Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
Karl
Greg Berigan
In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
>Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
--
_-<#)-=# http://cse.unl.edu/~gberigan/War-of-the-Worlds.html
___/___
_-~_--<###) "2X2L calling CQ... 2X2L calling CQ... 2X2L calling CQ, New
<~c>' __--< York. Isn't there anyone on the air? Isn't there anyone
\_--=____#) on the air? Isn't there anyone?"--War of the Worlds, 1938
Valerie Rose
In article <4tlao6$7...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg
Berigan) wrote:
> In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
>
> >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
>
> Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
>
All,
I don't know about the rest of you, but I had never heard of the word
"clowder" until a few people started posting about it here. To me "cat" is
singular and "cats" is plural - always has been. I am sure that many
others will agree with me. Why use a word to name a newsgroup when almost
no-one will know what it means? How do these people expect to get cat
lovers to download messages from, and write messages to, a newsgroup whose
name will only make some people think of clam chowder?
Valerie
Momma to Sheba, Lilith, Finn McCool, and Morgan Le Fay
Adam Roach
Valerie Rose wrote:
>
> In article <4tlao6$7...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg
> Berigan) wrote:
>
> > In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
> >
> > >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
> >
> > Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
>
> "clowder" until a few people started posting about it here. To me "cat" is
> singular and "cats" is plural - always has been.
The original poster wasn't very clear. "Clowder" is a collective noun
applied to groups of cats. You've probably heard the phrases "gaggle of
geese," "herd of elephants," "pride of lions," "pack of wolves," etc.
The term, as applied to cats in general is "clowder," hence: "clowder of
cats."
The argument that "clowder" is obscure, though, is valid (IMHO).
That notwithstanding, rec.pets.wolves.pack would *still* be a bad
name, even though the usage of "pack" as applied to "wolves" is
well known.
--
Adam Roach -- adam....@exu.ericsson.se -- Standard Disclaimers, etc. <*>
Ricky (and Newton)
Valerie Rose wrote:
>
> In article <4tlao6$7...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg
> Berigan) wrote:
>
> > In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
> >
> > >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
> >
> > Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
> >
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I had never heard of the word
> "clowder" until a few people started posting about it here. To me "cat" is
> others will agree with me. Why use a word to name a newsgroup when almost
> no-one will know what it means? How do these people expect to get cat
> lovers to download messages from, and write messages to, a newsgroup whose
> name will only make some people think of clam chowder?
>
> Valerie
> Momma to Sheba, Lilith, Finn McCool, and Morgan Le Fay
Well, it's not strictly linguisticly correct to refer to "clowder" as a
plural. "Cats" is the plural of cat.
Clowder is better defined as a "collective noun", as with the terms
"pride of lions" or "flock of birds".
The words "lions" and "birds" are clearly the plurals, but the
collective noun indicates a grouping of the plural.
"Clowder" is the proper collective noun for cats.
It is my understanding, however, that Dave Lawrence has disallowed it as
a usenet group name, therefore, that part of the debate is no longer
valid.
Ricky
--
To send either Ricky or Newton (meow!) e-mail, just write to
mailto:ri...@ix.netcom.com
Newton's Alley -- http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2860
The Weekly Caterwaul --
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2860/weekly.html
Find your kitty soulmate at Newton's Winkwink Service:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2860/winkwink.html
For the Humans: Another Dimension (an art gallery)
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1750
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Greg Berigan (gber...@cse.unl.edu) wrote:
: In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
: >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
: Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
Actually, clowder is a word for a group of cats. As in flock of sheep,
herd of cattle, pack of wolves, clowder of cats.
Alison
In article <vrose-01089...@ip30.th.indy.net>, vr...@indy.net
(Valerie Rose) wrote:
> All,
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I had never heard of the word
> "clowder" until a few people started posting about it here. To me "cat" is
> singular and "cats" is plural - always has been. I am sure that many
> others will agree with me. Why use a word to name a newsgroup when almost
> no-one will know what it means? How do these people expect to get cat
> lovers to download messages from, and write messages to, a newsgroup whose
> name will only make some people think of clam chowder?
>
> Valerie
> Momma to Sheba, Lilith, Finn McCool, and Morgan Le Fay
Clowder is the name for a group of cats. You know, like a school of fish
or a gaggle of geese, it's a clowder of cats.
Alison
**********
Email Alison at Alic...@aol.com (please no flames about AOL)
Visit Alison's web page at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4250
**********
Email Kitsen at Kits...@aol.com!
Visit Kitsen's website at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/3025
Peter Kootsookos
In article <4tlao6$7...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan) wrote:
> In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
>
> >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
>
> Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
I thought cattle was plural? One cat, two cattle?
:-)
Ciao,
Peter K.
--
Peter J. Kootsookos, E-mail: Peter.Ko...@anu.edu.au
CRASys, Dept of Systems Engineering, Work Phone : +61 6 279 8315
ANU, ACT 2617, AUSTRALIA Fax : +61 6 249 2698
http://wwwsyseng.anu.edu.au/~pjk101 Mobile : +61 41 126 5982
David Stevenson
Adam Roach wrote:
>Valerie Rose wrote:
>>
>> In article <4tlao6$7...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg
>> Berigan) wrote:
>>
>> > In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
>> >
>> > Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of you, but I had never heard of the word
>> "clowder" until a few people started posting about it here. To me "cat" is
>> singular and "cats" is plural - always has been.
>
>The original poster wasn't very clear. "Clowder" is a collective noun
>applied to groups of cats. You've probably heard the phrases "gaggle of
>geese," "herd of elephants," "pride of lions," "pack of wolves," etc.
>The term, as applied to cats in general is "clowder," hence: "clowder of
>cats."
>
>The argument that "clowder" is obscure, though, is valid (IMHO).
>That notwithstanding, rec.pets.wolves.pack would *still* be a bad
>name, even though the usage of "pack" as applied to "wolves" is
>well known.
>
Clowder sounds delicious. Why use a word that no-one has heard of and
that sounds like food?
--
David Stevenson Tel +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please
Liverpool, England, UK da...@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome
Quango: SI Lp B 8 Y L+ W+ C+ I+ T+ A- E+ H+ V++ F++ Q+ B+ PA+ PL++
Nanki Poo: SI Bp+W B 3 Y L+ W+ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q B+ PA+ PL+
Mary A. Watson
In article <vrose-01089...@ip30.th.indy.net>,
vr...@indy.net
(Valerie Rose) wrote:
> All,
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I had never heard of
the word
> "clowder" until a few people started posting about it here.
To me "cat" is
> singular and "cats" is plural - always has been. I am sure
that many
> others will agree with me. Why use a word to name a newsgroup
when almost
> no-one will know what it means? How do these people expect to
get cat
> lovers to download messages from, and write messages to, a
newsgroup whose
> name will only make some people think of clam chowder?
MMMMmmmmmmmmmmm.......Clam Chowder!!!!!!! Fish AND Cream - The
Perfect Food!!!!!!
Newt (Homer Sompson of the Cat World)
--
Mary Alison Watson ma...@dayhoff.med.virginia.edu
********************************************************************
"A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value
of nothing." ---Oscar Wilde
David Stevenson
David Stevenson wrote:
> Clowder sounds delicious. Why use a word that no-one has heard of and
>that sounds like food?
>
Furthermore neither my dictionary nor my spellchekka has heard of it.
Q.E.D.
--
Quango /\_/\ /\ /\
qua...@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @
Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )=
nank...@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~
Ricky (and Newton)
David Stevenson wrote:
>
> David Stevenson wrote:
>
> > Clowder sounds delicious. Why use a word that no-one has heard of and
> >that sounds like food?
> >
> Furthermore neither my dictionary nor my spellchekka has heard of it.
>
> Q.E.D.
Dave, with all due respect to both Quango and Nanki Poo, "clowder," like
an awful lot of collective nouns, has fallen into disuse. It is,
however, still a valid collective noun for a group of cats, and is still
contained in the Oxford English Dictionary. It is not contained in the
"abridged" dictionaries that most people have in their homes, nor in
most spell checking programs, simply because it is not in common usage
today. Some of the proper collective nouns for various animals are both
interesting, and sometimes entertaining (as with a "murder of crows"),
and there are those of us who are a little sorry to see them go.
Ricky (and Newton)
David Stevenson wrote:
>
> Ricky (and Newton) wrote:
>
> >David Stevenson wrote:
> >>
> >> David Stevenson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Clowder sounds delicious. Why use a word that no-one has heard of and
> >> >that sounds like food?
> >> >
> >> Furthermore neither my dictionary nor my spellchekka has heard of it.
> >>
> >> Q.E.D.
> >
> >Dave, with all due respect to both Quango and Nanki Poo, "clowder," like
> >an awful lot of collective nouns, has fallen into disuse. It is,
> >however, still a valid collective noun for a group of cats, and is still
> >contained in the Oxford English Dictionary. It is not contained in the
> >"abridged" dictionaries that most people have in their homes, nor in
> >most spell checking programs, simply because it is not in common usage
> >today. Some of the proper collective nouns for various animals are both
> >interesting, and sometimes entertaining (as with a "murder of crows"),
> >and there are those of us who are a little sorry to see them go.
>
> just that it is a totally unsuitable usage now.
>
> With due respect to Scrabble enthusiasts, the fact that a word is
> contained in something like the OED does not make it part of English
> language today. The "abridged" dictionaries are a *far* better guide to
> the current English language.
Maybe, maybe not. I've got a new dictionary that does not define "codpiece". The
word simply isn't there. I realize that it's not an item of fashion often worn
today, but the word might still crop up (you know .... "gee, mom, what's that dingus
that Sir Whatsit has over his ......."). It's a valid word, just not all that in
use.
>
> I am a little sorry to see steam engines disappear from railways but
> time moves on and for long distance express and local commuter trains,
> steam is not the answer: in the same way we have moved on from the use
> of this obscure word "clowder" so its use today would be inappropriate.
>
Possibly, but you know you are in trouble when the concept of "steam engines"
disappears as well because people forget the language.
David Stevenson
Ricky (and Newton) wrote:
>David Stevenson wrote:
>>
>> David Stevenson wrote:
>>
>> > Clowder sounds delicious. Why use a word that no-one has heard of and
>> >that sounds like food?
>> >
>> Furthermore neither my dictionary nor my spellchekka has heard of it.
>>
>> Q.E.D.
>
>Dave, with all due respect to both Quango and Nanki Poo, "clowder," like
>an awful lot of collective nouns, has fallen into disuse. It is,
>however, still a valid collective noun for a group of cats, and is still
>contained in the Oxford English Dictionary. It is not contained in the
>"abridged" dictionaries that most people have in their homes, nor in
>most spell checking programs, simply because it is not in common usage
>today. Some of the proper collective nouns for various animals are both
>interesting, and sometimes entertaining (as with a "murder of crows"),
>and there are those of us who are a little sorry to see them go.
I was not suggesting that it had not been a usage sometime in the past
just that it is a totally unsuitable usage now.
With due respect to Scrabble enthusiasts, the fact that a word is
contained in something like the OED does not make it part of English
language today. The "abridged" dictionaries are a *far* better guide to
the current English language.
I am a little sorry to see steam engines disappear from railways but
time moves on and for long distance express and local commuter trains,
steam is not the answer: in the same way we have moved on from the use
of this obscure word "clowder" so its use today would be inappropriate.
--
Colin Douthwaite
Valerie Rose (vr...@indy.net) wrote:
>In article <4tlao6$7...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, gber...@cse.unl.edu (Greg
>Berigan) wrote:
>
>> In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
>>
>> Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
>>
>All,
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I had never heard of the word
>"clowder" until a few people started posting about it here. To me "cat" is
>singular and "cats" is plural - always has been. I am sure that many
>others will agree with me. Why use a word to name a newsgroup when almost
>no-one will know what it means? How do these people expect to get cat
>lovers to download messages from, and write messages to, a newsgroup whose
>name will only make some people think of clam chowder?
How often have you used the word "eclectic" about your cat(s) ?
Write us a sentence including the word "eclectic" showing that
you understand the word and its relationship to cats.
No prizes !
Yours eclectically,
Laura Pearlman
In article <4u2qsg$g...@orm.southern.co.nz>,
Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>Valerie Rose (vr...@indy.net) wrote:
> ...
>> I don't know about the rest of you, but I had never heard of the word
>>"clowder" until a few people started posting about it here. To me "cat" is
>>singular and "cats" is plural - always has been. I am sure that many
>>others will agree with me. Why use a word to name a newsgroup when almost
>>no-one will know what it means? How do these people expect to get cat
>>lovers to download messages from, and write messages to, a newsgroup whose
>>name will only make some people think of clam chowder?
>
>How often have you used the word "eclectic" about your cat(s) ?
The word "eclectic" doesn't describe cats, it describes the posts in a
newsgroup. The word "announce" doesn't describe cats; it describes
the posts in a newsgroup. The phrase "health+behav" doesn't describe
cats; it describes the posts in a newsgroup. The word "anecdotes"
doesn't describe cats; it describes the posts in a newsgroup. I'll
grant you that "rescue" and "breeds" probably do describe the cats
talked about in those groups. (Yes, I think some of those proposed
groups have been dropped from the RFD, but not because of name
problems).
By your argument, a group called rpc.clowder could only be used to
discuss *groups* of cats.
-- Laura
Martin M. Cron
>
> Greg Berigan (gber...@cse.unl.edu) wrote:
> : In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
>
> : >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
>
> : Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
>
> herd of cattle, pack of wolves, clowder of cats.
Cats don't generally travel in anything like packs, herds, flocks,
murders, prides, they tend to be solitary, independent beings.
Why group them with a name that doesn't make sense?
-Martin Cron
Kathy g.
[posted and emailed-unreliable ISP]
~~ Cats don't generally travel in anything like packs, herds, flocks,
~~ murders, prides, they tend to be solitary, independent beings.
~~
~~ Why group them with a name that doesn't make sense?
~~
~~ -Martin Cron
Clowder is no longer under consideration, but for your information,
cats do group in large aggregates from time to time,
particularly in the outdoors. When they do this, they are correctly
described as a clowder.
--
8 cats 1 d*g and 1 hoomin so far...
[Colette, Lily, Frau Freya, Leon, Burt, Leify, Simba, Puffy, William(a d*g),
& Kathy(a hoomin)]
barbara pattist
cf...@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite) wrote:
>How often have you used the word "eclectic" about your cat(s) ?
>Write us a sentence including the word "eclectic" showing that
>you understand the word and its relationship to cats.
>No prizes !
>Yours eclectically,
Meow, I chewed on the eclectic cord and the nasty eclecticity bit me.
Pierre La Feet
Colin Douthwaite
David Stevenson (da...@blakjak.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> Clowder sounds delicious. Why use a word that no-one has heard of and
>>that sounds like food?
>>
> Furthermore neither my dictionary nor my spellchekka has heard of it.
>
> Q.E.D.
>--
>Quango /\_/\ /\ /\
> qua...@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @
>Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )=
> nank...@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~
Has your dictionary or spellchekka ever heard of meowchat or even
spellchekka ?
Nice Ascii kitty-cat pictures though...thanks ! :-)
Bye,
Ricky (and Newton)
Martin M. Cron wrote:
>
> >
> > Greg Berigan (gber...@cse.unl.edu) wrote:
> > : In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
> >
> > : >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
> >
> > : Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
> >
> > Actually, clowder is a word for a group of cats. As in flock of sheep,
> > herd of cattle, pack of wolves, clowder of cats.
>
>
>
Well, actually, feral cats do with some frequency. Mostly the females
in small cooperative hunting groups.
Why not group them with a name that has been used for several hundred
years to group them??
Because Dave Lawrence already said "no" .... so it's a moot point.
David Stevenson
Colin Douthwaite wrote:
[s]
>Has your dictionary or spellchekka ever heard of meowchat or even
>spellchekka ?
Certainly my spellchekka has.
When I got given a computer a few years back it had a wordprocessor
and a spellchecker. I was most impressed: my previous computer had a
wordprocessor but no spellchecker. I was less impressed to find that
the spellchecker did not accept either wordprocessor or spellchecker!
Damn me, I have just run the above through my spellchekka: it accepted
spellchekka [as I knew it would] but it did not accept wordprocessor!
Kathleen F. Ashley
In <320912...@ix.netcom.com> "Ricky (and Newton)"
<ri...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Martin M. Cron wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Greg Berigan (gber...@cse.unl.edu) wrote:
>> > : In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
>> >
>> > : >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
>> >
>> > : Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
>> >
>> > Actually, clowder is a word for a group of cats. As in flock of
sheep,
>> > herd of cattle, pack of wolves, clowder of cats.
>>
>> Cats don't generally travel in anything like packs, herds, flocks,
>> murders, prides, they tend to be solitary, independent beings.
>>
>> Why group them with a name that doesn't make sense?
>>
>> -Martin Cron
>
>
>Well, actually, feral cats do with some frequency. Mostly the females
>in small cooperative hunting groups.
>
>Why not group them with a name that has been used for several hundred
>years to group them??
>
>Because Dave Lawrence already said "no" .... so it's a moot point.
>
>Ricky
>--
Were it a moot point Ricky, it would still be debatable. :) Kate
Ricky (and Newton)
Depends on your definition of "moot" .... true by the lay definition,
not by the "legal".
Robert Craig Harman
> >> Were it a moot point Ricky, it would still be debatable. :) Kate
> >
> >Depends on your definition of "moot" .... true by the lay definition,
> >not by the "legal".
>
Well, actually, the definitions aren't purely opposed. "moot" indeed
does mean "open to debate" in both definitions. It's merely that the
legal use employs the word to mean that while one could debate the
point that it has no practical significance to do so.
A better example of a word with two opposed meanings is "cleave".
--
Robert Craig Harman Youth for Understanding has an urgent need
BYU Chemical Engineering for volunteer American host families for
Master's Candidate the 1996-1997 school year. For info, call
YFU Germany '86-'87 1(800)USA-0200, or see http://www.yfu.org/
Antti Matikka
cf...@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite) wrote:
>Has your dictionary or spellchekka ever heard of meowchat or even
>spellchekka ?
Colin, could you please keep the followups in either news.groups or in
rpc? Preferably in n.g only, since that's where the fight is going on.
I have to d/l and read all xposts and I pay by the minutes...
Andy, crossposting this one time.
REP
In article <320A20...@ix.netcom.com>, "Ricky (and Newton)"
<ri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Depends on your definition of "moot" .... true by the lay definition,
> not by the "legal".
"Moot" means arguable in either "lay" (colloquial) or legal sense. It has
been misused so often that people has come to think it means "can be
argued" when in fact the opposite is true. Sort of like people using
"hopefully" to mean "I hope." (It doesn't - it's an adverb, which modifies
a verb.)
Kathleen F. Ashley
In <320A20...@ix.netcom.com> "Ricky (and Newton)">> In <320912...@ix.netcom.com> "Ricky (and Newton)"
>> <ri...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> >Martin M. Cron wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Greg Berigan (gber...@cse.unl.edu) wrote:
>> >> > : In news.groups, Ka...@crl.com (Karl) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > : >Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
>> >> >
>> >> > : Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, clowder is a word for a group of cats. As in flock of
>> sheep,
>> >> > herd of cattle, pack of wolves, clowder of cats.
>> >>
>> >> Cats don't generally travel in anything like packs, herds,
flocks,
>> >> murders, prides, they tend to be solitary, independent beings.
>> >>
>> >> Why group them with a name that doesn't make sense?
>> >>
>> >> -Martin Cron
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, actually, feral cats do with some frequency. Mostly the
females
>>
>> >in small cooperative hunting groups.
>> >
>> >Why not group them with a name that has been used for several
hundred
>> >years to group them??
>> >
>> >Because Dave Lawrence already said "no" .... so it's a moot point.
>> >
>> >Ricky
>> >--
>
>
>not by the "legal".
>
How very confusing to have one word for two totally opposite meanings.
Kate
Robert Craig Harman
REP wrote:
>
> In article <320A20...@ix.netcom.com>, "Ricky (and Newton)"
> <ri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > definition, not by the "legal".
>
> has been misused so often that people has come to think it means "can
> be argued" when in fact the opposite is true.
On the contrary, this meaning of "moot" is the original one. The verb
"to moot" (now archaic) means to argue, to debate, or to broach a
subject. The meaning "no longer worth arguing, because there is no
practical significance to the argument" is in fact the later one.
> Sort of like people using "hopefully" to mean "I hope." (It doesn't -
> it's an adverb, which modifies a verb.)
Actually, adverbs can modify adjectives, verbs, or in the case of
"hopefully", an entire clause. The entire "hopefully" canard is one
created by unbending prescriptivists who fail in their imposition of
Latinic grammar on English to recognize that not all English conforms
to that structure. The use of "hopefully" as a gloss of the German
"hoffentlich" used in the same sense has been around far too long to
argue its incorrectness based on arbitrary and incomplete rules imposed
upon the English tongue.
REP
> REP wrote:
> >
> > In article <320A20...@ix.netcom.com>, "Ricky (and Newton)"
> > <ri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Depends on your definition of "moot" .... true by the lay
> > > definition, not by the "legal".
> >
> > "Moot" means arguable in either "lay" (colloquial) or legal sense. It
> > has been misused so often that people has come to think it means "can
> > be argued" when in fact the opposite is true.
>
> On the contrary, this meaning of "moot" is the original one. The verb
> "to moot" (now archaic) means to argue, to debate, or to broach a
> subject. The meaning "no longer worth arguing, because there is no
> practical significance to the argument" is in fact the later one.
I mistyped. I meant ""cannot be aruged." I actually know this difference.
>
> > Sort of like people using "hopefully" to mean "I hope." (It doesn't -
> > it's an adverb, which modifies a verb.)
>
> Actually, adverbs can modify adjectives, verbs, or in the case of
> "hopefully", an entire clause.
Reference?
The entire "hopefully" canard is one
> created by unbending prescriptivists who fail in their imposition of
> Latinic grammar on English to recognize that not all English conforms
> to that structure. The use of "hopefully" as a gloss of the German
> "hoffentlich" used in the same sense has been around far too long to
> argue its incorrectness based on arbitrary and incomplete rules imposed
> upon the English tongue.
The "hoffentlich" etimology is dubious, at best. And we created no duck,
thank you very much!
REP
> Depends on your definition of "moot" .... true by the lay definition,
> not by the "legal".
"Moot" means arguable in either "lay" (colloquial) or legal sense. It has
been misused so often that people has come to think it means "cannot be
argued" when in fact the opposite is true. Sort of like people using
Robert Craig Harman
> > > doesn't - it's an adverb, which modifies a verb.)
> >
> > "hopefully", an entire clause.
>
> Reference?
I'll have one for you tomorrow, when I can get into the library.
> > The entire "hopefully" canard is one
> > created by unbending prescriptivists who fail in their imposition of
> > Latinic grammar on English to recognize that not all English
> > conforms to that structure. The use of "hopefully" as a gloss of
> > the German "hoffentlich" used in the same sense has been around far
> > too long to argue its incorrectness based on arbitrary and
> > incomplete rules imposed upon the English tongue.
>
> The "hoffentlich" etimology is dubious, at best. And we created no
> duck, thank you very much!
A gloss is NOT an etymology, and I made no claim that it was, thus
the dubiety lies solely in your misnterpretation of my statement.
And I must disagree, and even argue that you had "vendu des canards
meme pas a moitie, mais a tiers".
David Stevenson
>>>> Actually, clowder is a word for a group of cats. As in flock of
>>>>sheep, herd of cattle, pack of wolves, clowder of cats.
>>> Cats don't generally travel in anything like packs, herds, flocks,
>>>murders, prides, they tend to be solitary, independent beings.
>>>Why group them with a name that doesn't make sense?
>> Well, actually, feral cats do with some frequency. Mostly the
>>females in small cooperative hunting groups. Why not group them with
>>a name that has been used for several hundred years to group them??
>> Because Dave Lawrence already said "no" .... so it's a moot point.
> Were it a moot point Ricky, it would still be debatable. :)
Do we not have a general interest in cats here? Does it have to
depend on someone of whom I have never heard [my apologies, Dave
Lawrence, but I do not know who you are]?
The basic point is that using obsolete words in any situation is an
unhelpful affectation. As previously noted, clowder sounds like food
and does not qualify as a word either to my ordinary dictionary or to my
spellchecker. I don't give a toss whether it is in the OED: that's not
an acceptable definition for usage. An argument along the lines of `Why
not use a name that has been used for hundreds of years...' has no
validity: that is like quoting Latin sayings to impress listeners: sure,
they were used for hundreds of years too.
And it is not clowder of cats "as in flock of sheep, herd of cattle,
pack of wolves" because people use those words, so they are not
comparable. If you have to have a group word then a tumble of kittens
and a lapful of cats will do because the listener will instinctively
understand: using a word you know they will not understand is not just
an affectation, I think it is rather rude.
Kathleen F. Ashley
I can hear that poor duck sqawking from hear! Kate
Greg Berigan
In news.groups, ri...@ix.netcom.com (Ricky (and Newton)) wrote:
>@ (Martin M. Cron) wrote:
>>@ () wrote:
>>>>> Subject: Clowder is a nice word for cats in the plural
>>>> Um, "cats" _is_ plural.
>>> Actually, clowder is a word for a group of cats. As in flock of sheep,
>>> herd of cattle, pack of wolves, clowder of cats.
>> Cats don't generally travel in anything like packs, herds, flocks,
>> murders, prides, they tend to be solitary, independent beings.
> Well, actually, feral cats do with some frequency. Mostly the females
> in small cooperative hunting groups.
But domesticated cats suitable as pets do not, and as this is (I assume)
about the naming of a group about feline pets, I don't see how "clowder"
can be appropriate to them.
--
_-<#)-=# http://cse.unl.edu/~gberigan/War-of-the-Worlds.html
___/___
_-~_--<###) "2X2L calling CQ... 2X2L calling CQ... 2X2L calling CQ, New
<~c>' __--< York. Isn't there anyone on the air? Isn't there anyone
\_--=____#) on the air? Isn't there anyone?"--War of the Worlds, 1938
Antti Matikka
cf...@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite) wrote:
(no, my dick haznt herd of meowchat thank Bast . Ask about my arms ;)
Ricky (and Newton)
REP wrote:
> > > <ri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Depends on your definition of "moot" .... true by the lay
> > > > definition, not by the "legal".
> > >
> > > "Moot" means arguable in either "lay" (colloquial) or legal sense. It
> > > has been misused so often that people has come to think it means "can
> >
> > "to moot" (now archaic) means to argue, to debate, or to broach a
> > subject. The meaning "no longer worth arguing, because there is no
> > practical significance to the argument" is in fact the later one.
>
> I mistyped. I meant ""cannot be aruged." I actually know this difference.
>
> >
> > > it's an adverb, which modifies a verb.)
> >
> > Actually, adverbs can modify adjectives, verbs, or in the case of
> > "hopefully", an entire clause.
>
> Reference?
Simple definition, Webster's 2nd College Edition, page 20, "Adverb --
any of a class of words used generally to modify a verb, an adjective,
another adverb, a phrase, or a clause . . . [also] any phrase or clause
similarly used."
David Stevenson
Antti Matikka wrote:
I think you should reread the thread. Colin's comment was in answer
to mine. I *only* read RPC. While this thread has been cross-posted
throughout that is the fault of the original poster not of Colin's
reply. I actively dislike cross-posts but my software is such that I
rarely notice them so if the original article was cross-posted then my
reply will usually be.
Mind you, the objection to cross-posts is that they are a pain in the
butt, and often in unsuitable places, not that they increase download
time: they don't, since they are downloaded once only, and your software
then makes them available in all the cross-posted NGs.
--
David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\
Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )=
da...@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | )
Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~
Ricky (and Newton)
REP wrote:
>
> In article <320A20...@ix.netcom.com>, "Ricky (and Newton)"
> <ri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Depends on your definition of "moot" .... true by the lay definition,
> > not by the "legal".
>
> "Moot" means arguable in either "lay" (colloquial) or legal sense. It has
> argued" when in fact the opposite is true. Sort of like people using
> "hopefully" to mean "I hope." (It doesn't - it's an adverb, which modifies
> a verb.)
Close, but no cigar. Moot does mean a subject for argument, however, in
the legal sense it means an argument "no longer present[ing] a
controversy because [the] issues involved have become academic or dead."
In other words, using the "legal" definition of the term "moot" the
argument over clowder is moot, not because it is not above debate, but
is moot because the determining authority of the use of the term
"clowder" as the name for the group (Dave Lawrence), has already made a
determination that the name will not be used.
The issue involved (the suitability of the name "clowder" as the name
for the MC group) has already been rendered moot by Mr. Lawrence's
determination. Therefore, while the first definition of the word given
by Webster's ("subject to or open for discussion") is a proper
definition, the second definition ("so hypothetical as to be
meaningless") is more proper in this case.
Ricky (and Newton)
Robert Craig Harman wrote:
> > > > doesn't - it's an adverb, which modifies a verb.)
> > >
> > > "hopefully", an entire clause.
> >
> > Reference?
>
>
I posted one. Not that it will do much good, however.
Antti Matikka
"Ricky (and Newton)" <ri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Depends on your definition of "moot" .... true by the lay definition,
>not by the "legal".
Oh, can't you give up?
Andy the Hopeful...
Antti Matikka
Robert Craig Harman <har...@et.byu.edu> wrote:
>A better example of a word with two opposed meanings is "cleave".
In Finland we usually add an 'r' to 'cleave' when we cross opinions
<g>
Andy
Ricky (and Newton)
Whassamater, Andy?? Not enjoying the great English usage debate??
Antti Matikka
David Stevenson <da...@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Mind you, the objection to cross-posts is that they are a pain in the
>butt, and often in unsuitable places, not that they increase download
>time: they don't, since they are downloaded once only, and your software
>then makes them available in all the cross-posted NGs.
Maybe Turnpike works like that but Free Agent definitely downloads
every single (xposted) article in every group.
Fortunately I have some disk space to share.
Andy
(shees, I crossposted again ;-)
Antti Matikka
"Ricky (and Newton)" <ri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Whassamater, Andy?? Not enjoying the great English usage debate??
Not particularly.
How about a great _Finnish_ usage debate ;-)
I might help you there.
(Or Swedish, or maybe German, or maybe even Latin, Japanese, Spanish,
French or Norwegian with a li'l help from my friends if they've got
some extra time to spare -- none of them read rpc)
Andy the multilingual <g>
Ricky (and Newton)
You forgot to add "meowchattese" .... after all, you are fluent in that
as well.
Peter Ward
David Stevenson wrote:
> The basic point is that using obsolete words in any situation is an
> unhelpful affectation. As previously noted, clowder sounds like food
> and does not qualify as a word either to my ordinary dictionary or to my
> spellchecker. I don't give a toss whether it is in the OED: that's not
> an acceptable definition for usage.
Neither is the fact that it is not in a spell-checker a good reason for not using it.
> And it is not clowder of cats "as in flock of sheep, herd of cattle,
> pack of wolves" because people use those words, so they are not
> comparable. If you have to have a group word then a tumble of kittens
> and a lapful of cats will do because the listener will instinctively
> understand: using a word you know they will not understand is not just
> an affectation, I think it is rather rude.
On the other hand, a clowder of cats sounds very nice, is, as you say, quite an
affectation, and is known now by a fair number of people using this newsgroup. I
think I shall start using it.
I left a restaurant which is at the edge of the village I live in, and there was a
clowder of cats sitting there waiting for scraps from the kitchen. I've never seen
so many cats just sitting around free in one place. They were certainly not a
lapful, they were more interested in the food!
Peter
Watch! The cats are biding their time....