striped ass.
Matthew Rabuzzi

D Gary Grady

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
Peter Hullah <Peter....@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:

>Try "cow"! Not strictly true because cattle encompasses a range of species.
>When you get down to the singular, you a stuck to defining the species.
>This is because we've develpoed separate names for the different species of
>cattle, whereas we haven't done the same for dogs, cats etc.

I may be mistaken, but I suspect all domestic cattle are of the same
species (although there are other domesticated cattle-like species).
Certainly all dogs are of the same species.

What you probably mean is that there are multiple varieties or breeds
of cattle. One can certainly refer to a "Texas longhorn" or a "jersey"
or a "guernsey" in the singular. But you can also do the same for a
poodle or a dachshund or a great pyrenees. (If you see a Scotsman in a
kilt walking a large, white dog, try saying, "Hey, you've got a great
pyrenees!")

By the way, am I correct that another creature for which there is no
general, sex-inclusive term in English is the peacock? (The female is
the peahen, isn't it?)


D Gary Grady
Durham NC USA
73513...@compuserve.com / dg...@nando.net

Mark Rosenfelder

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
In article <3156d915...@news.nando.net>,

D Gary Grady <dg...@nando.net> wrote:
>By the way, am I correct that another creature for which there is no
>general, sex-inclusive term in English is the peacock? (The female is
>the peahen, isn't it?)

There is a gender-neutral term: peafowl. Really.

David Casseres

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
In article <3156d915...@news.nando.net>, dg...@nando.net (D Gary
Grady) wrote:

> By the way, am I correct that another creature for which there is no
> general, sex-inclusive term in English is the peacock? (The female is
> the peahen, isn't it?)

I have seen "peafowl" in print somewhere.

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!

Greg Zywicki

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
In article <4j7bvp$6...@netsrv2.spss.com>,

mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:
>In article <3156d915...@news.nando.net>,
>D Gary Grady <dg...@nando.net> wrote:
>>By the way, am I correct that another creature for which there is no
>>general, sex-inclusive term in English is the peacock? (The female is
>>the peahen, isn't it?)
>
>There is a gender-neutral term: peafowl. Really.
Just no gender neutral singular term, just like cattle.

Greg Z

Roger Vanderveen

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
It's also interesting to see how this is the case in a number of languages,
i.e. cattle related to wealth. For a couple of examples, German "Vieh" related
to English "fee", Welsh "gwartheg" ("cattle") related to "gwerth" ("value") and
"gwerthu" ("to sell").

Does anyone have some more examples?

Roger


In article <4iut0r$1...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,


George T Amis <am...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:

-Cattle- itself originally meant personal property in
general, and later, all livestock, before it became
limited to the bovine.

(See, e.g., SOED.)

GTA


--
Roger Vanderveen
Hillsboro, OR

Glen Ecklund

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
rva...@dtthp146.jf.intel.com (Roger Vanderveen) writes:

>It's also interesting to see how this is the case in a number of languages,
>i.e. cattle related to wealth. For a couple of examples, German "Vieh" related
>to English "fee", Welsh "gwartheg" ("cattle") related to "gwerth" ("value") and
>"gwerthu" ("to sell").

>Does anyone have some more examples?

Spanish "ganado" ("won").
Also note Spanish for "fish" is "pescado" ("fished").

Daan Sandee

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
In article <3156d915...@news.nando.net>, dg...@nando.net (D Gary Grady) writes:
=> Peter Hullah <Peter....@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
=>
=> >Try "cow"! Not strictly true because cattle encompasses a range of species.
=> >When you get down to the singular, you a stuck to defining the species.
=> >This is because we've develpoed separate names for the different species of
=> >cattle, whereas we haven't done the same for dogs, cats etc.
=>
=> I may be mistaken, but I suspect all domestic cattle are of the same
=> species (although there are other domesticated cattle-like species).

The word "cattle" may be used for any domesticated bovine animals, e.g.
the zebu (Bos indicus), or the water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), or
possibly even the yak (Poephagus grunniens), as well as for the domestic
ox (Bos taurus). It is even possible to use "cattle" for any domestic
animal kept in herds, such as horses, sheep, goats, and reindeer.

Daan Sandee san...@think.com
Burlington, MA

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
rva...@dtthp146.jf.intel.com (Roger Vanderveen) wrote:

>It's also interesting to see how this is the case in a number of languages,
>i.e. cattle related to wealth. For a couple of examples, German "Vieh" related
>to English "fee", Welsh "gwartheg" ("cattle") related to "gwerth" ("value") and
>"gwerthu" ("to sell").

From Carl Darling Buck's "A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the
Principal Indo-European Languages":

Latin capitale "capital" -> E. cattle
English stock "fund, property" -> (live)stock
Latin pecu "cattle" -> pecunia "money"
Latin res "goods, thing" -> Sp. res "head of cattle"
Proto-Romance *guadaniare "to earn" -> Sp. ganado "cattle"
Greek kte:ne: "possessions" -> NG ktini "cattle"
O.Irish indile "goods, property, cattle" (*income)
O.Irish crod "wealth, cattle" (*herd)
Irish airne'is "goods, possessions, furniture, cattle" (< E. harness)
Irish eallach "household goods, poultry, cattle" (*belongings)
Welsh da (byw) "(living) goods, cattle" (*good)
Germanic skatt- "money, treasure" -> Slavic skot "cattle"
Czech dobytek "earnings" -> "cattle"
Polish bydl/o "dwelling" -> "(household) goods" -> "cattle"
Serbo-Croat stoka "goods, wares" -> z^iva stoka "livestock"

I suppose examples can be found in other language families (Bantu
comes to mind).


==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@pi.net |_____________|||

========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig


KJBlake

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
In article <3156d915...@news.nando.net>, dg...@nando.net (D Gary
Grady) writes:

>>Try "cow"! Not strictly true because cattle encompasses a range of
species.

>>When you get down to the singular, you a stuck to defining the species.

>>This is because we've develpoed separate names for the different species
of

>>cattle, whereas we haven't done the same for dogs, cats etc.
>

>I may be mistaken, but I suspect all domestic cattle are of the same

>species (although there are other domesticated cattle-like species).

>Certainly all dogs are of the same species.


I assume the original poster meant "dog" in the wider sense--members of
the genus "canis." There are dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc., all different
species.


>What you probably mean is that there are multiple varieties or breeds
>of cattle. One can certainly refer to a "Texas longhorn" or a "jersey"
>or a "guernsey" in the singular. But you can also do the same for a
>poodle or a dachshund or a great pyrenees. (If you see a Scotsman in a
>kilt walking a large, white dog, try saying, "Hey, you've got a great
>pyrenees!")
>

>By the way, am I correct that another creature for which there is no
>general, sex-inclusive term in English is the peacock? (The female is
>the peahen, isn't it?)

"Peafowl" is in fairly common use.

Chris Malcolm

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
In article <4iut0r$1...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> am...@cats.ucsc.edu (George T Amis) writes:

>-Cattle- itself originally meant personal property in
>general, and later, all livestock, before it became
>limited to the bovine.

And in its older use it included female dependents, for which there is
now no useful generic term.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
"The mind reigns, but does not govern" Paul Valery

Richard Badger

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
I thought oxen was the plural of ox.


Bill Fisher

unread,
Mar 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/27/96
to
In article <4j984q$n...@bone.think.com>, san...@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:
> In article <3156d915...@news.nando.net>, dg...@nando.net (D Gary Grady) writes:
> => Peter Hullah <Peter....@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
> =>
> => >Try "cow"! Not strictly true because cattle encompasses a range of species.
> => >When you get down to the singular, you a stuck to defining the species.
> => >This is because we've develpoed separate names for the different species of
> => >cattle, whereas we haven't done the same for dogs, cats etc.
> =>
> => I may be mistaken, but I suspect all domestic cattle are of the same
> => species (although there are other domesticated cattle-like species).
>
> The word "cattle" may be used for any domesticated bovine animals, e.g.
> the zebu (Bos indicus), or the water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), or
> possibly even the yak (Poephagus grunniens), as well as for the domestic
> ox (Bos taurus). It is even possible to use "cattle" for any domestic
> animal kept in herds, such as horses, sheep, goats, and reindeer.
>

... or unemployed actors, as in the "cattle call".

- billf

Peter Hoogenboom

unread,
Mar 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/27/96
to
Matthew Rabuzzi (rab...@patch.tandem.com) wrote:

: A bit of brumous thinking there.


: Fog and steam are both halituous, true, but only steam is a gas;
: fog is liquid drops suspended in the air.

Clearly, so is visible steam. That's why the first inch or so above the
tea-kettle spout (or the first few feet above the industrial exhaust
stack) has no visible steam: the condensation of the droplets occurs a
moment after the vapor has passed into the cooler air.

Peter

--
Peter Hoogenboom phoo...@wlu.edu
Department of Music, DuPont 208 hoogen...@fs.sciences.wlu.edu
Washington and Lee University phoog...@wesleyan.edu
Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 463-8697

Andrew C. Plotkin

unread,
Mar 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/27/96
to
gzyw...@cmsa.gmr.com (Greg Zywicki) writes:
> In article <4j7bvp$6...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
> mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:
> >In article <3156d915...@news.nando.net>,
> >D Gary Grady <dg...@nando.net> wrote:
> >>By the way, am I correct that another creature for which there is no
> >>general, sex-inclusive term in English is the peacock? (The female is
> >>the peahen, isn't it?)
> >
> >There is a gender-neutral term: peafowl. Really.

> Just no gender neutral singular term, just like cattle.

No, the gender-neutral singular and plural are both real; they're both
spelled "peafowl". Just like "fowl". You can point at one peacock and
say "Look at the peafowl!"

dg...@nando.net (D Gary Grady) writes:

> > While the animal's still alive? I don't suppose there are words for human
> >meat..?
>
> "Long pig" is sometimes offered...

Really? Where? Did you accept, or did you just take the garden salad?

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."

lassleg

unread,
Mar 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/29/96
to
On the cattle station a friend was managing I noted that they had solved the problem
much as Alexander untied the Gordian knot. The cattle were always referred to as
beasts (beast sing.) I don't know whether you would call it dialect, rather usage.

Gordon Lasslett

Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <4iut0r$1...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,


>George T Amis <am...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>

>>In article <4iqlda$d...@hustle.rahul.net>, Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
>><much snipped>
>>>Basically, if somebody else's language seems to have a limitation,

>>>be sure your own language doesn't have similar limitations. One


>>>limitation my native language has that's always bugged me is that there's
>>>no singular for 'cattle'.

>>>-Carl
>>>
>>Actually, the singular for -cattle- (in the sense of
>>-bovine quadrapeds-) is -ox-, although the
>>word is now usually used for castrated males.
>>

>>-Cattle- itself originally meant personal property in
>>general, and later, all livestock, before it became
>>limited to the bovine.
>>

Peter Hoogenboom

unread,
Mar 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/29/96
to
Peter Hullah (Peter....@eurocontrol.fr) wrote:

: Peter Hoogenboom wrote:
: >
: > But these words are not words for H2O. Thye are words for liquid H2O.
: > H2O comprises ice and water vapor as well as water.
: >
: Do you make the same comments about "salt" because we only use the name for the
: solid form of NaCl? Or "rust"? Or "polythene"?

These don't count. We don't encounter the liquid or gaseous forms of
these substances in every day life, and so we don't have every day words
for them, as we do for the solid form of water: ice.

Peter Hullah

unread,
Mar 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/29/96
to
Greg Zywicki wrote:
>
> >There is a gender-neutral term: peafowl. Really.
> Just no gender neutral singular term, just like cattle.

I have no difficulty with talking about a fowl in the singular
so I don't see why there's a problem with talking about a
peafowl.

The Hermit

unread,
Mar 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/30/96
to

| ... or unemployed actors, as in the "cattle call".

Doesn't "cattle call" in the Hollywood sense refer to hiring a mass of
extras? I think it would be excessive to refer to extras as "actors". :)

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Mar 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/31/96
to
c...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>In article <4iut0r$1...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> am...@cats.ucsc.edu (George T Amis) writes:
>

>>-Cattle- itself originally meant personal property in
>>general, and later, all livestock, before it became
>>limited to the bovine.
>

>And in its older use it included female dependents, for which there is
>now no useful generic term.

My heavens. Can it be that there's a sinister subtext--indeed,
a powerful whiff of patriarchal misogyny--to my all-time favorite
deadpan Bible verse, the last in the book of Jonah?

4.10 Then said the LORD, Thou has had pity on the gourd,
for which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow;
which came up in a night, and perished in a night:

4.11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city,
wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that
cannot discern between their right hand and their left
hand; and also much cattle?

Lee Rudolph

Peter Hoogenboom

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to
Greg Zywicki (gzyw...@cmsa.gmr.com) wrote:
: In article <4j7bvp$6...@netsrv2.spss.com>,

: mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:
: >There is a gender-neutral term: peafowl. Really.
: Just no gender neutral singular term, just like cattle.

According to my dictionary, "fowl" can be singular. In other words, if
there is an individual animal in the yard, it would be correct to say
"look at that peafowl over there in the yard" if the animal were a
peacock or a peahen. If the animal were a cow or a bull, however, one
would be hard pressed to find a word which would fill this role.

Bob Cunningham

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
phoo...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Peter Hoogenboom) wrote:

[...]

>According to my dictionary, "fowl" can be singular. In other words, if
>there is an individual animal in the yard, it would be correct to say
>"look at that peafowl over there in the yard" if the animal were a
>peacock or a peahen. If the animal were a cow or a bull, however, one
>would be hard pressed to find a word which would fill this role.

Not at all. Just say "Look at that bovine over there".

A bovine can be a cow, bull, ox, bison, or buffalo, but in a farm
environment it would be unlikely to be understood as anything but a
cow or a bull.

You could also say "Look at the neat over there", although the
word "neat" is described as "rare" by at least one dictionary.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition defines "neat"
(plural "neat" or "neats") as "the common domestic bovine (Bos
taurus)".

There was a thread several months ago in alt.usage.english on the
subject of the singular of "cattle". Someone suggested "neat" and
others applauded the suggestion, but it's not right. The plural of
"neat" as noted above is "neat" or "neats". "Cattle" has no singular
because it is inherently a singular word itself although it has
acquired a plural meaning.

(Posted to a.u.e. et al, with e-mail copy to Peter Hoogenboom)
---
Bob Cunningham, | "Short words are best and the old words
Los Angeles, | when short are best of all."
California, USA | -- Winston Churchill

Alan J. Flavell

unread,
Apr 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/5/96
to
In article <4j8rt7$2...@rcsuna.gmr.com>, gzyw...@cmsa.gmr.com (Greg Zywicki) writes:
>>
>>There is a gender-neutral term: peafowl. Really.

>Just no gender neutral singular term, just like cattle.

"fowl(n): a bird; a bird of the poultry kind, a cock
or hen... pl. fowls, fowl"

So, if I hadn't already known it, a quick trip to quite a small
dictionary showed that the word "fowl" can be singular or plural.
Try it some time, especially before posting.

best regards
--
Alan


Tom Camfield

unread,
Apr 7, 1996, 4:00:00 AM4/7/96
to
In article <Dp7EK...@logic.uc.wlu.edu>, phoo...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu
(Peter Hoogenboom) wrote:

> Greg Zywicki (gzyw...@cmsa.gmr.com) wrote:
> : In article <4j7bvp$6...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
> : mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:

> : >There is a gender-neutral term: peafowl. Really.


> : Just no gender neutral singular term, just like cattle.
>

> According to my dictionary, "fowl" can be singular. In other words, if
> there is an individual animal in the yard, it would be correct to say
> "look at that peafowl over there in the yard" if the animal were a
> peacock or a peahen. If the animal were a cow or a bull, however, one
> would be hard pressed to find a word which would fill this role.

Is there a real need for a word other than "cow," "bull," "calf," "heifer,"
"bullock" or "steer"? Why would one want a non-specific word for a
particular bovine?

Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
538 Calhoun St., Port Townsend WA 98368
Curmudgeon Emeritus, School of Hard Knocks

irv

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

> >In article <4iqlda$d...@hustle.rahul.net>, Carl Weidling <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
> ><much snipped>
> >>Basically, if somebody else's language seems to have a limitation,
> >>be sure your own language doesn't have similar limitations. One
> >>limitation my native language has that's always bugged me is that there's
> >>no singular for 'cattle'.
> >>-Carl

Perhaps we need to consider the practical aspect of using a word such as
cattle. "I have cattle" implies that I have more than one, and the assumption
might well be that there are some male and some female. If not, then I should
not expect to continue to have a supply of cattle.
On the other hand, if I only have one, then saying I have a "cattle" conveys too
little information, so the next question (from anyone who has any interest in the
matter) is very likely to be "bull or cow?"
To save time, it seems reasonable to give as much information
as possible from the beginning. Hence, if there was a word to indicate
"a cattle" it probably died from disuse.

Irv

Michael Parry

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

In article <31AC7E...@ellijay.com>, irv <i...@ellijay.com> writes

The word in Herefordshire, where I grew up, is beast. This must be more
widely used as I have heard it a couple of times in recent discussions
of BSE on UK national radio.

Example (only a bit OTT).
"That's a fine beast you' got there."
"Aye, we be taking he t' market t'morra."
--
Michael Parry mic...@cavrdg.demon.co.uk
The Crowsnest Guide to British Railways is at
http://www.crowsnest.co.uk/north

0 new messages