More confused than ever on just what is "juggling"
TIEMANN BRUCE
>From con...@juggling.org Mon Sep 9 13:47:51 MDT 1996
In article <960906.221052...@byron.com>,
btw...@byron.com (Byron T. Watts) wrote:
: [snip]
:A further question: Is top spinning a part of juggling?
:
:I guess the question stands for diabolos too.
:
:Do you have to have multiple items in the air to be juggling?
In article <514k90$8...@peabody.colorado.edu>,
tie...@spot.Colorado.EDU (TIEMANN BRUCE) wrote:
:>From con...@juggling.org Mon Sep 9 13:47:51 MDT 1996
: [snip]
:>there are very few performers who present nothing but
:>toss juggling, and it is quite possible to win a juggling championship
:>without throwing anything in the air at all. So, I would say that
:>juggling includes diabolo, devil stick, cigar boxes, and even top
:>spinning if it is part of a juggler's act.
:
:Indeed, wearing heavy eye-liner (Fritz G.), having but having nothing to
:do with a lava lamp (Jay G.), doing quick-changes with clothes (the
:Passing Zone, among others), wearing big clown shoes (generic circus
:clowns), picking your nose (someone at the St. Louis conv.), and playing a
:tape recorder (several Juniors) or a kazoo (Bob Berky of The Alchemedians)
:are also juggling, since they too have been included as part of juggler's
:acts on stage.
>Amazing that one could spend a lifetime in the American educational
>system, and still have so little grasp of logic. I'm sure this reflects
>far worse on the American educational system than it does on Boppo, who I
>know to intelligent and capable of dealing with abstract concepts.
Of course I can't accept any responsibility for their failure.
>OK, let me spell it out for you, Boppo.
I was going to thank you for your effort, but sadly I am even more
confused now than before I asked, even though your posts are argued using
very persuasive rhetorical footwork.
>"Juggling" is the intersection of the set of object manipulation
>requiring a lot of practice,
so, just messing around with devil sticks, diabolos, or, say "juggling"
three balls in a cascade IS NOT juggling since doing this DOES NOT require
a lot of practice. And for people like Anthony Gatto, five balls is not
juggling since for them it does not require a lot of practice. Were I to
go on stage and perform an unpracticed, diabolo section during a juggling
act, it would not be juggling either, no matter what mind-blowing tricks I
hit! So evidently there is nothing juggly about the diabolo; all the
jugglyness is located in those things that effort alone secure, toss
juggling or not.
By the way, how much is "a lot?" 1 year? Ten business days? 60 days? Is
this set by international treaty, or does it vary at the state or local
level? Does Perot have a better platform on it than Clinton or Dole?
>and the set of things happening in jugglers' acts.
So things aren't juggling yet *until* they happen (or maybe only *while*
they are happening) in juggler's acts. Let's see. Rolling balls around
in a salad bowl wasn't juggling until Greg incorporated it into an act,
and now (or at least *then*) it was juggling. And I suppose sadly for
you, siteswaps *are* juggling as (1) they require practice and (2) I
performed them in an act, complete with speaking the numbers in real time,
in Fargo.
Also, *applying* eye liner or makeup during an act *is* juggling, as it
requires practice to do well (perhaps some women here can tell us how many
hours they have spent to date, so to speak, refining their abilities in
this art), and some of it must even be done with eyes closed, with
sub-millimeter precision, or at the risk of poking their eyes out.
Besides, if Fritz hadn't had eye-liner on, and didn't win, then what?
I'm also confused about Eric Berg's Guinness Book World Record "juggling
while surfing." So is surfing "juggling?" It happened *during his
juggling act* and it took him lots of practice. If it is, then it isn't
"juggling while surfing," it's just "juggling." And now all of a sudden
there are all these "jugglers" in Hawaii, etc.
NOW WAIT A MINUTE. MY EDUCATION REALLY SUCKED. I AM UNABLE TO TELL YOUR
DEFINITION FROM ONE THAT IS CIRCULAR!! "*Juggling* is that which both (1)
takes lots of practice and (2) occurs during a *juggler's* act." Maybe
it's my turn to spell things out. "*Conwaybullshitting*" is that which
(1) takes a lot of practice, or possibly just innate talent (unlike
juggling) and (2) occur's within a Conwaybullshitter's post. That's all
well and good if you can spot a Conwaybullshitter if you meet one on the
net, but what if you can't? My education has failed to teach me how to
use your definition of "juggling" ("that which a juggler performs, that
required practice") to discern just what juggling is!
>You will notice that all the things I listed as juggling fall in both the
>sets under discussion. You will also not that I did not say that anything
>happening in a juggler's act was juggling, which makes your remarks about
>eye make up and nose picking something of a straw man.
Indeed they do! I also notice that they all have the letter "i" in them.
Is this important too? I guess I was a bit confused when you said:
>While toss juggling has [become more central...] I would say that
^^^^^^^^^^^
>juggling includes [...] even top spinning if it is part of a juggler's
>act.
The way you threw in "AND EVEN top spinning, IF IT IS PART of a juggler's
act" just threw me. Should the top-spinners take offense that _EVEN_
top-spinning counts. (Or should they be thrilled they made the cut?)
Aha! "Whatever wins a juggling championship is *juggling*!"
:While we're on the subject of semantic definition, could you please
:enlighten me what "variety arts" means? Like, as opposed to "juggling?"
:Silly me, I had thought they were different. And that "juggling" meant
:"having more things in the air than hands, etc., controlling them."
>The Oxford English Dictionary does not mention this definition in either
>the first edition or the supplement. The two and a half columns devoted
>to "juggle" and its derivatives make no mention of tossing things in the
>air at all, that I can see.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Would you be so kind as to tell me whether the OED states "'Juggling' is
the intersection of the set of object manipulation requiring a lot of
practice, and the set of things happening in jugglers' acts?" Somewhere
else I read "Juggling is getting H*N catches of N objects, where H is
the number of hands involved."
Whether this is verbatim OED or not, I wonder if a bunch of stodgy
Englishmen smoking their pipes and writing a dictionary from their ivory
tower is fully in touch with the heartbeat of the largest gathering of
jugglers in one place. (You must allow me the liberty of considering the
Earth a place, though I admit being somewhat miffed that noone has yet
told me whether it is, specifically regarding the recent mention of the
largest gathering of diaboloists "in one place.")
>Juggling is a subset of "variety arts", as the latter also includs things
>such as singing, mime and musical farting.
Could you mention which column of the OED on "variety arts" mentions
musical farting? Also, please do not burden me with the task of informing
Peter Gabriel or Bruce Springsteen that they are not rock'n'roll
supermegastars, but merely variety artists. They sing. You will have to
tell them yourself. And tell them that the OED guys sent you.
NOW I AM ABSOLUTELY INCENSED AT MY SO-CALLED EDUCATION!! I SHOULD SUE
THEM FOR ALL THE TUITION THEY HAVE EVER RECEIVED IN MY NAME, PARTICULARLY
SINCE OTHERS PAID FOR IT AND SO I WOULD GET REALLY RICH!!!!
*Nowhere* in my American logics class did anyone ever teach me that
"If none of *my* versions of the OED have what *you* say in them
>that I can see
then you must be wrong and whatever
>I would say
IS THEREFORE CORRECT"
is a valid logical refutation of another's argument.
Damn American schools! Why couldn't I have gotten a GOOD education, like
Mr. Conway got, at least in logic!
And I'm left all confused here, thinking something like "controlling more
objects than one has hands (or whatever)" is "juggling." As in yes to the
boomerang question, no to tops and the devil stick. But yes to two or
three diabolos to one string. And yes to the three or five cascade, no
matter how much practice had (or had not) occurred. Whether or not it has
ever been performed. Like the 111 ball cascade. Noone has ever done it,
likely noone ever will. But it is juggling.
I think. Or at least I thought.
-boppo
Celibrate the Eqinocies (Eqinoxen?)!
They're the middlest days of the year!
ejb...@teleport.com
TIEMANN BRUCE <tie...@spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>From con...@juggling.org Mon Sep 9 13:47:51 MDT 1996
My machine just asked me, "Are you SURE you want to post this?" so it
probably read the stuff immediately preceding this from Mssrs Boppo &
Conway.
Dictionaries suck -- and yet they are the stuff of wonder. Let's start
from scratch.
To define `juggling' we must first decide if we want to be inclusive or
exclusive (anaphatic or cataphatic). An exclusive definition might be
similar to Boppo's. The JIS Committee on Numbers Juggling is fairly
specific on what will be accepted as numbers juggling and what won't. But
the Committee's definitions are distinguished as `Numbers' juggling, which
is specifically exclusionary. One can be even more exclusionary and say
that juggling is what the current numbers record-holder in clubs, balls,
and rings does, and everybody else sucks.
Andrew's own attempts seem aimed toward inclusion -- as in variety arts.
I'd go in a slightly different direction and say that juggling might be
defined as "a manipulation of one or more objects in an unusual manner
that is done for its own sake rather than to produce another effect."
This has the advantage of being widely inclusive (tops, diabolo,
boomerang, etc.), while yet distinguishing it from manipulation that
produces music, sexual gratification, or magic effects.
Yeah. I like it.
=Eric
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean, I'd love to be skinny like
that but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
Mariah Carey -- from the World Entertainment News Network.
Ricahrd E. Shumaker
Everyone has been having a hard time with "non-juggling" V.S.
"juggling" because of inclusion V.S. exclusion. I just wanted to add
that the basic pattern for contact juggling the butterfly is a precise
throw and a precise catch. If "true juggling" or it's definition is
throwing and catching of an object you would have to include basic
contact juggling. This definition would exclude ball manipulation such
as the pyramid, 3 in your hand with one on top which I also consider a
contact juggling form. Numbers contact juggling is almost impossible
because you are throwing and catching with precision so that the ball
never flies into the air. The time the object is in the air is the time
you can throw another and another and so on and so on.
Most juggling skills, Devil stick, Diablo, clubs, rings, contact
juggling require one thing. That one thing is to defy the law of
gravity. You gain a skill that enables you(this skill can be inherient
or learned) to defy gravity. This includes plate spinning but also
includes paper airplanes. If you add direct control to the definition
it eliminates paper airplanes.
Rich's sort of pseudo trying to include everyone and I probably am
forgeting someone definition of juggling:
A skill that enables you to directly manipulate objects in a way that
defy's gravity, this includes using gravity to manipulate the
object(last minute inclusion for bounce juggling). This skill is not
trickery or illusion although it looks as though it is. You can control
the object with your hands or with objects in your hands. Gravity is
the common ground for almost all juggling or juggling related
activities.
What did I forget? Probably alot but if we keep trying one day we can
send our definition to WEBSTER's and boy that would be a thrill.
Rich
Gerald R. Martin
In article <323FBA...@PCLogiconline.com>, ri...@PCLogiconline.com wrote:
[snip]
> Numbers contact juggling is almost impossible
> because you are throwing and catching with precision so that the ball
> never flies into the air.
[snip]
My first (heh) contact with this form of jugglery was when Dave Finnigan
breezed through town, what -- ten years ago now? fifteen? ...anyway, he
was very outgoing and we had a jolly evening at juggling club, and he did
this most impressive series of moves just rolling balls around in his
hands. (similar in spirit to, though lots more primitive than, Tony
Duncan's electrifying contest routine in Burlington) Dave used bumper pool
balls; small enough to hold onto a bunch at a time, and slick-surfaced so
that they'd skid against each other and not stick. He could 'cascade' nine
of them between both hands; after about four months of rabid practice, I
was able to do seven, in a slow, jerky sort of way. 'Cascading' or
'reverse cascading' or 'showering' or 'reverse showering' three in each
hand turns out to be pretty easy, and a lot of fun to master. These aren't
stage tricks (Maestro Duncan notwithstanding), but I think they certainly
qualify as numbers contact juggling.
-J.
Ricahrd E. Shumaker
I do believe it was 22 but I can't remember exactly it was years ago(At
the time he told me it was a record and I had no doubt about that). I
was speaking about competition numbers juggling and I don't think that
this is covered in competion?
As you said it is not a stage trick? I do several 4 ball tricks that
are 2 2 ball tricks with chinese exercise balls. They look horrible
from the stage but great up close. Thank you for the correction, and I
was very very impressed with Tony Duncan's 3 silicone balls in one
hand. If you can do three in one hand try silicone it takes the trick
to a new level. The trick is you can't let the balls touch. Please
don't post that you can do four in one hand with silicone. That is an
easy trick in comparision. If you can do four, take the fourth ball off
and try again.
Thanks for keeping me honest
Rich
Andrew Conway
I'll have to be brief here, cause I'm recovering from a serious system
crash - a literal crash, I dropped my laptop. Crunch! If you sent me e-mail
recently I'll answer it when I recover my hard disk in a couple of days. Be
that as it may...
In article <51k884$i...@peabody.colorado.edu>,
tie...@spot.Colorado.EDU (TIEMANN BRUCE) wrote:
:[snip]
:[Andrew:]
:>"Juggling" is the intersection of the set of object manipulation
:>requiring a lot of practice,
:
:so, just messing around with devil sticks, diabolos, or, say "juggling"
:three balls in a cascade IS NOT juggling since doing this DOES NOT require
:a lot of practice.
Try messing around with a devil stick like Neil Stammer does before you say
it does not take a lot of practice...
: And for people like Anthony Gatto, five balls is not
:juggling since for them it does not require a lot of practice.
It did when he learned it.
: Were I to
:go on stage and perform an unpracticed, diabolo section during a juggling
:act, it would not be juggling either, no matter what mind-blowing tricks I
:hit! So evidently there is nothing juggly about the diabolo; all the
:jugglyness is located in those things that effort alone secure, toss
:juggling or not.
I look forward to your unpracticed diabolo routine at the next Club Ren. Go
ahead, blow my mind. (As a mind altering substance Boppo is cheaper than
acid, more legal than peyote and more hallucinogenic than Earl Grey. Two
out of three isn't bad.)
:By the way, how much is "a lot?" 1 year? Ten business days? 60 days? Is
:this set by international treaty, or does it vary at the state or local
:level? Does Perot have a better platform on it than Clinton or Dole?
I think it rests in the mindset of the individual doing the practicing,
don't you? If I said to you, "Hey Boppo, did that backpack trick take a lot
of practice?" surely you would be able to answer yes or no.
:>and the set of things happening in jugglers' acts.
:
:So things aren't juggling yet *until* they happen (or maybe only *while*
:they are happening) in juggler's acts. Let's see. Rolling balls around
:in a salad bowl wasn't juggling until Greg incorporated it into an act,
:and now (or at least *then*) it was juggling.
Bingo! I think you're getting it. Yes, it is an entirely new form of
juggling. What's more, it is totally unrelated to the routine in which
Michael Moschen rolls salad bowls on a flat surface.
: And I suppose sadly for
:you, siteswaps *are* juggling as (1) they require practice and (2) I
:performed them in an act, complete with speaking the numbers in real time,
:in Fargo.
True. But then I never said that juggling was a subset of entertainment.
:Also, *applying* eye liner or makeup during an act *is* juggling, as it
:requires practice to do well (perhaps some women here can tell us how many
:hours they have spent to date, so to speak, refining their abilities in
:this art), and some of it must even be done with eyes closed, with
:sub-millimeter precision, or at the risk of poking their eyes out.
:Besides, if Fritz hadn't had eye-liner on, and didn't win, then what?
Funny you should mention that. Many years ago when we visited Anthony Gatto
during his first gig at the Reno Hilton, we were in his dressing room with
him and Nick and the Bakalors. Barry was showing a video of Ignatov, but
Ant was more interested in watching Paula put on her eye make up, as he had
just learned to put on his own stage make up. However, he did not perform
the make up routine - neither did Fritz, I think? - and wearing make up
does not take much practice, so that doesn't count.
:I'm also confused about Eric Berg's Guinness Book World Record "juggling
:while surfing." So is surfing "juggling?" It happened *during his
:juggling act* and it took him lots of practice.
During his act? How did he get the wave into the theater?
: If it is, then it isn't
:"juggling while surfing," it's just "juggling." And now all of a sudden
:there are all these "jugglers" in Hawaii, etc.
:
:NOW WAIT A MINUTE. MY EDUCATION REALLY SUCKED. I AM UNABLE TO TELL YOUR
:DEFINITION FROM ONE THAT IS CIRCULAR!! "*Juggling* is that which both (1)
:takes lots of practice and (2) occurs during a *juggler's* act."
Too right your education sucked. I would demand a refund if I were you. You
could have bought a condo instead.
Look, if I had defined "Juggler" as "somebody who performs a juggling act"
that would have been circular reasoning. However, I didn't. If it makes you
happier, I will define juggler as somebody who can toss juggle in a number
of different ways [what number? ok, ten] and a juggling act as a theatrical
performance by a juggler in which the focus is (how did Eric put it?) "a
manipulation of one or more objects in an unusual manner
that is done for its own sake rather than to produce another effect". No
trace of a circle there, so I'm gonna snip your insults - I have no desire
to attack you personally in return.
: [...]
:Aha! "Whatever wins a juggling championship is *juggling*!"
Sure. Do you think it would be possible to win a juggling championship
without juggling? What a strange concept. I think you've just blown your
chances of ever being chosen as a judge.
::While we're on the subject of semantic definition, could you please
::enlighten me what "variety arts" means? Like, as opposed to "juggling?"
::Silly me, I had thought they were different. And that "juggling" meant
::"having more things in the air than hands, etc., controlling them."
:
:>The Oxford English Dictionary does not mention this definition in either
:>the first edition or the supplement. The two and a half columns devoted
:>to "juggle" and its derivatives make no mention of tossing things in the
:>air at all, that I can see.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:Would you be so kind as to tell me whether the OED states "'Juggling' is
:the intersection of the set of object manipulation requiring a lot of
:practice, and the set of things happening in jugglers' acts?"
Oh, heck I really don't have time for this, if you want the full story look
it up for yourself, but here are some of the meanings given:
JUGGLING: The action of the verb juggle.
JUGGLE: To practice the skill or art of a juggler.
JUGGLER: One who entertains or amuses people by [...] tricks.
TRICK: A feat of dexterity or skill [...]
This sequence is actually not that far from my definition. The OED, as
befits a historical dictionary, also spends a lot of time talking about
'juggling' in terms of jesting, buffoonery, ledgerdemain, trickery and
magic.
: Somewhere
:else I read "Juggling is getting H*N catches of N objects, where H is
:the number of hands involved."
Nice to see you're no longer insisting that N>H.
:Whether this is verbatim OED or not, I wonder if a bunch of stodgy
:Englishmen smoking their pipes and writing a dictionary from their ivory
:tower is fully in touch with the heartbeat of the largest gathering of
:jugglers in one place. (You must allow me the liberty of considering the
:Earth a place, though I admit being somewhat miffed that noone has yet
:told me whether it is, specifically regarding the recent mention of the
:largest gathering of diaboloists "in one place.")
Is it a gathering if nobody leaves home? I must admit I regard the earth as
home.
:>Juggling is a subset of "variety arts", as the latter also includs things
:>such as singing, mime and musical farting.
:
:Could you mention which column of the OED on "variety arts" mentions
:musical farting?
Unfortunately I only have the first edition, from which all references to
the career of the Le Petomane were omitted by the somewhat prudish editors.
: Also, please do not burden me with the task of informing
:Peter Gabriel or Bruce Springsteen that they are not rock'n'roll
:supermegastars, but merely variety artists. They sing. You will have to
:tell them yourself. And tell them that the OED guys sent you.
Did I ever claim that the set of variety artists and rocknrollmegastars had
a null intersection? No I did not. They can be both for all I care.
:NOW I AM ABSOLUTELY INCENSED AT MY SO-CALLED EDUCATION!! I SHOULD SUE
:THEM FOR ALL THE TUITION THEY HAVE EVER RECEIVED IN MY NAME, PARTICULARLY
:SINCE OTHERS PAID FOR IT AND SO I WOULD GET REALLY RICH!!!!
Poor Boppo. They didn't even teach you how to turn off the Caps Lock.
:*Nowhere* in my American logics class did anyone ever teach me that
I always suspected that American logic was different from the rest of the
world's.
:"If none of *my* versions of the OED have what *you* say in them
:>that I can see
:then you must be wrong and whatever
:>I would say
:IS THEREFORE CORRECT"
:
:is a valid logical refutation of another's argument.
When discussing the meanings of words, the OED is generally considered to
be a fairly useful thing to reference. If there is another dictionary you
consider to be more authoritative by all means quote it.
:Damn American schools! Why couldn't I have gotten a GOOD education, like
:Mr. Conway got, at least in logic!
:
:And I'm left all confused here, thinking something like "controlling more
:objects than one has hands (or whatever)" is "juggling." As in yes to the
:boomerang question, no to tops and the devil stick. But yes to two or
:three diabolos to one string.
Two diabolos on one string is "juggling" is "controlling more objects than
one has hands". Are we to conclude from this that a piece of string is a
"hand"?
: And yes to the three or five cascade, no
:matter how much practice had (or had not) occurred. Whether or not it has
:ever been performed. Like the 111 ball cascade. Noone has ever done it,
:likely noone ever will. But it is juggling.
Even if they don't do it for 222 catches? Surely, it somebody attempts a
111 ball juggle, but only pulls off, say, 0 catches, that doesn't qualify
as juggling.
:
:I think. Or at least I thought.
Not hard enough, obviously.
Gerald R. Martin
In article <324113...@PCLogiconline.com>, ri...@PCLogiconline.com wrote:
[snip my previous post re Dave Finnigan contact-cascading 9 billiard balls]
>
> I appologize I did forget about this trick. I have seen someone doing
> I do believe it was 22 but I can't remember exactly it was years ago(At
> the time he told me it was a record and I had no doubt about that).
Gulp!
I
> was speaking about competition numbers juggling and I don't think that
> this is covered in competion?
Not yet; I wouldn't hold my breath, either.
> As you said it is not a stage trick? I do several 4 ball tricks that
> are 2 2 ball tricks with chinese exercise balls. They look horrible
> from the stage but great up close.
I agree; close-up work in magic is good business these days. I wonder if
there's a market for close-up juggling, too?
[snip mutual respect & gushing re Tony Duncan's skills with silicones]
>
> Thanks for keeping me honest
> Rich
Honesty has nothing to do with it; it's an obscure form of juggling, by
and large, which most folks have never encountered. *Especially* if you
can't see it from a stage!
Peace,
-J.
Alan Morgan
In article <323FBA...@PCLogiconline.com>,
Ricahrd E. Shumaker <ri...@PCLogiconline.com> wrote:
>Everyone has been having a hard time with "non-juggling" V.S.
>"juggling" because of inclusion V.S. exclusion.
I liked the definition floating around here a while ago that said
the juggling is the stuff that jugglers do that non-jugglers don't
do. Both jugglers and non-jugglers eat, sleep, watch "Family Feud",
and drink beer. Only jugglers, however, mess around with devil sticks,
diabolos, balls, flaming hula-hoops, etc.
On a vaguely related note, I am sure that many jugglers (myself included)
have dismissed multiplexing as "not real juggling". By the broader
definition of juggling, it certainly counts. As a way to qualify 'n'
objects it does not.
>Numbers contact juggling is almost impossible
Hah! You only think that because you have not seen Boppo's Renegade act
in which he demonstrated exactly that feat (he has also demonstrated the
trick of numbers club swinging although I think that numbers club bouncing
and numbers bullwhipping still elude him).
> Most juggling skills, Devil stick, Diablo, clubs, rings, contact
>juggling require one thing.
Practice, practice, practice.
Alan
ten
In article <51v0ss$a...@rmstar.efi.com>, al...@efi.com says...
>
>In article <323FBA...@PCLogiconline.com>,
>Ricahrd E. Shumaker <ri...@PCLogiconline.com> wrote:
>>Everyone has been having a hard time with "non-juggling" V.S.
>>"juggling" because of inclusion V.S. exclusion.
>
>I
>
>
>> Most juggling skills, Devil stick, Diablo, clubs, rings, contact
>>juggling require one thing.
>
>Practice, practice, practice.
>
>Alan
-Hey Alan, that's three things. And I rarely meet the first of those...
-Tennis
*========================================================*
*HolliCom Internet Services *
*"Bringing the world to North Central Indiana" *
*(317) 883-4562 in...@holli.com *
*=========================================================
Arthur Lewbel
For what it's worth, the IJA's stage competition rules say,
"Juggling is generally defined as keeping one or more objects in motion
by tossing, catching, or carrying, or balancing objects precariously."
Of course, the rules only say that because I wrote them, but I did base
this language on previous versions of the rules and on various
dictionaries. By the way, you'll find that the American heritage
dictionary gives a greater prominence to toss juggling than do the
various editions of the Oxford English dictionary. The latter seems to
generally cling longer to older usages than the American Heritage.
Of course, anyone who's done a literature search for juggling references
will find that all of these definitions are basically wrong, in that by
far the commonest usage of the word juggling is as a metaphor for
keeping a lot of things going at once, as in the expression, "juggling
family and a career."
Arthur Lewbel
former (hurray!) IJA championships director
ale...@lemberg.brandeis.edu <-- note new address
Andrew John Conway
In article <51v0ss$a...@rmstar.efi.com>,
al...@efi.com (Alan Morgan) wrote:
:[...]I liked the definition floating around here a while ago that said
:the juggling is the stuff that jugglers do that non-jugglers don't
:do. [...]
Oh, thanks, that was my idea, too. The reason I am no longer completely
satisfied with that definition is that it automatically excludes
innovation, and stuff that only one juggler does. For example, 'Hemisphere'
would not be juggling until enough jugglers had ripped it off.
Andrew con...@juggling.org http://www.juggling.org/~conway/
"...apparently, they like to fool the new people in the newsgroup by pretending to swap complicated tricks using a secret numerical notation..."
CMJ New Music Monthly describing rec.juggling
Bill Gates
Andrew Conway wrote:
<snip>
> Oh, heck I really don't have time for this, if you want the full story look
> it up for yourself, but here are some of the meanings given:
> JUGGLING: The action of the verb juggle.
> JUGGLE: To practice the skill or art of a juggler.
> JUGGLER: One who entertains or amuses people by [...] tricks.
> TRICK: A feat of dexterity or skill [...]
Since there is still a lot of confusion about what juggling
I'll write down something taken from the Glossary of "Bluff your way in
Juggling" (not
printed yet, but on the way as far as I can see :-)):
.
.
CATCH Go to 'Throw'
.
.
.
THROW Go to 'Catch'
.
.
Did you CATCH it ?
Roberto Galoppini
rgalo...@tim.it
"Iacto ergo joculo, joculo ergo sum"
Roberto Galoppini
Sorry about that !!!
Somebody passed by my PC and changed my Identity info.