A Turk to Rival Le Pedomane!
JOSEPH MURPHY
Petomane, I have tried to keep a wary eye on similar anatomical
achievements.
Turkey is now in the record books!
Tolle et lege!
ISTANBUL, Turkey - Ilker Yilmaz might just hold one of the world's
most bizarre world records. The Turkish construction worker on Wednesday
poured milk into his hand, loudly snorted it up his nose and squirted it 9.2
feet out of his left eye in what he hopes will be recognized as a new world
record.
"I'm happy and proud that I can get Turkey in the record book even if
it's for milk squirting," said the 28-year-old. He says he is among only a
handful of people around the world who can perform the feat because of an
anomaly in his tear gland.
The Web site for Guinness World Records says Mike Moraal of Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, set the existing record, of 8.745 feet in France
in 2001.
In an e-mail, Guinness World Records said it had no official
representative present to witness Yilmaz's feat and was waiting for
documents from organizers of Wednesday's event to prove the record.
"It is really good to hear that provisionally a new record may have
been set," Sam Knights, a Guinness representative, said in an e-mail. "We
welcome new record breakers and look forward to receiving the evidence ...
and then we can verify this new record attempt."
Yilmaz said he has known for years that he could squirt liquids out of
his eye, but only three years ago found out that there was a record for
squirting milk.
"I learned by chance that I had such a talent. When I was swimming
with friends, I noticed water squirting out of my eye," he said. "When I saw
(a previous Guinness attempt) on TV, I thought, maybe, I could do that too."
Mahir Kendusim, an Istanbul-based eye doctor, said a cavity links the
lower eyelid to the nasal cavity, but added that he has never heard of
anyone who was able to carry out a feat such as Yilmaz's.
Two years ago, Yilmaz said he broke an earlier record, but Guinness
did not recognize it because the witnesses present did not fulfill its
guidelines.
On Wednesday, an imam, or Muslim prayer leader, was among witnesses
watching as Yilmaz sucked in the milk, held back his left eyelid with his
finger and squirted away. Yilmaz succeeded on his third attempt. The record
attempt was sponsored by Kay Sut, a Turkish milk company.
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist
Jacques Guy
[lovely stuff]
You know, there is a serious side to this.
We all know how the Neanderthals could not have
language because their vocal tracts, yadda, yadda,
yadda, blah blah blah and so on. It's all been
explained in respected peer-reviewed journals.
Now what if they had communicated by farts, eh?
No, I am not joking. And if any of you intend
to answer Franz Gnaedinger's question, I strongly
suggest they should keep that in mind. And once
again, no, I am not joking. I am only pointing out
the abysmal dizzying depths of our ignorance
regarding language.
André Keshav
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au>
| We all know how the Neanderthals could not have
| language because their vocal tracts, yadda, yadda,
| yadda, blah blah blah and so on. It's all been
| explained in respected peer-reviewed journals.
|
| Now what if they had communicated by farts, eh?
|
| No, I am not joking. And if any of you intend
| to answer Franz Gnaedinger's question, I strongly
| suggest they should keep that in mind. And once
| again, no, I am not joking. I am only pointing out
| the abysmal dizzying depths of our ignorance
| regarding language.
And it has of course the additional parameter of odour. It also reminds me of the
nice Chinese expression which I have read translated into French as "Que sont ces
pets qui sortent de votre bouche ?", which btw is likely, among other things, to
be lost in translation into the farting language.
Peter T. Daniels
I have pointed out in print that it's purely an accident that speech is
produced using the alimentary organs. _Any_ sound-producing part of the
human body could have evolved for the purpose, or indeed we could have
gotten radio transmitters via whatever mechanism makes electric eels
electric.
But André's suggestion of odor is unlikely because odor requires (a) the
production of a variety of chemical substances and (2) their dispersal
through the atmosphere -- it would be physically debilitating and a very
short-range phenomenon that, perversely, lingered beyond utility.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Harlan Messinger
But odor could only be used to express general mood or intent, in the
same way that the tone of one's voice can indicate anxiety, eagerness,
and so on. It isn't subject to articulation, and there is no control
by the emitter over duration.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
André Keshav
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net>
| But André's suggestion of odor is unlikely because odor requires (a) the
| production of a variety of chemical substances and (2) their dispersal
| through the atmosphere -- it would be physically debilitating and a very
| short-range phenomenon that, perversely, lingered beyond utility.
Unless that's precisely what one is after, but note that I didn't advocate the
"odor parameter". It's indeed not a very flexible means of communication.
André Keshav
"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger...@comcast.net>
| But odor could only be used to express general mood or intent, in the
| same way that the tone of one's voice can indicate anxiety, eagerness,
| and so on. It isn't subject to articulation, and there is no control
| by the emitter over duration.
The emitter doesn't have much control at all actually.
Peter T. Daniels
There's no reason it couldn't have evolved, aside from the fact that
it's thoroughly impractical and maladaptive -- the mechanism of
menstruation is an example of shedding massive amounts of bodily
substance.
Harlan Messinger
What mechanism could evolve to enable control over the extent and
duration of the dispersal of an odor once it has left its source? And
unlike visual and audio stimuli, which leave their source and arrive
at their target synchonously and at a fixed speed, odors don't, so
even if one can control the rate at which they leave the body, it's
impossible control the rate at which or the sequence in which they are
perceived.
(I can't help commenting at this point on how perplexed I am at the
endless imagination of manufacturers of automated emitters of room
fresheners--these plug-in or battery-operated things that release
scented compounds into the air in your room. Last night I saw an ad
for one that comes with "disks", on the model of CDs, that "play"
through a series of five "coordinated" scents, cycling among them
every 30 minutes. Of all the things to waste money on. IMHO.)
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang:
>> But odor could only be used to express general mood or intent, in the
>> same way that the tone of one's voice can indicate anxiety, eagerness,
>> and so on. It isn't subject to articulation, and there is no control
>> by the emitter over duration.
>
>There's no reason it couldn't have evolved, [..]
It _has_ evolved: feromones.
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
Jacques Guy
> But odor could only be used to express general mood or intent, in the
> same way that the tone of one's voice can indicate anxiety, eagerness,
> and so on. It isn't subject to articulation, and there is no control
> by the emitter over duration.
We are talking about farts here. And le Pétomane
could control his so well that he farted popular
tunes.
I should think many animals can control their scent glands.
And if the smell lingers, so what? Does an echo negate
speech?
Harlan Messinger
Let's be specific: pheromones communicate general mode or intent, but
aren't articulable or controllable once they've left the emitter's
body.
Harlan Messinger
Smell's dispersal is random and diffuse. It's not comparable to an
articulate stream of sound with its (much weaker) echos.
Jacques Guy
> Smell's dispersal is random and diffuse
And what is sound dispersal?
If I fart in your general direction, how
random and diffuse is that? And if I fart
in your precise direction?
> It's not comparable to an
> articulate stream of sound with its (much weaker) echos.
Clutching at straws is also random. And diffuse.
Jacques Guy
> Let's be specific: pheromones communicate general mode or intent, but
> aren't articulable or controllable once they've left the emitter's
> body.
You have no idea, nor has any human, of what a butterfly's
pheromones convey. And how articulable and controllable is
your speech, once it has left your mouth?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Ruud Harmsen <realemail...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>
> >Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:13:34 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
> ><gram...@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang:
> >
> >>> But odor could only be used to express general mood or intent, in the
> >>> same way that the tone of one's voice can indicate anxiety, eagerness,
> >>> and so on. It isn't subject to articulation, and there is no control
> >>> by the emitter over duration.
> >>
> >>There's no reason it couldn't have evolved, [..]
> >
> >It _has_ evolved: feromones.
>
> Let's be specific: pheromones communicate general mode or intent, but
> aren't articulable or controllable once they've left the emitter's
> body.
There's no reason the pheromone mechasism couldn't have evolved to
produce an array of odors on the order of magnitude of a set of
phonemes, making available duality of patterning. And there's no reason
some sort of nozzle system couldn't have evolved for fine control.
Good thing you're not trying to write SF! And anyway, don't the beings
in the second part of Asimov's *The Gods Themselves* communicate by
odor?
(The sense of smell is a receptor for identifying molecules.)
Peter T. Daniels
Not the right analogy -- in sound it would be a perpetual reverb or
tinnitus or a buildup of more and more noise (as when an AM radio
station fades out as you drive away from the transmitter).
There would need to be a way to disperse the molecules so they didn't
interfere with subsequent emissions.
Richard Herring
<jg...@alphalink.com.au> writes
The propagation of speech is described by a non-dispersive wave
equation, smell by a diffusion equation. There's a big difference: wave
equations propagate complex waveforms unchanged in shape; diffusion
equations don't.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<jg...@alphalink.com.au> writes
>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> Smell's dispersal is random and diffuse
>
>And what is sound dispersal?
Non-dispersive.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
You posted before I mentioned nozzles.
(Odd word, that; etymology, or onomatopoeia?)
Jacques Guy
> The propagation of speech is described by a non-dispersive wave
> equation, smell by a diffusion equation. There's a big difference: wave
> equations propagate complex waveforms unchanged in shape; diffusion
> equations don't.
I don't have a tinker's damn idea of what a non-dispersive
wave equation is, and what a diffusion equation is. Nor what
the big difference is in _practical_ terms. Let us hear now
what the wave equation of written language is, and the
wave equation of the bees' dance, and the wave equation of
sign language. As for the communication power of smells,
I should think Inspector Rex would be rather more qualified
to comment than a human being.
Jacques Guy
> As for the communication power of smells,
> I should think Inspector Rex would be rather more qualified
> to comment than a human being.
And further, have you ever heard a fart?
It's sound, isn't it? So, I should imagine,
its propagation "is described by a non-dispersive wave
equation".
Harlan Messinger
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:41380D...@alphalink.com.au...
Sound travels fast, in straight lines at a fixed rate, and preserves the
sequence of the utterance. It's also discrete: as new sounds are received,
they are not being interfered with by preceding sounds, which have already
terminated. These features of sounds are all important to comprehension;
scent lacks all of them.
(Regarding echos, as mentioned elsewhere: if there were a series of echos of
the same intensity as the original sounds, then indeed it would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to interpret the communication.)
For those who have some familiarity with the details of network
communications protocols, TCP/IP (the protocol on which Internet
communications are based) involves breaking a communication up into packets
and sending them independently to the destination. TCP packets there's no
guarantee that they'll arrive at the destination in the same order in which
they were sent. The only reason why the communication works is because
sequence information is included in the packets, so that the recipient can
put them back into the right order. Scent is comparable to TCP
communications, except without the sequence information.
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> > Smell's dispersal is random and diffuse
>
> And what is sound dispersal?
Uniform, direct, constant speed, and each sound component is done as soon as
it starts.
>
> If I fart in your general direction, how
> random and diffuse is that? And if I fart
> in your precise direction?
Still random and diffuse.
>
> > It's not comparable to an
> > articulate stream of sound with its (much weaker) echos.
>
> Clutching at straws is also random. And diffuse.
Every factor I've mentioned is present in sound, lacking in speech, and an
essential element of comprehensibility. Claiming that smell is comparable to
sound on all these counts is clutching at straws.
Harlan Messinger
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:41372B...@worldnet.att.net...
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >
>
> There's no reason the pheromone mechasism couldn't have evolved to
> produce an array of odors on the order of magnitude of a set of
> phonemes, making available duality of patterning. And there's no reason
> some sort of nozzle system couldn't have evolved for fine control.
>
> Good thing you're not trying to write SF! And anyway, don't the beings
> in the second part of Asimov's *The Gods Themselves* communicate by
> odor?
Since when does SF have to be realistic? In spite of all the works that have
presupposed it, for example, there may actually be no such thing as warp
speed! Or subspace.
Jacques Guy
>
> "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:41380C...@alphalink.com.au...
> > And what is sound dispersal?
> Uniform, direct, constant speed, and each sound component is done as soon as
> it starts.
Is done as soon as it starts? So it has zero time length.
Do you realize what you are writing?
> > If I fart in your general direction, how
> > random and diffuse is that? And if I fart
> > in your precise direction?
> Still random and diffuse.
And if I shout in your direction, it's different? People behind
me don't hear it?
> Every factor I've mentioned is present in sound, lacking in speech
Present in sound and lacking in speech? So what is speech? Silence?
BTW, where is that Mike troll now, who was complaining we
didn't discuss language?
Richard Herring
<jg...@alphalink.com.au> writes
Indeed. The sound is, the smell isn't.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<jg...@alphalink.com.au> writes
>Richard Herring wrote:
>
>> The propagation of speech is described by a non-dispersive wave
>> equation, smell by a diffusion equation. There's a big difference: wave
>> equations propagate complex waveforms unchanged in shape; diffusion
>> equations don't.
>
>I don't have a tinker's damn idea of what a non-dispersive
>wave equation is, and what a diffusion equation is.
And you didn't get a clue from the context? Didn't it occur to you that
my second sentence might be provided as a gloss on the first? Do you
understand "unchanged in shape"?
>Nor what
>the big difference is in _practical_ terms.
Read on, and you might learn something.
A sound is a complex pattern of wiggles in the air. All the wiggles
travel at the same speed, regardless of their frequency. As the pattern
spreads out from the source, the relative size and temporal order of the
wiggles do not change, they just get smaller. The wiggles arrive at your
ear in the same order in which they were produced, with the same time
intervals between them, in the same relative proportions. Consequently
sounds can travel over considerable distances and still remain a
faithful image of the original.
If you release a sequence of smells, each individual smell molecule
travels with a different speed, causing the smells to spread out and
overlap one another. After they have travelled only a modest distance,
most of the information about relative amplitudes and temporal relations
is lost.
>Let us hear now
>what the wave equation of written language is, and the
>wave equation of the bees' dance, and the wave equation of
>sign language.
Certainly. The last stage of the process, in all three cases, is
described by Maxwell's equations, which can be coupled to give a wave
equation..
A written text, or a dance, or sign language, produces a complex pattern
of electromagnetic wiggles which we call "light". All the wiggles
travel at the same speed, regardless of frequency. As the pattern
spreads out from the source, the relative size and temporal order of the
wiggles do not change, they just get smaller. The wiggles arrive at your
eye in the same order in which they were produced, with the same time
intervals between them, in the same relative proportions. Consequently
light waves can travel over considerable distances and still remain a
faithful image of the original.
>As for the communication power of smells,
>I should think Inspector Rex would be rather more qualified
>to comment than a human being.
Sure, but he's not going to overturn any of the laws of physics.
HTH.
--
Richard Herring
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >
> > "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:41380C...@alphalink.com.au...
>
> > > And what is sound dispersal?
>
> > Uniform, direct, constant speed, and each sound component is done as
soon as
> > it starts.
>
> Is done as soon as it starts? So it has zero time length.
> Do you realize what you are writing?
I was trying to figure out a way to say what it is. I was going to say it's
discrete, but of course it's not, it's continuous. My point is that when you
hear someone say "hello", at the point where you hear the /E/ being
produced, you are no longer hearing the /h/, and so forth. Oh, now the
proper word comes to mind: sound is *linear*. Scent isn't.
>
> > > If I fart in your general direction, how
> > > random and diffuse is that? And if I fart
> > > in your precise direction?
>
> > Still random and diffuse.
>
> And if I shout in your direction, it's different? People behind
> me don't hear it?
Yes, it's different. The sound still comes directly to me at a fixed speed.
>
> > Every factor I've mentioned is present in sound, lacking in speech
I meant lacking in scent. Too many "s" words.
>
> Present in sound and lacking in speech? So what is speech? Silence?
>
> BTW, where is that Mike troll now, who was complaining we
> didn't discuss language?
Maybe we stank up the room too much for him.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<news:41372D...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
[...]
> You posted before I mentioned nozzles.
> (Odd word, that; etymology, or onomatopoeia?)
AHD3 says from ME <noselle> 'a socket on a candlestick', a
diminutive of <nose>.
Brian
Richard Herring
<h.mes...@comcast.net> writes
>
>"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
>news:413824...@alphalink.com.au...
>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> >
>> > "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:41380C...@alphalink.com.au...
>>
>> > > And what is sound dispersal?
>>
>> > Uniform, direct, constant speed, and each sound component is done as
>soon as
>> > it starts.
>>
>> Is done as soon as it starts? So it has zero time length.
>> Do you realize what you are writing?
>
>I was trying to figure out a way to say what it is. I was going to say it's
>discrete, but of course it's not, it's continuous. My point is that when you
>hear someone say "hello", at the point where you hear the /E/ being
>produced, you are no longer hearing the /h/, and so forth. Oh, now the
>proper word comes to mind: sound is *linear*.
Non-dispersive.
> Scent isn't.
>
>>
>> > > If I fart in your general direction, how
>> > > random and diffuse is that? And if I fart
>> > > in your precise direction?
>>
>> > Still random and diffuse.
>>
>> And if I shout in your direction, it's different? People behind
>> me don't hear it?
>
>Yes, it's different. The sound still comes directly to me at a fixed speed.
>>
>> > Every factor I've mentioned is present in sound, lacking in speech
>
>I meant lacking in scent. Too many "s" words.
>
>>
>> Present in sound and lacking in speech? So what is speech? Silence?
>>
>> BTW, where is that Mike troll now, who was complaining we
>> didn't discuss language?
>
>Maybe we stank up the room too much for him.
>
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
[oops, hit "post" too soon]
In message <2posc6F...@uni-berlin.de>, Harlan Messinger
<h.mes...@comcast.net> writes
>
>"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
>news:413824...@alphalink.com.au...
>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> >
>> > "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:41380C...@alphalink.com.au...
>>
>> > > And what is sound dispersal?
>>
>> > Uniform, direct, constant speed, and each sound component is done as
>soon as
>> > it starts.
>>
>> Is done as soon as it starts? So it has zero time length.
>> Do you realize what you are writing?
>
>I was trying to figure out a way to say what it is. I was going to say it's
>discrete, but of course it's not, it's continuous. My point is that when you
>hear someone say "hello", at the point where you hear the /E/ being
>produced, you are no longer hearing the /h/, and so forth. Oh, now the
>proper word comes to mind: sound is *linear*.
No, it's "non-dispersive". Which technically means that all components
propagate at the same speed, so they don't get jumbled.
> Scent isn't.
Actually, both are linear, meaning that what arrives is proportional (in
strength) to what was emitted. It's *when* it arrives that matters.
>
>> > > If I fart in your general direction, how
>> > > random and diffuse is that? And if I fart
>> > > in your precise direction?
>>
>> > Still random and diffuse.
>>
>> And if I shout in your direction, it's different? People behind
>> me don't hear it?
>
>Yes, it's different. The sound still comes directly to me at a fixed speed.
And that's the crucial point. Not direction but speed.
>>
>> > Every factor I've mentioned is present in sound, lacking in speech
>
>I meant lacking in scent. Too many "s" words.
>
>>
>> Present in sound and lacking in speech? So what is speech? Silence?
>>
>> BTW, where is that Mike troll now, who was complaining we
>> didn't discuss language?
>
>Maybe we stank up the room too much for him.
>
--
Richard Herring
Harlan Messinger
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:4hl2Upp7...@baesystems.com...
I meant temporally linear, which does involve the sequence.
> It's *when* it arrives that matters.
Yes.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:41372B...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > >
> >
> > There's no reason the pheromone mechasism couldn't have evolved to
> > produce an array of odors on the order of magnitude of a set of
> > phonemes, making available duality of patterning. And there's no reason
> > some sort of nozzle system couldn't have evolved for fine control.
> >
> > Good thing you're not trying to write SF! And anyway, don't the beings
> > in the second part of Asimov's *The Gods Themselves* communicate by
> > odor?
>
> Since when does SF have to be realistic? In spite of all the works that have
> presupposed it, for example, there may actually be no such thing as warp
> speed! Or subspace.
My point was that you seemed to be exhibiting a failure of imagination.
(In the bit you snipped. You've been reading too much Mixmaniac.)
Peter T. Daniels
And someone stuck a candlestick socket on a firehose? The OED would be
helpful here. Presumably the movers put it in a box marked "Jewish,"
because it was on top of the shelves with the Hasidic commentary volumes
(call it Schadenfreude. But they priced themselves out of my market.).
Peter T. Daniels
We're not discussing language, we're discussing speech.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Richard Herring wrote:
>
> > The propagation of speech is described by a non-dispersive wave
> > equation, smell by a diffusion equation. There's a big difference: wave
> > equations propagate complex waveforms unchanged in shape; diffusion
> > equations don't.
>
> I don't have a tinker's damn idea of what a non-dispersive
It's a tinker's dam, a noun. Something one doesn't give. Perhaps related
to a good God damn, also not an adjective.
Stuart Geary
The variant that I am familiar with is "tinker's cuss" which is
clearly more similar to "tinker's damn" than "tinker's cuss". The
Collins English Dictionary gives "tinker's damn".
Harlan Messinger
Well, I was just responding to your "There's no reason it couldn't
have evolved". I thought there were several why it wouldn't, that's
all. Perfectly good entertainment value, though.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Douglas G. Kilday
"Stuart Geary" <sge...@vennershipley.co.uk> wrote ...
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> > Jacques Guy wrote:
> > > Richard Herring wrote:
> > >
> > > > The propagation of speech is described by a non-dispersive wave
> > > > equation, smell by a diffusion equation. There's a big difference:
wave
> > > > equations propagate complex waveforms unchanged in shape; diffusion
> > > > equations don't.
> > >
> > > I don't have a tinker's damn idea of what a non-dispersive
> >
> > It's a tinker's dam, a noun. Something one doesn't give. Perhaps related
> > to a good God damn, also not an adjective.
>
> The variant that I am familiar with is "tinker's cuss" which is
> clearly more similar to "tinker's damn" than "tinker's cuss". The
> Collins English Dictionary gives "tinker's damn".
The original is evidently "tinker's dam", explained in the 1903 Funk &
Wagnalls s.v. dam:
1. A ledge or wall of mud or dough enclosing a space which a plumber
desires to coat with solder.
2. (Slang.) A worthless thing: so called from the dough used by a tinker,
which afterward is worthless.
The mass-production of inexpensive metal utensils and standardized plumbing
fixtures has led to the demise of tinkers and tinker's dams. Presumably
"tinker's damn" arose by folk-etymology after the significance of tinker's
dams had been forgotten, and "tinker's cuss" is a simple variant of this.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:27:42 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>> <news:41372D...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
>>> You posted before I mentioned nozzles.
>>> (Odd word, that; etymology, or onomatopoeia?)
>> AHD3 says from ME <noselle> 'a socket on a candlestick', a
>> diminutive of <nose>.
> And someone stuck a candlestick socket on a firehose? The OED
> would be helpful here.
Well, I'm at school now, so I have easy access to the on-line
version. The earliest meaning, now obsolete, is 'A socket on a
candlestick or sconce into which the lower end of a candle is
inserted'; it's found ante 1447 ('Item, unum candelabrum de
auricalco, cum uno pyke et duobus noselles') and in a fully
English example ('It[em] for a greate nosell for ye stage
lantehorne') from 1560-61, among others.
The sense 'A spout, mouthpiece, projecting aperture, or a short
terminal pipe from which a jet of gas or liquid may issue or be
discharged' is first noted ante 1683 ('The Top thereof [sc. of a
stove] may be firm Tin, with a nossel or pipe in it, like that of
a pair of Bellows'), and by 1689 it's being applied to the nose
('Let Pig but turn his Nosle to the Sun, 'Twill serve for both
Steeple and Weather-cock').
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<fuf...@chorus.net> wrote in sci.lang:
> "Stuart Geary" <sge...@vennershipley.co.uk> wrote ...
[...]
>> The variant that I am familiar with is "tinker's cuss" which is
>> clearly more similar to "tinker's damn" than "tinker's cuss". The
>> Collins English Dictionary gives "tinker's damn".
> The original is evidently "tinker's dam", explained in the 1903 Funk &
> Wagnalls s.v. dam:
> 1. A ledge or wall of mud or dough enclosing a space which a plumber
> desires to coat with solder.
> 2. (Slang.) A worthless thing: so called from the dough used by a tinker,
> which afterward is worthless.
This etymology is described in the on-line OED as '[a]n ingenious
but baseless conjecture'; item 1.d for the noun <tinker> reads as
follows:
1. d. not to care, be worth, (etc.), a tinker's curse, cuss, or
damn, (ellipt.) a tinker's, an intensification of the earlier
‘not to care, or be worth, a curse or damn’ (see CURSE
n. 2 , DAMN n. 2), with reference to the reputed addiction
of tinkers to profane swearing: see 1. Cf. also quot. 1884,
in which ‘not to care a straw’ is similarly intensified. (An
ingenious but baseless conjecture suggesting another origin
appears in quot. 1877.)
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
And how soon after 1689 did it cease being applied to the nose?
Turns out to be another datum in the problem of phonemic voicing, too.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<news:4138E5...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
The first edition has an 1863 citation.
> Turns out to be another datum in the problem of phonemic voicing, too.
There are <z> spellings at least from the early 1680s; I
just happened to choose my examples from the alpha (<s>)
set.
Brian