Juniper wood smell turned into a cologne
PMDavis
"Indo-European" as the etymological source of "yoini". My mistake.
Note that the word "join" can also be traced back to Latin "jungere" meaning
"to bind together".
"Roger Whitehead" <r...@office-futures.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00001d6...@office-futures.com...
> In article <Op_f6.6181$iM6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
PMDavis
> wrote:
> > Juniperus was the ancient Roman name for the plant derived from
Eutruscan
> > yoini- (meaning "reed") plus an unexplained second element. The name
seems
> > to predate the theology of the Goddess Juno
>
> Interesting. Do you have a source for that?
>
> Geoffrey Grigson, in /A Dictionary of English Plant Names/, says that it
> comes from "the same Indoeuropean base as the Latin 'juncus', a rush, with
> the common meaning of something used for binding - the tough stems of rush
> and the tough branches of juniper".
>
> Regards,
>
> Roger
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Roger Whitehead,
> Oxted, Surrey, England
>
>
Roger Whitehead
wrote:
> Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary... but please correct the "Etruscan" to
> "Indo-European" as the etymological source of "yoini". My mistake.
Thanks. The Web version, at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm, doesn't say as
much about the etymology.
> Note that the word "join" can also be traced back to Latin "jungere" meaning
> "to bind together".
At which juncture, here is the OED on "join":
"ME. a. OF. joign- stem of joindre (= It. giugnere):-L. jungere to join: root
jug- = Gr. [zeta-upsilon-gamma], Skt. yuj-, Indo-Eur. yug-, whence OTeut.
juk-, Eng. yoke."
Archimedes Plutonium
its branches are tough and pliable. You could say the rope-of-tree-branches.
Archimedes Plutonium
> Excuse me?
>
> Other than the fact that his father is in the same profession as myself, I'm
> conversing with the bloke as a result of my prior presence in
> sci.bio.botany, and because of a mutual interests in plants. I am not
> stalking him from newsgroup to newsgroup in an effort to embarrass him as a
> result of some prior interactions in unrelated newsgroups. See the
> distinction?
>
My father died over 20 years ago. He did landscape architecture work in the
Cincinnati area. Question I would have asked him if he were still
present, but not, so maybe I can ask you Mr. Davis. I am wondering if in the
Landscape Architecture industry whether anyone has designed a
"grounds" such as a corporate office complex with rows of trees in a
dense rectangle shape. Sort of like a nursery itself with rows and rows of
trees and shrubs. Call it a "nursery style of landscape architecture". And to
be real fancy with the work, make the rectangles of rows of trees and shrubs
follow the Golden Mean Ratio of 1.61.... to 1 in length and width. Do you know
of any Landscape Architecture design that employs a "nursery row look". Tough
on the lawn grass cutter, but pretty looking from a distance. My father did
mostly the opposite -- open, airy expansive look to Corporate buildings, but I
wonder if anyone has employed the dense nursery row look
PMDavis
that he's at Berkeley at the present time. But draws mostly conceptual,
innovative and unbuilt work. He also has a great book on how to draw
landscapes. Dan Kiley (Boston) does some of that also, mainly in corporate
facilities in the northeast around modernist style buildings.
The practical difficulty with uniform rows of uniform plants is that (to
maintain the effect) the plants need to continue with an identical
appearance over time. If one were to die from storm or disease, say 25
years after planting, it leaves a hole in the concept that is difficult to
remedy. Another problem is the diverse grow rates of even seemingly
identical trees on the same site, which can also spoil the effect over time.
A more naturalistic look like your father used (and most Midwest landscape
architects) is patterned somewhat after the work of Frederick Law Olmstead,
and the English Landscape style of Repton and Brown. It is more flexible
over irregular terrain, and if you loose a tree or two, it can be ignored or
replaced without spoiling the entire effect. The Egyptians used a great
deal of bilateral symmetry. The Greeks used more irregular balance with
structures sited in close harmony with their natural surroundings. The
Italians, and later the French, used massive blocks of plants, very similar
to the approach which you asked about.
You seem to have an enthusiasm for plants, and an inquisitive and creative
mind which is an asset for a designer. Have you considered following in
your father's footsteps and becoming a landscape architect yourself?
There is a good web site at www.asla.org, by the way. About page 80-81 of
the L.A.R.E review text is a list of reference books that are standards in
the profession and might be of interest to you, regardless.
"Archimedes Plutonium" <plut...@willinet.net> wrote in message
news:3A8C2707...@willinet.net...
Archimedes Plutonium
> Yes indeed. Chip Sullivan comes to mind as following that style. I think
> that he's at Berkeley at the present time. But draws mostly conceptual,
> innovative and unbuilt work. He also has a great book on how to draw
> landscapes. Dan Kiley (Boston) does some of that also, mainly in corporate
> facilities in the northeast around modernist style buildings.
>
> The practical difficulty with uniform rows of uniform plants is that (to
> maintain the effect) the plants need to continue with an identical
> appearance over time. If one were to die from storm or disease, say 25
> years after planting, it leaves a hole in the concept that is difficult to
Hi Mr. Davis, I am so much enjoying talking with you. What is your first name,
is it Pete? Feel kind of awkward saying Mr. Davis all the time.
I find the visual beauty of trees, shrubs and plants to be when they are
numerous rather than individual specimens. One amur maple is pretty
but a row of them is spectacularly beautiful. Have you seen a row of amur
maples in Autumn Mr. Davis. That was one of my most beautiful sights in my
lifetime and now I am trying to recreate that sight on my
present property.
One lobellia is pretty and one tulip is pretty and one lilac shrub in bloom is
pretty but rows of them are beautiful. We enhance beauty by multiplying
individual plants. One colorado blue spruce in the lawn is nice, but to have a
row of them is spectacular beauty.
I look forward to the day when one of my trees or shrubs in my rows dies so
that I can replace that spot with a new one. Holes are opportunities to enhance
even more. The key is to get an established row going and holes in the row are
inevitible and opportunities to excell.
>
> remedy. Another problem is the diverse grow rates of even seemingly
> identical trees on the same site, which can also spoil the effect over time.
>
At present I have one elm and one wild locust, both the same height with a
trunk of less than one foot. They are young trees. Individually they look
pretty but since they are aligned in a row and close together
these two trees are magnificently beautiful.
>
> A more naturalistic look like your father used (and most Midwest landscape
> architects) is patterned somewhat after the work of Frederick Law Olmstead,
> and the English Landscape style of Repton and Brown. It is more flexible
> over irregular terrain, and if you loose a tree or two, it can be ignored or
Airy, expansive look is cheaper than the dense-row look and I suspect it is
economics that most Landscape Architects design a plot. Why pay for a Landscape
Architect ten times the cost of a dense row look even though it is much more
beautiful than the cheap look of airy expanse and far cheaper to maintain. I
suspect it is due to costs that the dense row look has not been adopted by
landscape architects. People just do not want to pay for the best in landscape
architecture.
>
> replaced without spoiling the entire effect. The Egyptians used a great
> deal of bilateral symmetry. The Greeks used more irregular balance with
> structures sited in close harmony with their natural surroundings. The
> Italians, and later the French, used massive blocks of plants, very similar
> to the approach which you asked about.
>
> You seem to have an enthusiasm for plants, and an inquisitive and creative
> mind which is an asset for a designer. Have you considered following in
> your father's footsteps and becoming a landscape architect yourself?
My life's plate is all full-up with physics, with not much room for anything
else.
PMDavis
I agree with your observation that a mass of a single type of plant can have
a greater visual impact than does a single specimen of the same type of
plant. The plants that you list all have interesting visual features
(IMHO).
"Archimedes Plutonium" <plut...@willinet.net> wrote in message
news:3A8D8EA4...@willinet.net...
dab
RagingSteveK
.
wow!!!
.
.
PMDavis <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Llfk6.663$bD3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Roger Whitehead
> wow!!! [very large snip]
Well played, matey. One word of original content followed by 750 words
of repeated material.
RagingSteveK
Roger Whitehead <r...@office-futures.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00001de...@office-futures.com...