Flames in the Mirror
Garry J. Vass
greeted the world this morning from page one of the Mirror. We don't
even get to Beck-n-Poshian gadding about until about page 5! Today a
petrol pump attendant (= LeftPondian 'gas jockey') in Oz gets his 15
minutes...
The guy's crime? He plays soccer for South Melbourne. Along with a tax
advisor and a hospital worker, the stars of that team, they are
castigated for not being bigger than life.
But that's not what I wanted to mention. The Mirror's blazing guns are
no kinder to anyone else. Among the list of villains we see 'a greedy
board of directors', 'an arrogant manager', 'a Neanderthal government
minister', and 'a pitifully weak Football Association'.
Greed and arrogance are matters of interpretation and degree, but
'Neanderthal'?
Neanderthal?
What does that mean, exactly? Scuttling off to the OED2, I found an
interesting list of citations dating from when the skull was found in
the 19th century near Duesseldorf right up to the present. But they all
concerned this ancient race called Neanderthal, all scientific in nature
and intent; and not a shred of meaning, not a spot of ink explaining why
it might be used as an adjective on page one of a turgid downmarket.
Isn't that odd?
Moving to Webster's, we finally get to the second definition of 'crude',
'uncouth', and 'boorish'. Not a far distant cousin from the soccer
hoolies the Mirror tries to reach in the first instance, come to think
of it. But that's not what I wanted to get to. By all credible
references, the adjective, 'Neanderthal' is connected to manner and
bearing, not intelligence.
So. What we have here is a 'malapropism'. The use of a wrong word,
albeit a ten-dollar word, like 'Neanderthal', when a plain vanilla word,
like 'idiot', suffices.
--
Garry J. Vass
Malcolm Timbers
Garry J. Vass <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZzCk0BAN...@gvass.demon.co.uk...
Because their behaviour was atavistic, maybe. Did the article say that they
grunted and engaged in cannibalism?
Malcolm Timbers
Molly
<mtim...@rcn.com> writes
>>
>> What does that mean, exactly?
(snip)
>
>Because their behaviour was atavistic, maybe. Did the article say that they
>grunted and engaged in cannibalism?
>
As far as we can establish so many thousands of years later, it seems
that Neanderthal man only engaged in cannibalism for ritualistic,
religious reasons. Certainly not as a normal food source.
No doubt they grunted. So, I seem to recall, did Monica Seles.
--
Molly (change nospam to orbs to email me)
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com for a totally free and simple way
to donate food to the hungry. (Go on, try it!)
Bonnie Granat
Molly wrote in message <8NMi3WAM...@orbs.demon.co.uk>...
I've heard of a recent theory that holds that the Neanderthals did not, in
fact, die out. When I hear "Neanderthal", I think, "primitive and not
destined to be much".
Yes, I know my quotation marks are not correct in the U.S., but I cannot use
the preferred U.S. usage. It is illogical.
Bonnie Granat
John O'Flaherty
{snipped}
> no kinder to anyone else. Among the list of villains we see 'a greedy
> board of directors', 'an arrogant manager', 'a Neanderthal government
> minister', and 'a pitifully weak Football Association'.
>
> Greed and arrogance are matters of interpretation and degree, but
> 'Neanderthal'?
{snipped}
> Moving to Webster's, we finally get to the second definition of 'crude',
> 'uncouth', and 'boorish'. Not a far distant cousin from the soccer
> hoolies the Mirror tries to reach in the first instance, come to think
> of it. But that's not what I wanted to get to. By all credible
> references, the adjective, 'Neanderthal' is connected to manner and
> bearing, not intelligence.
>
> So. What we have here is a 'malapropism'. The use of a wrong word,
> albeit a ten-dollar word, like 'Neanderthal', when a plain vanilla word,
> like 'idiot', suffices.
How do you know they didn't mean to say the government minister was
crude, less than fully couth, and boorish?
john
James Follett
Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk "Garry J. Vass" writes:
>Neanderthal?
>
>What does that mean, exactly? Scuttling off to the OED2, I found an
>interesting list of citations dating from when the skull was found in
>the 19th century near Duesseldorf right up to the present. But they all
>concerned this ancient race called Neanderthal, all scientific in nature
>and intent; and not a shred of meaning, not a spot of ink explaining why
>it might be used as an adjective on page one of a turgid downmarket.
>Isn't that odd?
The newspaper didn't get the term right. It's Neanderthaler.
The Neanderthaler's culture lasted about 250,000 years. Their
problem is thought to be that they failed to adapt as the
icecap retreated. They knew how to cure skins, made serviceable
if old-fashioned flint tools, and used herbal remedies if their
pharmacopeia found at Ukraine digs are anything to go by.
It's doubtful if they were stupid. It's just that they weren't
as bright as Cro Magnon.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Schainbaum, Robert
> An 80 point strap-line flaming a petrol pump attendant in Australia
> greeted the world this morning from page one of the Mirror. We don't
> even get to Beck-n-Poshian gadding about until about page 5! Today a
> petrol pump attendant (= LeftPondian 'gas jockey') in Oz gets his 15
> minutes...
>
> The guy's crime? He plays soccer for South Melbourne. Along with a tax
> advisor and a hospital worker, the stars of that team, they are
> castigated for not being bigger than life.
>
> But that's not what I wanted to mention. The Mirror's blazing guns are
> no kinder to anyone else. Among the list of villains we see 'a greedy
> board of directors', 'an arrogant manager', 'a Neanderthal government
> minister', and 'a pitifully weak Football Association'.
>
> Greed and arrogance are matters of interpretation and degree, but
> 'Neanderthal'?
>
> Neanderthal?
>
> What does that mean, exactly? Scuttling off to the OED2, I found an
> interesting list of citations dating from when the skull was found in
> the 19th century near Duesseldorf right up to the present. But they all
> concerned this ancient race called Neanderthal, all scientific in nature
> and intent; and not a shred of meaning, not a spot of ink explaining why
> it might be used as an adjective on page one of a turgid downmarket.
> Isn't that odd?
>
> Moving to Webster's, we finally get to the second definition of 'crude',
> 'uncouth', and 'boorish'. Not a far distant cousin from the soccer
> hoolies the Mirror tries to reach in the first instance, come to think
> of it. But that's not what I wanted to get to. By all credible
> references, the adjective, 'Neanderthal' is connected to manner and
> bearing, not intelligence.
>
> So. What we have here is a 'malapropism'. The use of a wrong word,
> albeit a ten-dollar word, like 'Neanderthal', when a plain vanilla word,
> like 'idiot', suffices.
> --
> Garry J. Vass
Homo Sapiens (ourselves) were preceded by Neanderthals. This is accepted.
It might not really be true, but the Neanderthals are popularly understood
to form a link in the chain of descent back from our species to the some
hypothesized rodent-like tree-dwelling primate. Although some in this list
are big on ancestor worship, it is not uncommon to describe our species
predecessors unflatteringly and to speaking unflatteringly about persons of
putatively sub-par intelligence or manner as Neanderthal. People are
sometimes described as having a Neanderthal appearance. What's the big?
I think "Neanderthal" is pretty common usage and packs more punch than
"idiot". I trust the Tabs to know.
/r
Rowan Dingle
>>Because their behaviour was atavistic, maybe. Did the article say that they
>>grunted and engaged in cannibalism?
>>
>As far as we can establish so many thousands of years later, it seems
>that Neanderthal man only engaged in cannibalism for ritualistic,
>religious reasons. Certainly not as a normal food source.
You're out of date. Human and non-human bones have been found mixed
together in Neanderthal middens [?] in, I think, Spain and Croatia. The
bones had been butchered the same way, irrespective of origin.
ObAUE: Is 'midden' the right word for a cavemen's bone pile?
--
Rowan Dingle
Rowan Dingle
>The newspaper didn't get the term right. It's Neanderthaler.
>
>The Neanderthaler's culture lasted about 250,000 years. Their
>problem is thought to be that they failed to adapt as the
>icecap retreated. They knew how to cure skins, made serviceable
>if old-fashioned flint tools, and used herbal remedies if their
>pharmacopeia found at Ukraine digs are anything to go by.
>It's doubtful if they were stupid. It's just that they weren't
>as bright as Cro Magnon.
Although they had bigger brain pans.
--
Rowan Dingle
Anton Rapoport
> James Follett <ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.usage.english:
>
> >The newspaper didn't get the term right. It's Neanderthaler.
> >
> >The Neanderthaler's culture lasted about 250,000 years. Their
> >problem is thought to be that they failed to adapt as the
> >icecap retreated. They knew how to cure skins, made serviceable
> >if old-fashioned flint tools, and used herbal remedies if their
> >pharmacopeia found at Ukraine digs are anything to go by.
I'm from Ukraine and I've never heard of such digs in the country.
Or rather I heard of the digs but not that they actually revealed
something valuable.
Do you where exactly those archeological digs were?
Anton Rapoport
James Follett
use...@wickenden.demon.co.uk "Rowan Dingle" writes:
>>It's doubtful if they were stupid. It's just that they weren't
>>as bright as Cro Magnon.
>
>Although they had bigger brain pans.
That's certainly true. One theory that addresses the question
of the Neanderthalers' large brain pan is that it developed
to accommodate a sign language. Sign languages have the
potential to become incredibly complex and the quarter
of a million years that the Neanderthalers were around gave
them long enough to develop a formidable sign language.
The noises we can make in our throat are quite limited
whereas the signs possible with two arms, two hands, ten
digits, and possibly the use of the entire body when
telling stories around the campfire, is infinite.
An efficient sign language is damned useful when hunting.
Phil C.
> Neanderthal?
>
> What does that mean, exactly? Scuttling off to the OED2, I found an
> interesting list of citations dating from when the skull was found in
> the 19th century near Duesseldorf right up to the present. But they all
> concerned this ancient race called Neanderthal, all scientific in nature
> and intent; and not a shred of meaning, not a spot of ink explaining why
> it might be used as an adjective on page one of a turgid downmarket.
> Isn't that odd?
Sadly, `Neanderthal` is not alone. The misuse of `animal` or `beast` to
refer to anti-social humans is well known. Primitiveness is often called
`mediaeval`, thus besmirching a long, rich, inventive period of human
history. `Gothic`, perhaps the most spectacular, light-giving breakthrough
in architecture in the whole of human history, has been consigned to gloomy
horror stories and teenagers in black lipstick. What did the poor Vandals
and Huns do, apart from what everybody else was doing at the time? Why is
something that is old fashioned and failing named after an order of animals
which was extremely successful and long lived - the dinosaur? Historical
stereotypes are incredibly powerful and persistent.
Phil C.
________________________________________
philandwoody*at*meem*dot*freeserve*dot*co*dot*uk
Anandashankar Mazumdar
"Schainbaum, Robert" <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
> Homo Sapiens (ourselves) were preceded by Neanderthals. This is
> accepted. It might not really be true, but the Neanderthals are
> popularly understood to form a link in the chain of descent back from
> our species to the some hypothesized rodent-like tree-dwelling
> primate. Although some in this list are big on ancestor worship, it
> is not uncommon to describe our species predecessors unflatteringly
> and to speaking unflatteringly about persons of putatively sub-par
> intelligence or manner as Neanderthal. People are sometimes described
> as having a Neanderthal appearance. What's the big?
The current scientific wisdom is that Neanderthals are not
predecessors of modern humans. However, Neanderthals and modern humans
did have a common ancestor. They were a "cousin" species rather than a
"parent." So referring to them derogatorily is akin to the human
predilection for ethnic prejudice.
Ananda
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
James Follett
toni...@iname.com "Anton Rapoport" writes:
>> >pharmacopeia found at Ukraine digs are anything to go by.
>
>I'm from Ukraine and I've never heard of such digs in the country.
>Or rather I heard of the digs but not that they actually revealed
>something valuable.
>
>Do you where exactly those archeological digs were?
I had to play a couple of my BBC Horizon tapes to find the
answer. I tend to file away Horizon information in my cerbral
system as being reliable, but I mistrust the current breed
of Channel 4 documentaries about the past because they are
usually presented as "one person's point of view". In other
words, lots of "pieces to camera" and no boring research
necessary to cobble the programme together.
Gagarino and Kostienki are mentioned as sites that yielded
much valuable information on our Palaeolithic ancestors.
Sorry -- but I've had to spell them phonetically. TV as
an educational tool is useless. Books, with their random
access memory, fast access times, and non-voliatile memory
have got video tapes beaten into a corner.
Best wishes,
Jimbo
Schainbaum, Robert
> Schainbaum, Robert wrote in message <387AC095...@Berlin.DE>...
>
> >Homo Sapiens (ourselves) were preceded by Neanderthals.
>
> Neanderthals are usually considered to be Homo sapiens, but perhaps a
> separate sub-species.
>
> Regards,
> John.
Oops!
Schainbaum, Robert
This is the most extreme INSTANCE of political correctness that I have ever
seen. In any case, the reality doesn't matter, only how the popular
imagination conceives it.
Ananda, my Bengali friend, this sensitivity to ethnic prejudice in you is a
bit overdeveloped. Ethnic and racial prejudice will never disappear from
the planet. It were best not to drive it underground.
I'm also not persuaded that homo sapiens are not descended from the
neanderthals. It is true neanderthals were still alive subsequent to the
first appearance of homo sapiens, but I don't think this argues a
relationship of cousins.
/r
Schainbaum, Robert
Yes, this is how we use the language.
/r
Rowan Dingle
alt.usage.english:
> The current scientific wisdom is that Neanderthals are not
>predecessors of modern humans. However, Neanderthals and modern humans
>did have a common ancestor. They were a "cousin" species rather than a
>"parent." So referring to them derogatorily is akin to the human
>predilection for ethnic prejudice.
Again, this a bit out of date: imprecise anyway. The current thinking
(as understood and related by a dilettante) is that when Homo sapiens
arrived in Europe it found the place already occupied by Neanderthals.
Homo sapiens and Neanderthals sometimes bred successfully (this is the
new thinking).
Therefore Neanderthals (and their equivalents, like Java Man, in other
parts of the globe) probably live on in the gene pool of Homo sapiens
sapiens (everyone reading this).
Sore knuckles? Now you know why.
--
Rowan Dingle
M.J.Powell
>But that's not what I wanted to mention. The Mirror's blazing guns are
>no kinder to anyone else. Among the list of villains we see 'a greedy
>board of directors', 'an arrogant manager', 'a Neanderthal government
>minister', and 'a pitifully weak Football Association'.
>
>Greed and arrogance are matters of interpretation and degree, but
>'Neanderthal'?
>
>Neanderthal?
I wonder what proportion of the Mirror's readers had ever heard of it.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Kurt Foster
[snip]
. Among the list of villains we see 'a greedy board of directors', 'an
. weak Football Association'.
. Greed and arrogance are matters of interpretation and degree, but
. 'Neanderthal'?
. Neanderthal?
. What does that mean, exactly?
[snip]
. Moving to Webster's, we finally get to the second definition of 'crude',
. 'uncouth', and 'boorish'. Not a far distant cousin from the soccer
. hoolies the Mirror tries to reach in the first instance, come to think
. of it. But that's not what I wanted to get to. By all credible
. references, the adjective, 'Neanderthal' is connected to manner and
. bearing, not intelligence.
I infer from this that you feel the intended meaning pertained to
intelligence. I can only guess that you inferred the meaning from the
context, which alas you did not provide us with.
But if you were able to infer the intended meaning precisely enough to
know that it pertained to intelligence rather than manner or bearing, why
were you in doubt about what the intended meaning was?
For many years, I've heard "neanderthal" used, and myself used it, to
indicate an inflexible, severely circumscribed outlook on life, governed
by primitive superstition or mythology, and accompanied by rejection of
and antipathy to science, technology, and the visual arts.
Garry J. Vass
<ofla...@primary.net> writes
>>
>> So. What we have here is a 'malapropism'. The use of a wrong word,
>> albeit a ten-dollar word, like 'Neanderthal', when a plain vanilla word,
>> like 'idiot', suffices.
>
>crude, less than fully couth, and boorish?
Hi John!
Interesting question.
Because crude, less than fully couth, and boorish people don't get to be
Sports Minister. Coaches, owners, former England coaches <cough,
cough>, and certain players who gad about in women's undies <cough,
cough> might qualify as crude and uncouth boors.
But Sports Minister is a role of dignity, poise, and most of all,
*stature*. These sorts of roles are reserved for refined, well-
mannered, and eloquent types. Mostly politicians, but certainly idiots
are not excluded. Just ask any British journalist...
Hope this helps!
Kind regards,
--
Garry J. Vass
John Holmes
Schainbaum, Robert wrote in message <387AC095...@Berlin.DE>...
>Homo Sapiens (ourselves) were preceded by Neanderthals.
Neanderthals are usually considered to be Homo sapiens, but perhaps a
separate sub-species.
Regards,
John.
Anandashankar Mazumdar
"Schainbaum, Robert" <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
> Anandashankar Mazumdar wrote:
>> So referring to them derogatorily is akin to the human predilection
>> for ethnic prejudice.
> This is the most extreme INSTANCE of political correctness that I have
> ever seen.
What do you get when you cross tongue-in-cheek with hyperbole?
(besides miscegenation)
> In any case, the reality doesn't matter, only how the popular
> imagination conceives it.
I guess.
> Ananda, my Bengali friend, this sensitivity to ethnic prejudice in you
> is a bit overdeveloped.
You wouldn't say that if you knew me, my hairy, pale-faced
Neanderthal kraut Hun ape friend. ... Hmm ... there is bit of an
electric thrill accompanying that. I can see why ethnic slurs are so
popular.... nicotine-junkie cow-breath tree-cutting butter-swilling
network-television-watching refined-sugar-and-bleached-rice-eating
detached-single-family-house-with-grass-lawn-in-a-car-only-accessible-
subdivision-dwelling honky cracker monkey cave boy. My old friends and I
regularly address each other with ethnic slurs (and a smile, of course).
Sorry, I can't think what came over me. Someone else must have
typed that while I was away. Yeah. That's the ticket.
You seem to have an overdeveloped sensitivity to political
correctness. Or maybe not; I wasn't really paying attention.
Nevertheless, do you not see a kernel of truth in what I said (cf. Phil
C.'s post)?
Skitt
Garry J. Vass <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0OW$7EAfo7...@gvass.demon.co.uk...
> In article <387A8781...@primary.net>, John O'Flaherty
> <ofla...@primary.net> writes
> >>
> >> So. What we have here is a 'malapropism'. The use of a wrong word,
> >> albeit a ten-dollar word, like 'Neanderthal', when a plain vanilla
word,
> >> like 'idiot', suffices.
> >
> >How do you know they didn't mean to say the government minister was
> >crude, less than fully couth, and boorish?
>
> Hi John!
>
> Interesting question.
>
> Because crude, less than fully couth, and boorish people don't get to be
> Sports Minister. Coaches, owners, former England coaches <cough,
> cough>, and certain players who gad about in women's undies <cough,
> cough> might qualify as crude and uncouth boors.
Garry, not that I doubt you, but your intimate knowledge of these facts
completely blows my mind! Surprises me, even.
> But Sports Minister is a role of dignity, poise, and most of all,
> *stature*. These sorts of roles are reserved for refined, well-
> mannered, and eloquent types. Mostly politicians, but certainly idiots
> are not excluded. Just ask any British journalist...
>
> Hope this helps!
Vastly.
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://i.am/skitt/
... information is gushing toward your brain like a fire hose aimed
at a teacup. -- Dogbert
ChenHA
"Garry J. Vass" wrote:
> But that's not what I wanted to mention. The Mirror's blazing guns are
> no kinder to anyone else. Among the list of villains we see 'a greedy
> board of directors', 'an arrogant manager', 'a Neanderthal government
> minister', and 'a pitifully weak Football Association'.
Fair comment to all football fans bar the ManU supporters.
> So. What we have here is a 'malapropism'. The use of a wrong word,
> albeit a ten-dollar word, like 'Neanderthal', when a plain vanilla word,
> like 'idiot', suffices.
Surely 'malapropism' doesn't just mean the use of a wrong word? As far as I
can gather, 'malapropism' is the use of a word that sounds similar to what
you actually intended but is hiliriously wrong. Is your use of
'malapropism' a malapropism?
> --
> Garry J. Vass
Phil C.
Schainbaum, Robert <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote in message
news:387B85F9...@Berlin.DE...
> Anandashankar Mazumdar wrote:
> > The current scientific wisdom is that Neanderthals are not
> > predecessors of modern humans. However, Neanderthals and modern humans
> > did have a common ancestor. They were a "cousin" species rather than a
> > "parent." So referring to them derogatorily is akin to the human
> > predilection for ethnic prejudice.
>
> This is the most extreme INSTANCE of political correctness that I have
ever
> seen. (snip)
Really? Clearly you NEED to get out more.
Phil C.
________________________________________
philandwoody*at*meem*dot*freeserve*dot*co*dot*uk
Phil C.
Schainbaum, Robert wrote in message news:387B871F...@Berlin.DE...
> "Phil C." wrote:
> > Sadly, `Neanderthal` is not alone. The misuse of `animal` or `beast` to
> > refer to anti-social humans is well known. Primitiveness is often called
> > `mediaeval`, thus besmirching a long, rich, inventive period of human
> > history. `Gothic`, perhaps the most spectacular, light-giving
breakthrough
> > in architecture in the whole of human history, has been consigned to
gloomy
> > horror stories and teenagers in black lipstick. What did the poor
Vandals
> > and Huns do, apart from what everybody else was doing at the time? Why
is
> > something that is old fashioned and failing named after an order of
animals
> > which was extremely successful and long lived - the dinosaur? Historical
> > stereotypes are incredibly powerful and persistent.
> Yes, this is how we use the language.
A medieval festival was once arranged in the USA but had to be cancelled
because of protests from the locals. They didn`t want their kids getting
mixed up in any of that mid-evil stuff they`d heard about. The language that
people use affects the way they think.
Phil C.
________________________________________
philandwoody*at*meem*dot*freeserve*dot*co*dot*uk
Garry J. Vass
Skitt <sk...@i.am> writes
>> cough>, and certain players who gad about in women's undies <cough,
>> cough> might qualify as crude and uncouth boors.
>
>Garry, not that I doubt you, but your intimate knowledge of these facts
>completely blows my mind! Surprises me, even.
>
The undies thing? It's common knowledge, Skitt. De rigour for
Parliament and all that doncha-know...
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>
>Vastly.
>--
Which, presumably is twice the distance as half-vastly...
Kind regards to sunny Eff-El-Lay!
--
Garry J. Vass
Garry J. Vass
>
>
>Surely 'malapropism' doesn't just mean the use of a wrong word? As far as I
>can gather, 'malapropism' is the use of a word that sounds similar to what
>you actually intended but is hiliriously wrong. Is your use of
>'malapropism' a malapropism?
>
The issue of defining 'malapropism' refers us to the polarity between
the 'prescriptivist' and 'descriptivist' camps. Webster's suggests that
humorous content is a prerequisite for a 'malapropism'; OED2 makes no
mention of it at all.
Certainly the most interesting malapropisms are the outrageous ones
where a near-sounding word is malapropped, as in "...the 48 contagious
states of the US...", where 'contiguous' is the correct word.
But "...the 48 ontological states of the US..." is also a malapropism,
even though no near-sounding word is readily available. And laughable
nonetheless...
--
Garry J. Vass
K. Edgcombe
Garry J. Vass <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>But "...the 48 ontological states of the US..." is also a malapropism,
>even though no near-sounding word is readily available. And laughable
>nonetheless...
It may be laughable, but Mrs Malaprop would never have said it.
Katy
Schainbaum, Robert
>
> But they all
> concerned this ancient race called Neanderthal, all scientific in nature
> and intent; and not a shred of meaning, not a spot of ink explaining why
> it might be used as an adjective on page one of a turgid downmarket.
> Isn't that odd?
First, jobs at turgid downmarkets are as much coveted by new graduates as
jobs at investment banks. Second, I regret to say that even OED2 will never
show you all the stylistic uses to which a word might be put.
>
>
> Moving to Webster's, we finally get to the second definition of 'crude',
> 'uncouth', and 'boorish'. Not a far distant cousin from the soccer
> hoolies the Mirror tries to reach in the first instance, come to think
> of it. But that's not what I wanted to get to. By all credible
> references, the adjective, 'Neanderthal' is connected to manner and
> bearing, not intelligence.
Not a significant distinction. Neanderthals are regarded in the popular
imagination as generally inferior and so the adjective may well be used to
express lack of intelligence. I think the usage you describe combines
several dimensions of human inferiority.
>
> So. What we have here is a 'malapropism'.
Only if you insist that the word must be pinned down to the one meaning that
you believe is absolutely unintended by the writer. My view is that the
writer said Neanderthal 'cause he meant Neanderthal.
> The use of a wrong word,
> albeit a ten-dollar word, like 'Neanderthal', when a plain vanilla word,
> like 'idiot', suffices.
Idiot doesn't turn on readers. Neanderthal does. It's as simple as that.
Think Page3 girl.
/r
Skitt
Garry J. Vass <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5JIMaDAi...@gvass.demon.co.uk...
Akcherly, I should have said "Vassly". It was to be inferred, but ...
> Kind regards to sunny Eff-El-Lay!
Thanks! It has been nice -- 75 degrees or so, but a cold front is moving
in. It will drop into the very low sixties for a high. Brrrr!
You freezin'?
Cheers!
Skitt
> But "...the 48 ontological states of the US..." is also a malapropism,
> even though no near-sounding word is readily available. And laughable
> nonetheless...
The occurrence of malapropisms is growing. In all of the forty-eight
oncological states.
Noah Claypole
>
> First, jobs at turgid downmarkets are as much coveted by new graduates as
> jobs at investment banks. Second, I regret to say that even OED2 will
never
> show you all the stylistic uses to which a word might be put.
>
>
> Idiot doesn't turn on readers. Neanderthal does. It's as simple as that.
> Think Page3 girl.
>
Schainbaum, Robert
> Schainbaum, Robert <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote in message
> news:387F0295...@Berlin.DE...
> >
> > First, jobs at turgid downmarkets are as much coveted by new graduates as
> > jobs at investment banks. Second, I regret to say that even OED2 will
> never
> > show you all the stylistic uses to which a word might be put.
> >
> Er. How did "new graduates" get into this? Is there a connection?
Yes there is. Turgid downmarkets are not to be sneared at. It may not be
relevant to observe that publication in question happens to be a turgid
downmarket. That is not my problem.
>
> >
> > Idiot doesn't turn on readers. Neanderthal does. It's as simple as that.
> > Think Page3 girl.
> >
> The connection between Page3 girl and Neanderthal?
Neanderthal is a spicier word than idiot. Page3 girls are spicy (for male
readers, persumably). Goes back to the same principle. Page3 girls turn on
readers. Words like neanderthal will sooner turn on readers than simpler words
like idiot. Invective is good. Imaginative invective is even better.
/r
Garry J. Vass
>Yes there is. Turgid downmarkets are not to be sneared at.
Certainly not. And I would regret if any such residual impression were
imputed. Graduates as well.
>It may not be
>relevant to observe that publication in question happens to be a turgid
>downmarket. That is not my problem.
>
Nor mine. Sorry if it disturbed you. But as a long standing "Trainee
Mentor", I also can't fathom how it correlates to the intake programmes
on Fleet Street versus Threadneedle Street. Somewhere there's a
connection between banks, turgid downmarkets, and graduates that escapes
me. Seems all very non-sequitur-ish... Sigh.
--
Garry J. Vass
Schainbaum, Robert
> In article <38808F14...@Berlin.DE>, Schainbaum, Robert
> >
> >Yes there is. Turgid downmarkets are not to be sneared at.
>
> Certainly not. And I would regret if any such residual impression were
> imputed. Graduates as well.
That is the assumption from which one concludes that ...
>
>
> >It may not be
> >relevant to observe that publication in question happens to be a turgid
> >downmarket. That is not my problem.
> >
>
> Nor mine. Sorry if it disturbed you. But as a long standing "Trainee
> Mentor", I also can't fathom how it correlates to the intake programmes
> on Fleet Street versus Threadneedle Street. Somewhere there's a
> connection between banks, turgid downmarkets, and graduates that escapes
> me. Seems all very non-sequitur-ish... Sigh.
> --
> Garry J. Vass
No, it doesn't really matter for the sake of your original point about the
use of "neanderthal" that the publication in question was a turgid
downmarket.
By the way, I think "48 ontological states" is a malapropism and a great
one. (This IS a non-sequitur.) Without resort to any of the venerable
reference works, I'd say that malapropism occurs whenever one very big but
incorrect word is used in place of another very big but correct word.
Homonymy is not required.
I'd also distinguish two forms of malapropism. The first being the
malapropism of the speaker and the second being the malapropism of the
reader. I suspect that few readers of either tabs or broadsheets would
notice anything amiss in "48 ontological states". The few who did would, of
course, be very noisy about it.
/r
K. Edgcombe
Schainbaum, Robert <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>reference works, I'd say that malapropism occurs whenever one very big but
>incorrect word is used in place of another very big but correct word.
>Homonymy is not required.
Sheridan must be turning in his grave. Does no-one read him these days?
Katy
Schainbaum, Robert
Thanks for that. It will amuse my friends on Monday to hear that I've been
called an illiterate by some CS person at Cambridge Poly. The issue isn't
whether one has read Sheridan. The issue relates to whether a word or concept
may naturally be extended to have a broader meaning. In your biz, that might
mean that one seeks to discover a more powerful abstraction.
/r
Richard Rose
> In article <3880A0EA...@Berlin.DE>,
> Schainbaum, Robert <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>>reference works, I'd say that malapropism occurs whenever one very big but
>>incorrect word is used in place of another very big but correct word.
>>Homonymy is not required.
It is known as a "pun" when done deliberately.
"A pun is a short quip followed by a long groan"
rik.
Rowan Dingle
>"K. Edgcombe" wrote:
>> Sheridan must be turning in his grave. Does no-one read him these days?
>Thanks for that. It will amuse my friends on Monday to hear that I've been
>called an illiterate by some CS person at Cambridge Poly.
Yes, how we will laugh! Ho! Ho ho ho! Yes, we will laugh and slap our
manly thighs. Ho! Robert says he has been called an illiterate. Ho! Ho
ho ho! And by a woman! Ho ho ho ho ho! What fools these people could be
that must call Robert an illiterate! It is soo-oooo ver-funny! Ho ho ho!
You know what, it's so funny it's almost funnier than someone falling
down the stairs when he didn't know that the stairs were there - ha! ho!
- and perhaps even as funny as if the man falling down the stairs had a
beard, a sooty face and badly-fitting trousers!!ho!ha!!ohhoho!!! Ho! Ho
ho ho ho ho!
Ooooh! Forgive me! It's all to-oo much!
Thanks for that, Mr Schadenbaum. Would it amuse your friends to meet Mr
Norman Wisdom on Monday too?
--
Rowan Dingle
Schainbaum, Robert
> Schainbaum, Robert <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
> >"K. Edgcombe" wrote:
>
> >> Sheridan must be turning in his grave. Does no-one read him these days?
>
> >Thanks for that. It will amuse my friends on Monday to hear that I've been
> >called an illiterate by some CS person at Cambridge Poly.
>
> Yes, how we will laugh! Ho! Ho ho ho! Yes, we will laugh and slap our
> manly thighs. Ho! Robert says he has been called an illiterate. Ho! Ho
> ho ho! And by a woman!
Refer to the text, fool. Did I say woman? Are you one of my friends?
/r
K. Edgcombe
Schainbaum, Robert <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>"K. Edgcombe" wrote:
>
>> Schainbaum, Robert <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>> >reference works, I'd say that malapropism occurs whenever one very big but
>> >incorrect word is used in place of another very big but correct word.
>> >Homonymy is not required.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for that. It will amuse my friends on Monday to hear that I've been
>called an illiterate by some CS person at Cambridge Poly.
I have made no assertion about anyone's literacy. There are very few authors
the reading of whose works I would regard as an absolute prequisite for being
called literate, and Sheridan isn't one of them. But he did invent Mrs
Malaprop, for which we should all be grateful, and I would prefer to keep the
word "malapropism" for the sort of thing she might have said.
>The issue isn't
>whether one has read Sheridan. The issue relates to whether a word or concept
>may naturally be extended to have a broader meaning.
Well, of course, that goes on all the time, with the concomitant loss of
precision. Sometimes it's a good thing; in this instance I think it's a pity.
I don't know who this CS person at Cambroidge Poly is, though.
Katy
Rowan Dingle
>Refer to the text, fool. Did I say woman? Are you one of my friends?
Well that would be nice, wouldn't it? But, with real regret, I must
decline - I just don't fit the bill, Robert. I'm sorry.
You have only yourself to blame. Your standards are too demanding. You
have explained elsewhere that you require all your English friends to be
motivated by envy and jealousy, indeed that they be so sodden with envy
that 'it affects the whole spectrum of [their] behaviour and feeling'.
Well, I could pretend, couldn't I? But you'd be sure to find out. It
couldn't last - no no, don't protest! - it really couldn't last. We
must not torment each other so. You stay with your trusted, treasured
coterie of back-stabbing envy-mongers and I, I will - sniff! - I will
clasp to my bosom all that might have been.
Why don't you console yourself with Rushtown? Ask him to be your friend.
He has a different theory about the English. He thinks that their
character - and particular their humour - has been shaped by an
excessive contact with pomposity.
--
Rowan Dingle
Schainbaum, Robert
What? I think you've misread. Question was rhetorical, not an invitation.
/r
Schainbaum, Robert
Right. Your question was completely unrhetorical and untainted by ad hominem
inflection. And, although it is usually profitable to consider most concepts in
both narrower and wider senses, such an approach would be completely unavailing
here. Finally, I stand corrected. None of the reference works lists a Cambridge
Poly.
I am very grateful to your knight in shining armour, Rowan Dingle (berry), for
helping me to see the correctness of your view.
/r
Garry J. Vass
<Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> writes
>here. Finally, I stand corrected. None of the reference works lists a
>Cambridge
>Poly.
>
Just as a side-note (whilst remembering not to sneer at turgid
downmarkets), we have some most excellent and intrepid posters from the
faculties of the poly tier. I think the world of them!
--
Garry J. Vass
Frances Kemmish
Speaking of polytechnics, are there any left? I got the impression
that they were all universities now.
How did the polytechnics in the UK get to be so sneer-worthy anyway?
The impression I used to get from the media was that poly graduates
were about half a step up from trainspotters in earnestness and
sartorial sense.
I have been wondering, because there are several colleges in the USA
which include "Polytechnic Institute" in their names, and they all
seem to have very good academic reputations.
Fran
Schainbaum, Robert
> In article <3881DE2E...@Berlin.DE>, Schainbaum, Robert
> <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> writes
> >here. Finally, I stand corrected. None of the reference works lists a
> >Cambridge
> >Poly.
> >
>
> Just as a side-note (whilst remembering not to sneer at turgid
> downmarkets), we have some most excellent and intrepid posters from the
> faculties of the poly tier. I think the world of them!
> --
> Garry J. Vass
This is what I get for supporting your claim. These NGs are mob behaviour
in its purest form. If a public execution could be held on an NG, it surely
would.
Since we are talking side-notes, reread what you wrote and consider whether
it doesn't appear - surely not your intention - to drip with sarcasm. The
"poly tier". "I think the world of them!"
And here's a shout-out to the Klingon. Friends ever! Even though he's
decided to play Katy Edgcombe's attack dog. Back-stabbing? Americans in
the UK like to say that you never know you've been stabbed in the back until
a month later when you feel the wet in your socks.
/r
Schainbaum, Robert
> "Garry J. Vass" wrote:
> >
> > In article <3881DE2E...@Berlin.DE>, Schainbaum, Robert
> > <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> writes
> > >here. Finally, I stand corrected. None of the reference works lists a
> > >Cambridge
> > >Poly.
> > >
> >
> > Just as a side-note (whilst remembering not to sneer at turgid
> > downmarkets), we have some most excellent and intrepid posters from the
> > faculties of the poly tier. I think the world of them!
> >
>
> Speaking of polytechnics, are there any left? I got the impression
> that they were all universities now.
>
> How did the polytechnics in the UK get to be so sneer-worthy anyway?
> The impression I used to get from the media was that poly graduates
> were about half a step up from trainspotters in earnestness and
> sartorial sense.
>
> I have been wondering, because there are several colleges in the USA
> which include "Polytechnic Institute" in their names, and they all
> seem to have very good academic reputations.
>
> Fran
Fran, are you sure that my post was sneering at the Polys?
/r
Frances Kemmish
No. I did, however, think that Garry was being sarcastic, and that
reminded me of how polys were regarded in the UK. My question not
really directed at you or Garry - particularly since you are both
Americans, and so might not be aware of the image that polytechnics
had in the UK.
Fran
Rowan Dingle
alt.usage.english:
>And here's a shout-out to the Klingon. Friends ever! Even though he's
>decided to play Katy Edgcombe's attack dog. Back-stabbing? Americans in
>the UK like to say that you never know you've been stabbed in the back until
>a month later when you feel the wet in your socks.
That is a measure of the innocence of Americans, not the viciousness of
Brits.
--
Roland Ewing, MA (Cantab*)
* When they cash the cheque. 21 years and counting.
Garry J. Vass
<arc...@iconn.net> writes
>
>No. I did, however, think that Garry was being sarcastic, and that
>reminded me of how polys were regarded in the UK. My question not
>really directed at you or Garry - particularly since you are both
>Americans, and so might not be aware of the image that polytechnics
>had in the UK.
>
I promise I wasn't being sarcastic. We truly have some most excellent
posters from universities like, for example, Portsmouth and Oxford
Brookes (sp?). Who I think the world of.
As to the general notion that polys are sneerable, I can't add much
information except that it seems to be the case. We don't milk-round
them except in places like Bristol where there happens to be one anyway.
Durham, Sheffield, Glasgow, and the like seem more desirable. There is
also an epithet, 'poly-boy', which one hears from time to time.
Of course seeing 'Skateboarding' on the curriculum of the University of
the West of England doesn't help either...
Kind regards,
--
Garry J. Vass
Robert Lipton
"Schainbaum, Robert" wrote:
SNIP
> What? I think you've misread. Question was rhetorical, not an invitation.
>
You should label your rhetorical questions as such and avoid the
untoward effects of your learning something. Not everyone is aware of
your proclivities and someone might be so foolish as to think that you,
like many human beings, ask a question in the hope that someone will
answer it.
Bob
ChenHA
> How did the polytechnics in the UK get to be so sneer-worthy anyway?
It's because people who go there are not good enough to get into a
university. They are therefore thought to be rather thick, although that's
not the real problem. The real problem is that, to the educated British mind,
people as stupid as them shouldn't have the pretension to want higher
education. They are therefore mock mercilessly, by people cleverer or more
stupid than they are. The sneering won't go away even though polytecnics are
now called universities. Oxford Brookes, for example, is always considered a
good joke in some circles.
>
> The impression I used to get from the media was that poly graduates
> were about half a step up from trainspotters in earnestness and
> sartorial sense.
> I have been wondering, because there are several colleges in the USA
Frances Kemmish
>
> In article <3881EB2C...@iconn.net>, Frances Kemmish
> <arc...@iconn.net> writes
> >
> >No. I did, however, think that Garry was being sarcastic, and that
> >reminded me of how polys were regarded in the UK. My question not
> >really directed at you or Garry - particularly since you are both
> >Americans, and so might not be aware of the image that polytechnics
> >had in the UK.
> >
> Hi Fran,
>
> I promise I wasn't being sarcastic. We truly have some most excellent
> posters from universities like, for example, Portsmouth and Oxford
> Brookes (sp?). Who I think the world of.
>
I'm sorry that I misread you, Garry. I should have known better.
> As to the general notion that polys are sneerable, I can't add much
> information except that it seems to be the case. We don't milk-round
> them except in places like Bristol where there happens to be one anyway.
> Durham, Sheffield, Glasgow, and the like seem more desirable. There is
> also an epithet, 'poly-boy', which one hears from time to time.
>
> Of course seeing 'Skateboarding' on the curriculum of the University of
> the West of England doesn't help either...
>
Since we are at present going through the traumatic experience of
helping our son apply to colleges, I am finding it more apparent
than usual that I am a foreigner in the US. I don't always recognise
that I am making assumptions based on my experience in England,
until they are pointed out to me.
Your reference to "Skateboarding" reminds me that I saw "Rodeo" as
an option at a community college in Montana, including, "Calfroping
101". The mind fairly boggled at that.
Fran
Laura F Spira
ChenHA wrote:
>
> Frances Kemmish wrote:
>
> > How did the polytechnics in the UK get to be so sneer-worthy anyway?
>
> It's because people who go there are not good enough to get into a
> university. They are therefore thought to be rather thick, although that's
> not the real problem. The real problem is that, to the educated British mind,
> people as stupid as them shouldn't have the pretension to want higher
> education. They are therefore mock mercilessly, by people cleverer or more
> stupid than they are. The sneering won't go away even though polytecnics are
> now called universities. Oxford Brookes, for example, is always considered a
> good joke in some circles.
And which circles would those be?
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
K. Edgcombe
Garry J. Vass <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I promise I wasn't being sarcastic. We truly have some most excellent
>posters from universities like, for example, Portsmouth and Oxford
>Brookes (sp?). Who I think the world of.
>
>information except that it seems to be the case. We don't milk-round
>them except in places like Bristol where there happens to be one anyway.
>Durham, Sheffield, Glasgow, and the like seem more desirable. There is
>also an epithet, 'poly-boy', which one hears from time to time.
There are some excellent Universities amongst the former Polytechnics (and yes,
Donna, I think you are right that there aren't any Polys any more that are not
Universities).
On the whole, and with many exceptions, the academic hurdles you have to jump
to get into the "new Universities" are lower than those for the top-ranking
older Universities. But there's lots of overlap, and for some courses certain
ex-Polys are undoubtedly better than many older Universities. Those who sneer
indiscriminately are missing a great deal.
Our local new University takes a great pride in its Poly origins and has chosen
to be called Anglia Polytechnic University.
Katy
K. Edgcombe
K. Edgcombe <ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Donna,
where she should have written
>Fran,
Sorry!
Katy
Laura F Spira
"Garry J. Vass" wrote:
>
> In article <3881EB2C...@iconn.net>, Frances Kemmish
> <arc...@iconn.net> writes
> >
> >No. I did, however, think that Garry was being sarcastic, and that
> >reminded me of how polys were regarded in the UK. My question not
> >really directed at you or Garry - particularly since you are both
> >Americans, and so might not be aware of the image that polytechnics
> >had in the UK.
> >
> Hi Fran,
>
> I promise I wasn't being sarcastic. We truly have some most excellent
> posters from universities like, for example, Portsmouth and Oxford
> Brookes (sp?). Who I think the world of.
>
> As to the general notion that polys are sneerable, I can't add much
> information except that it seems to be the case. We don't milk-round
> them except in places like Bristol where there happens to be one anyway.
> Durham, Sheffield, Glasgow, and the like seem more desirable. There is
> also an epithet, 'poly-boy', which one hears from time to time.
>
> Of course seeing 'Skateboarding' on the curriculum of the University of
> the West of England doesn't help either...
>
Don't fret, Garry, *I* knew you weren't being sarcastic (and the
spelling is fine, BTW). No need to leap to our defence, we're made of
tough stuff in the 'new' university sector. Some of us are rather sorry
that we lost the polytechnic name as it signified a more vocationally
biased higher education. Our students get quite good jobs though - they
gate-crash the milk round sessions at the other university down the
hill....
Check us out if you're interested: http://www.brookes.ac.uk
Garry J. Vass
<arc...@iconn.net> writes
>
>Since we are at present going through the traumatic experience of
>helping our son apply to colleges, I am finding it more apparent
>than usual that I am a foreigner in the US. I don't always recognise
>that I am making assumptions based on my experience in England,
>until they are pointed out to me.
>
Another thing that occurs to me is that I don't wear my MBA or PhD rings
in the UK because people think that they are some sort of 'moon rings'
or 'Age of Aquarius' type jewellery rather than stately and dignified
class rings. But I do on the continent and New York. And the thing
that's always surprised me is the length of time it took to find out
about this embarrassing detail.
--
Garry J. Vass
Brian J Goggin
<Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Another thing that occurs to me is that I don't wear my MBA or PhD rings
>in the UK because people think that they are some sort of 'moon rings'
>or 'Age of Aquarius' type jewellery rather than stately and dignified
>class rings. But I do on the continent and New York. And the thing
>that's always surprised me is the length of time it took to find out
>about this embarrassing detail.
Rings? For degrees?
Excuse me ....
bjg
Garry J. Vass
<b...@wordwrights.ie> writes
>>Another thing that occurs to me is that I don't wear my MBA or PhD rings
>>in the UK because people think that they are some sort of 'moon rings'
>>or 'Age of Aquarius' type jewellery rather than stately and dignified
>>class rings. But I do on the continent and New York. And the thing
>>that's always surprised me is the length of time it took to find out
>>about this embarrassing detail.
>
>Rings? For degrees?
>
>Excuse me ....
>
>
commonplace. Treasures. Family heirlooms in Leftpondia and all that.
School crest, motto, Oi.
GJV <--- (clickety, click, click, AHA!)
http://www.jostens.com/highschool/rings/heritage/
http://www.artcarved.com/college/west_point.html
There you go, Brian.
Noting that it's Sunday, what did you cook for din-din?
--
Garry J. Vass
Frances Kemmish
There is always plenty of intellectual snobbery around. I was as
full of it as anyone when I was an undergraduate. I hope that I have
moved on a little as I have matured.
As a parent, I have noticed this snobbery much more among my
contemporaries as parents. When I was in England last year, I heard
people talking about their child being "at Oxford", when their child
was, in fact, at Oxford Brookes. I think that kind of attitude is
bad news for the university, and for their child.
As I said in answer to another post, I think it is a matter of time
and experience. If these new universities produce worthwhile
programmes, and their graduates are successful, their reputations
will improve.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
>
> "Garry J. Vass" wrote:
> >
> > <arc...@iconn.net> writes
> > >
> > >No. I did, however, think that Garry was being sarcastic, and that
> > >reminded me of how polys were regarded in the UK. My question not
> > >really directed at you or Garry - particularly since you are both
> > >Americans, and so might not be aware of the image that polytechnics
> > >had in the UK.
> > >
> > Hi Fran,
> >
> > I promise I wasn't being sarcastic. We truly have some most excellent
> > posters from universities like, for example, Portsmouth and Oxford
> > Brookes (sp?). Who I think the world of.
> >
> > As to the general notion that polys are sneerable, I can't add much
> > information except that it seems to be the case. We don't milk-round
> > them except in places like Bristol where there happens to be one anyway.
> > Durham, Sheffield, Glasgow, and the like seem more desirable. There is
> > also an epithet, 'poly-boy', which one hears from time to time.
> >
> > Of course seeing 'Skateboarding' on the curriculum of the University of
> > the West of England doesn't help either...
> >
> Don't fret, Garry, *I* knew you weren't being sarcastic (and the
> spelling is fine, BTW). No need to leap to our defence, we're made of
> tough stuff in the 'new' university sector. Some of us are rather sorry
> that we lost the polytechnic name as it signified a more vocationally
> biased higher education. Our students get quite good jobs though - they
> gate-crash the milk round sessions at the other university down the
> hill....
>
I think it's a matter of time and experience. When I was an
undergraduate at the University of Birmingham, there was some
upstart place in Aston that had started calling itself a university.
We dismissed it as "Aston Tech".
Now, I'm sure, students at the University of Aston probably look
down on some of those new universities.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
>
> In article <aK50KHAZ...@gvass.demon.co.uk>,
> >posters from universities like, for example, Portsmouth and Oxford
> >Brookes (sp?). Who I think the world of.
> >
> >As to the general notion that polys are sneerable, I can't add much
> >information except that it seems to be the case. We don't milk-round
> >them except in places like Bristol where there happens to be one anyway.
> >Durham, Sheffield, Glasgow, and the like seem more desirable. There is
> >also an epithet, 'poly-boy', which one hears from time to time.
>
> Donna, I think you are right that there aren't any Polys any more that are not
> Universities).
>
I think hat some of the new universities were not polytechnics,
though. I know that I was surprised to hear of a University of Derby
- I think it is what used to be called Derby College of Further
Education.
> On the whole, and with many exceptions, the academic hurdles you have to jump
> to get into the "new Universities" are lower than those for the top-ranking
> older Universities. But there's lots of overlap, and for some courses certain
> ex-Polys are undoubtedly better than many older Universities. Those who sneer
> indiscriminately are missing a great deal.
>
Perhaps there is some advantage in being a new institution, and
being able to plough a new furrow. I have noticed that in
archaeology, for instance, Bournemouth University is very highly
regarded, for its innovative programmes. Sometimes the weight of
tradition crushes new ideas.
Fran
By the way, what is Polytechnic of Central London called now?
Richard Rose
>> Of course seeing 'Skateboarding' on the curriculum of the University of
>> the West of England doesn't help either...
>>
"Brewing and Scandinavian Studies". 1998 UCAS handbook, I forget which
university.
> Your reference to "Skateboarding" reminds me that I saw "Rodeo" as
> an option at a community college in Montana, including, "Calfroping
> 101". The mind fairly boggled at that.
What is "Calfroping"?
rik.
Schainbaum, Robert
You maintain that there was ambiguity about the status of the question? You deny
that you've chosen to construe it as ambiguous for the sake of attacking my
person?
For no other reason but to express your irrelevant malice towards me, which is
completely reciprocated, I am accused of being incurious of learning and
misanthropic.
Not for you to judge, Bobbo. Though I will admit that I'd rather be chums with
Mr. Klingon than yourself. His attacks are amusing. Your attacks put me to
sleep.
ZZZZzzzzzz.......
/r
Frances Kemmish
I suppose that should be "Calf-roping".
Fran
Rowan Dingle
alt.usage.english:
>You maintain that there was ambiguity about the status of the question? You
>deny
>that you've chosen to construe it as ambiguous for the sake of attacking my
>person?
>
>For no other reason but to express your irrelevant malice towards me, which is
>completely reciprocated, I am accused of being incurious of learning and
>misanthropic.
>
>Not for you to judge, Bobbo. Though I will admit that I'd rather be chums with
>Mr. Klingon than yourself. His attacks are amusing. Your attacks put me to
>sleep.
>
>ZZZZzzzzzz.......
>
>/r
>
>
You're drunk, therefore off-limits.
--
Renal Wongdi
Skitt
Richard Rose <fire...@bits.bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:FoG1r...@bath.ac.uk...
> In uk.culture.language.english Frances Kemmish <arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
> >> Of course seeing 'Skateboarding' on the curriculum of the University of
> >> the West of England doesn't help either...
> >>
>
> "Brewing and Scandinavian Studies". 1998 UCAS handbook, I forget which
> university.
>
> > Your reference to "Skateboarding" reminds me that I saw "Rodeo" as
> > an option at a community college in Montana, including, "Calfroping
> > 101". The mind fairly boggled at that.
>
> What is "Calfroping"?
Froping in California, of course.
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://i.am/skitt/
... information is gushing toward your brain like a fire hose aimed
at a teacup. -- Dogbert
Schainbaum, Robert
> Schainbaum, Robert <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote in
> alt.usage.english:
>
> >
> >ZZZZzzzzzz.......
> >
> >/r
> >
> >
>
> You're drunk, therefore off-limits.
>
Pissed? No. Just a bit sleepy. Thought we wuz gonna be fwiends now. Completely
misperceived, in my relative innocence and after candid revelation of your status as
MA (Cantab), that you were still lurking about in attack dog mode.
/r
Noah Claypole
news:38820002...@DRAGONspira.u-net.com...
>
>
> "Garry J. Vass" wrote:
> >
> > In article <3881EB2C...@iconn.net>, Frances Kemmish
> > <arc...@iconn.net> writes
> > >
> > >No. I did, however, think that Garry was being sarcastic, and that
> > >reminded me of how polys were regarded in the UK. My question not
> > >really directed at you or Garry - particularly since you are both
> > >Americans, and so might not be aware of the image that polytechnics
> > >had in the UK.
> > >
> > Hi Fran,
> >
> > posters from universities like, for example, Portsmouth and Oxford
> > Brookes (sp?). Who I think the world of.
> >
> > As to the general notion that polys are sneerable, I can't add much
> > information except that it seems to be the case. We don't milk-round
> > them except in places like Bristol where there happens to be one anyway.
> > Durham, Sheffield, Glasgow, and the like seem more desirable. There is
> > also an epithet, 'poly-boy', which one hears from time to time.
> >
> > the West of England doesn't help either...
> >
> spelling is fine, BTW). No need to leap to our defence, we're made of
> tough stuff in the 'new' university sector. Some of us are rather sorry
> that we lost the polytechnic name as it signified a more vocationally
> biased higher education. Our students get quite good jobs though - they
> gate-crash the milk round sessions at the other university down the
> hill....
>
> --
I'm more interested in seeing your new "Order of Saint Marylebone" award.
Congradulations, Dame Laura!
Richard Rose
>> > an option at a community college in Montana, including, "Calfroping
>> > 101". The mind fairly boggled at that.
>>
>> What is "Calfroping"?
>>
> I suppose that should be "Calf-roping".
Awh. That's far more boring than I was expecting.
rik.
ChenHA
Frances Kemmish wrote:
> By the way, what is Polytechnic of Central London called now?
That must be the University of Westminster.
ChenHA
Laura F Spira wrote:
> And which circles would those be?
>
Certain Oxford types and some in other more established universities of course.
Brian J Goggin
<Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>Oi. Of *course* there are rings for these sorts of things. Quite
>commonplace. Treasures. Family heirlooms in Leftpondia and all that.
>School crest, motto, Oi.
>GJV <--- (clickety, click, click, AHA!)
>http://www.jostens.com/highschool/rings/heritage/
>http://www.artcarved.com/college/west_point.html
>There you go, Brian.
Gorblimey.
And, er, do many people ... you know, wear these rings?
In public?
>Noting that it's Sunday, what did you cook for din-din?
Ate out today: Small Daughter returns to school tomorrow.
bjg
Frances Kemmish
Thanks; I'll try that name.
Fran
Garry J. Vass
>
>
>Frances Kemmish wrote:
>
>> By the way, what is Polytechnic of Central London called now?
>
>That must be the University of Westminster.
>
Just as a side-note, lots of people might wonder about that strange
pillbox-type building near the corner of Marylebone Road and Baker
Street (London W1), across the street from the wax museum (which, by the
way, drew more visitors than Buckingham Palace last year).
That strange little building houses the University of Westminster's "Air
Quality" station. Every week, under the aegis of the University of
Westminster, there is a new graph posted about the pollution in the
general area of Marylebone Road.
As a member of both the Saint Marylebone and Marylebone Societies, I'm
quite pleased about this service.
A tip of the hat to the University of Westminster!
--
Garry J. Vass
DJC
<arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
>By the way, what is Polytechnic of Central London called now?
University of Westminster. (i did a masters there)
Pity to have changed it in my opinion, as PCL it was considerably
older than the old "new" universitys (eg Warwick) older in fact than
most of the redbricks. If Polytechnic is a word with high status
elsewhere (France etc) why not have the courage to stick with it and
build on a real reputation rather than the increasingly worthless term
"university"?
--
Replies to the address above will be presumed spam.
Any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, worth
my attention should be capable of finding me at:
David Clark,Uni.Warwick, England
Frances Kemmish
>
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:41:24 -0500, Frances Kemmish
> <arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
>
> >By the way, what is Polytechnic of Central London called now?
>
> University of Westminster. (i did a masters there)
>
I have just looked at the website for University of Westminster, and
it is indeed what used to be called PCL. I did a DMS there in the
early seventies.
> Pity to have changed it in my opinion, as PCL it was considerably
> older than the old "new" universitys (eg Warwick) older in fact than
> most of the redbricks. If Polytechnic is a word with high status
> elsewhere (France etc) why not have the courage to stick with it and
> build on a real reputation rather than the increasingly worthless term
> "university"?
>
Not to disagree with your general sentiment here, but it was only
PCL from about 1970, I think. Before that it was Regent Street
Polytechnic, and before that, who knows what else.
According to the website's history page, though, it was the first
Polytechnic. I agree they should have retained "Polytechnic" in the
name.
Fran
Garry J. Vass
<b...@wordwrights.ie> writes
>
>And, er, do many people ... you know, wear these rings?
>
Blimey. Just to be Totally Official, I just went to check my wrist-
clutch (or whatever those faggoty things are that one carries strapped
to one's wrist on the continent are called). There's one ring each for
the Naval Academy, George Washington, and Heidelburg. Quite distracted
that my East Carolina ring has gone missing... Damn.
Anyway, I can't speak for 'many people'. But *I* wear them when not in
the UK. And that accounts for at least a *portion* of 'many people'.
I'll wear one to the next boink. Which is, I think, on the High Street
in Manchester...
>
>Ate out today: Small Daughter returns to school tomorrow.
>
Daughters. Aren't daughters wonderful? Probably who nicked my class
ring... But all said and done, aren't daughters a most excellent breed
of people?
--
Garry J. Vass
Schainbaum, Robert
> In article <4oa48sgo6u71420oh...@4ax.com>, Brian J Goggin
> <b...@wordwrights.ie> writes
> >
> >And, er, do many people ... you know, wear these rings?
> >
>
> Blimey. Just to be Totally Official, I just went to check my wrist-
> clutch (or whatever those faggoty things are that one carries strapped
> to one's wrist on the continent are called). There's one ring each for
> the Naval Academy, George Washington, and Heidelburg. Quite distracted
> that my East Carolina ring has gone missing... Damn.
I readily understand the USNA ring, which should be worn wherever you are,
but the others were a waste of money. One doesn't wear rings from schools
where graduate degrees were obtained. Most people don't wear undergraduate
rings unless they've attended one of the military academies. Apparently
you leave off the USNA ring and wear rings from other institutions.
Strange.
/r
John Davies
<Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> writes
>Daughters. Aren't daughters wonderful? Probably who nicked my class
>ring... But all said and done, aren't daughters a most excellent breed
>of people?
Amen to that: surpassed only by granddaughters. But as you have
discovered, they do seem to have kleptomaniac tendencies towards their
fathers. With mine it's shirts, which is bearable, and books, which in
anyone else would be unforgivable.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
M.J.Powell
<Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <3881FC87...@iconn.net>, Frances Kemmish
><arc...@iconn.net> writes
>>
>>Since we are at present going through the traumatic experience of
>>helping our son apply to colleges, I am finding it more apparent
>>than usual that I am a foreigner in the US. I don't always recognise
>>that I am making assumptions based on my experience in England,
>>until they are pointed out to me.
>>
>
>in the UK because people think that they are some sort of 'moon rings'
>or 'Age of Aquarius' type jewellery rather than stately and dignified
>class rings. But I do on the continent and New York. And the thing
>that's always surprised me is the length of time it took to find out
>about this embarrassing detail.
We...er...um..well we were just a bit shy about telling you. Sorry.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Brian J Goggin
<Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Blimey. Just to be Totally Official, I just went to check my wrist-
>clutch (or whatever those faggoty things are that one carries strapped
>to one's wrist on the continent are called). [...]
Dogs? Hawks? Policemen?
>Anyway, I can't speak for 'many people'. But *I* wear them when not in
>the UK. And that accounts for at least a *portion* of 'many people'.
Gracious.
Well, there we go.
bjg
Albert Marshall
>>> the West of England doesn't help either...
>>>
>
>university.
>
>> Your reference to "Skateboarding" reminds me that I saw "Rodeo" as
>> 101". The mind fairly boggled at that.
>
>What is "Calfroping"?
>
--
Albert Marshall
Visual Solutions
England
Garry J. Vass
<b...@wordwrights.ie> writes
>
>Dogs? Hawks? Policemen?
>
I'm certain they must have a name, even it's some Italian loan-word (or
- glancing about furtively and dropping to a whisper - Spanish - shhhh).
You know, those little faggoty things one attaches to one's wrist on the
continent, with lots of zippers and what-not. Does anybody know what
the proper name for those things is?
--
Garry J. Vass
Laura Spira
Noah Claypole wrote:
> [..]
>
> I'm more interested in seeing your new "Order of Saint Marylebone" award.
> Congradulations, Dame Laura!
<curtseying>
Thank you, Noah. It is indeed a splendid award as you might expect since it was
designed by the London Boink Convenor who, as we now learn from another branch
of this thread, is deeply into jewellery.
--
Laura
--
Dr.Laura F Spira, BA(Econ) FCA
Accounting Unit Head and Senior Research Fellow
Oxford Brookes University Business School
Wheatley, Oxford OX33 1HX
Richard Tunnicliffe
Is the use of the word 'faggot' really necessary here?
--
Richard Tunnicliffe
Stephen Toogood
<bi...@lostcause.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:41:24 -0500, Frances Kemmish
><arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
>
>>By the way, what is Polytechnic of Central London called now?
>
>University of Westminster. (i did a masters there)
>
>older than the old "new" universitys (eg Warwick) older in fact than
>most of the redbricks. If Polytechnic is a word with high status
>elsewhere (France etc) why not have the courage to stick with it and
>build on a real reputation rather than the increasingly worthless term
>"university"?
>
The old distinction was that university courses were 'academic', while
at polytechnics they were 'vocational'. So a university would have a
department of 'economics', but not one of 'business studies' or
'accountancy'. The overlap came in those areas (chemical engineering for
example) where a clearly vocational purpose involved a particular
academic discipline. Medicine would have been in this area if the
polytechnics had been able to get near it.
The government notion, and successor to the Protestant Work Ethic, was
that academic education was an idle frippery, like literature and so on,
and not likely to increase the GDP, so that the idea had to be promoted
that all higher education was primarily vocational. The universities
weren't about to change their names to polytechnic, so, well, you can
complete the story for yourselves.
The habit of sneering at polytechnics is surely regrettable, but is
derived by curious logic from the idea that making money, or more
accurately, making money by actually trying to do so, is unspeakably
vulgar. Which of course it is.
--
Stephen Toogood
Simon R. Hughes
> In article <86m48s07818fos171...@4ax.com>, Brian J Goggin
> <b...@wordwrights.ie> writes
> >
> >Dogs? Hawks? Policemen?
> >
> I'm certain they must have a name, even it's some Italian loan-word (or
> - glancing about furtively and dropping to a whisper - Spanish - shhhh).
> You know, those little faggoty things one attaches to one's wrist on the
> continent, with lots of zippers and what-not. Does anybody know what
> the proper name for those things is?
Handbags. I don't care if it offends the men who carry them; they
carry handbags.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://sult.8m.com/
<!-- Excuse the quality of my English; I have never learned Latin. -->
Quoting Usenet Articles in Follow-ups -- http://sult.8m.com/quote.html
Brian J Goggin
<ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I get the impression the agenda were the (then) government's.
[...]
Oooh! Look!
The other day, in an effort to dissuade my daughter from saying "data
are" in non-scientific usage, I said "You never see anyone treating
*agenda* as a plural".
>The old distinction was that university courses were 'academic', while
>at polytechnics they were 'vocational'. So a university would have a
>department of 'economics', but not one of 'business studies' or
>'accountancy'. The overlap came in those areas (chemical engineering for
>example) where a clearly vocational purpose involved a particular
>academic discipline. Medicine would have been in this area if the
>polytechnics had been able to get near it.
It was pointed out to me some years ago that (many of) the oldest
university courses were vocational: medicine, theology, law ....
bjg
Anandashankar Mazumdar
shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes) wrote:
> Thus spake Garry J. Vass, Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk:
>> In article <86m48s07818fos171...@4ax.com>, Brian J
>> Goggin <b...@wordwrights.ie> writes
>>> Dogs? Hawks? Policemen?
>> I'm certain they must have a name, even it's some Italian loan-word
>> (or - glancing about furtively and dropping to a whisper - Spanish -
>> shhhh).
Oh, yes, the conspiracy to cover up the Spanish origin of English
words. Now we have proof
>> You know, those little faggoty things one attaches to one's wrist on
>> the continent, with lots of zippers and what-not. Does anybody know
>> what the proper name for those things is?
> Handbags. I don't care if it offends the men who carry them; they
> carry handbags.
Sounds like a purse to me.
Anand
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard Fontana
> The old distinction was that university courses were 'academic', while
> at polytechnics they were 'vocational'. So a university would have a
> department of 'economics', but not one of 'business studies' or
> 'accountancy'. The overlap came in those areas (chemical engineering for
> example) where a clearly vocational purpose involved a particular
> academic discipline. Medicine would have been in this area if the
> polytechnics had been able to get near it.
>
> The government notion, and successor to the Protestant Work Ethic, was
> that academic education was an idle frippery, like literature and so on,
> and not likely to increase the GDP, so that the idea had to be promoted
> that all higher education was primarily vocational. The universities
> weren't about to change their names to polytechnic, so, well, you can
> complete the story for yourselves.
An interesting cultural development has taken place in the United States
during the past twenty years, at least from my perspective. At the
beginning of this time the fact that many otherwise relatively
good universities offered undergraduate majors in "business" and so forth
was, well, something of an embarrassment, at least to a certain segment of
society. Fortunately these universities generally walled off the
"business majors" in their own school within the university, and
many of the better colleges and universities would have nothing to do with
the idea of a business major at all.
It used to be that bright college students would major in some idle
frippery subject, like literature, because it was the right thing
to do. They would, of course, dread those Christmastime family
gatherings when they had to explain to an inquisitive aunt or uncle what
they would "do" with their degree. "What kind of job can you get with
that?" Groan. (Never mind the fact that some of these people would
eventually get MBAs. That's different.)
But nowadays, it seems, you have to explain to teenagers and young
twenty-somethings why you didn't get a degree in some nice vocational
subject. "What kind of job could you have gotten with that?" Groan.
An extraordinary social transformation in attitudes towards
education has taken place. This is nothing short of revolutionary.
The kids have turned into the aunts and uncles. They think they're
cool, but in fact they're hip to be square.
> The habit of sneering at polytechnics is surely regrettable, but is
> derived by curious logic from the idea that making money, or more
> accurately, making money by actually trying to do so, is unspeakably
> vulgar. Which of course it is.
Quite.
Richard
Stephen Toogood
<b...@wordwrights.ie> writes
>It was pointed out to me some years ago that (many of) the oldest
>university courses were vocational: medicine, theology, law ....
>
as vocational. They were all studies, and the fact that graduates might
apply their studies for gain was purely incidental.
As for theology, the number of theology undergraduates who gravitate
towards the priesthood is distinctly small. Many that I know are happily
swilling in the trough of the financial sector. Besides, for some
churches, especially the more extreme evangelical ones, intelligence and
learning are a definite disadvantage.
Type your flame here: [ ]
--
Stephen Toogood
Garry J. Vass
<wadh...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>>You know, those little faggoty things one attaches to one's wrist on the
>
>
it is appalling. Good call, Richard...
On a brighter note, and getting back to the name of the 'thingie' in
question. Simon's assertion (one posting below) that it is an ordinary
'handbag' seems to pretty close to the mark.
Otherwise we're left having to reach across the channel and import
something. A quick poll on the Bloomberg today revealed that the
Germans call it a 'hand tasche', sort of a distant relative to
'attache'.
The French call it a 'pochette', meaning something like 'little pocket'
or 'little pouch'.
And quite delightfully, they have a colourful slang expression for it as
well: 'baise-en-ville'. This turns out to be quite crude, translating
to 'bonk-in-town'. The connection between 'bonk-in-town' and 'man's
handbag' providing ample testimony to the nimble wit of our Gallic
cousins.
--
Garry J. Vass
Lindsay Endell
"Garry J. Vass" <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IxTAkFAx...@gvass.demon.co.uk...
>
> I'll wear one to the next boink. Which is, I think, on the High
Street
> in Manchester...
>
2. Gad, I suppose that means I ought to start thinking about
organising a boink soon.
Anyone over from Leftpondia or other, non-UK, parts soon?
Linz
Lindsay Endell
> Daughters. Aren't daughters wonderful? Probably who nicked my
class
> ring... But all said and done, aren't daughters a most excellent
breed
> of people?
Speaking as one, I would have to agree wholeheartedly to this...
Linz
Frances Kemmish
>
> "Garry J. Vass" <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:IxTAkFAx...@gvass.demon.co.uk...
> >
> Street
> > in Manchester...
> >
> 1. Yes, you'd better! I'd like to see this strange jewellery.
>
> 2. Gad, I suppose that means I ought to start thinking about
> organising a boink soon.
>
> Anyone over from Leftpondia or other, non-UK, parts soon?
>
Well, I'll be over next week, but for only a week, celebrating my
mother's eightieth birthday. Not much notice, or much time, to get
together, I guess.
Fran