In article <06qg8hdiranh41i8d3rmdjb4o9mdg426rm@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 21 May 2022 13:19:45 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 21/05/22 11:48, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 7:30:48 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >
> >>> In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
> >>> cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a
> >>> religious origin.
> >>
> >> I've never seen or heard that phrase. I figured out early on that
> >> "Jeez" has a religious origin, but I was surprised to learn that
> >> "Sheesh" is supposed to have the same origin.
> >
> >That surprises me, too. I have always assumed that "sheesh" was a minced
> >"shit".
> >
> >Google doesn't help. The very first hit says that it was invented by
> >someone on TikTok, and it takes an effort to find the ones that don't
> >mention TikTok. One site traces it from Hebrew ?????????? down through ??????
> >amd Iesus and finally to sheesh. I'd never heard of those earlier steps,
> >and I'm still not convinced about the final step.
>
> I can't provide proof, but I'm sure "sheesh" was commonly used long
> before TikTok came along. Or mobile phones. Or even cordless phones.

It wuz. So wuz Jeez

Janet.

In article <ZV0QShqB1AiiFAxd@wolff.co.uk>,
bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk says...
>
> >but I am somewhat
> >surprised that you feel some item that pertains to another country,
> >even it it doesn't directly affect the UK, gets coverage in the UK.
>
> No, that's not my objection at all. My objection ("puzzle" as I
> characterised it) was that some item that pertains to another country
> was mysteriously elevated above all the other news events in the whole
> wide world to be the principal headline national news item one morning
> above anything that actually affects the BBC's own home country.

Perhaps it's hard to imagine outside UK, but here's how BBC NEWS
operates at home in Britain .

First, the BBC News reports world news headlines

Then, the BBC News reports British news headlines.

Then, the BBC reports UK regional/local news.

Janet

Snidely hat am 21.05.2022 um 08:42 geschrieben:
> Du hattest eine Nase voll?

Definitely not. "Ich habe die Nase voll" (die, not eine) is possible,
but it refers rather to a very unpleasant situation or someone else's
behaviour.

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 21/05/22 16:42, Snidely wrote:
> > Peter Moylan is guilty of <t69g98$mo9$1@dont-email.me> as of 5/20/2022
> > 6:46:12 PM
>
> >> I once embarrassed myself at a meal with a French-speaking family. When
> >> I was offered a second serving, I replied "Non, merci. J'en ai eu assez".
> >>
> >> That "J'en ai eu assez" means literally "I've had enough of it", and
> >> it's just as offensive as the English version can be. Don't say it
> >> (in either language) unless you want to start a fight.
> >
> > Du hattest eine Nase voll?
>
> Thanks, I didn't know that expression. I'd be more likely to say "I've
> had a gut full".

Just like Dutch: 'Ik heb er mijn buik vol van'.
Also in // 'Ik heb er genoeg van' <-> I'm fed up with it'.

Jan

In article <fe2h8h1qg3auhik36mt3hlb55s160bfqi3@4ax.com>, rh@rudhar.com
says...
>
> Sat, 21 May 2022 11:40:04 +1000: Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:
>
> >On 20/05/22 23:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 9:40:54 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> >
> >>> You haven't supported that claim and no native BrE-speakers here
> >>> have confirmed it. The only transpondian difference in
> >>> pronunciation is the shift of the stress from the first (BrE) to
> >>> the second (AmE) syllable.
> >>
> >> The BrE pronunciation is more "authentic"? The stress shift occurred
> >> in AmE?!?!?!?!
> >
> >That's part of a fairly widespread phenomenon. Words of relatively
> >recent French origin tend to acquire final-syllable stress in AmE, but
> >not in BrE. That's because the British, who have much greater exposure
> >to French, are more likely to copy the French pronunciation, while
> >Americans seem to be more susceptible to the myth that French has
> >final-syllable stress.
> >
> >(Exception: it's a mystery to me how the English got their "garridge"
> >pronunciation.)

Not all did. In England, pronunciation of garage is linked to social
class, innit.

Janet

On 21/05/22 22:33, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 21/05/22 16:42, Snidely wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan is guilty of <t69g98$mo9$1@dont-email.me> as of
>>> 5/20/2022 6:46:12 PM
>>
>>>> I once embarrassed myself at a meal with a French-speaking
>>>> family. When I was offered a second serving, I replied "Non,
>>>> merci. J'en ai eu assez".
>>>>
>>>> That "J'en ai eu assez" means literally "I've had enough of
>>>> it", and it's just as offensive as the English version can be.
>>>> Don't say it (in either language) unless you want to start a
>>>> fight.
>>>
>>> Du hattest eine Nase voll?
>>
>> Thanks, I didn't know that expression. I'd be more likely to say
>> "I've had a gut full".
>
> Just like Dutch: 'Ik heb er mijn buik vol van'. Also in // 'Ik heb
> er genoeg van' <-> I'm fed up with it'.

That's another education for me. I didn't know that a Dutch sentence
could end with "van". That's mostly impossible in English, although it's
possible to find exceptions, e.g. "That wasn't what I was thinking of".

Normally such an English sentence would end with "of it". But I guess
that in both Dutch and French that possibility is covered with a pronoun
that necessarily comes before the verb (in French) or the direct object
(in Dutch). English doesn't have such a genitive pronoun. Nor does it
have the dative pronoun that is so common in French.

Now I'm going to have to look up the Anglo-Saxon rules again, because
English definitely used to have genitive and dative forms of pronouns.
The dative forms have collapsed to being identical with the accusative
(as in "Give me a call"), while the genitive forms headed in an entirely
different direction.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Sat, 21 May 2022, at 13:00:39, Janet posted:
>In article <ZV0QShqB1AiiFAxd@wolff.co.uk>,
>bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk says...
>>
>> >but I am somewhat
>> >surprised that you feel some item that pertains to another country,
>> >even it it doesn't directly affect the UK, gets coverage in the UK.
>>
>> No, that's not my objection at all. My objection ("puzzle" as I
>> characterised it) was that some item that pertains to another country
>> was mysteriously elevated above all the other news events in the whole
>> wide world to be the principal headline national news item one morning
>> above anything that actually affects the BBC's own home country.
>
>Perhaps it's hard to imagine outside UK, but here's how BBC NEWS
>operates at home in Britain .
>
> First, the BBC News reports world news headlines
>
> Then, the BBC News reports British news headlines.
>
> Then, the BBC reports UK regional/local news.
>
Not a bad plan, really. Arguably it's a bit elitist, but hey, nothing
wrong with that, as long as BBC income holds up. A difficult question
does remain, which is how those headlines are to be selected from all
other world or British headlines.
--
Paul

On Sat, 21 May 2022 06:29:54 -0400
CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/21/2022 2:41 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>> Peter T. Daniels posted:
> >>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >>>>> It seems to me that 'how' in 'how are you?' is an
> >>>>> interrogative adverb, so any good one-word answer must have
> >>>>> adverbial force.
>
> >>>> Good grief.
>
> >>>> "How are you?" "Poorly." That's considered
> >>>> dialectal/nonstandard.
>
> >>>> "How's the tea?" "Tepidly."
>
> >>> Taste the tea, I pray you, as I pour'd it to you, tepidly on the
> >>> tongue; but if you gulp it, as many of our players do, I had as
> >>> lief the ale-conner quaffed my brew.
>
> >> Brew, brew, brew your pot At one for half-past three.
> > Issat the time already?
> >> Tepidly, tepidly, tepidly, tepidly, Not my cup of tea.
>
> > Whot, no buttered scones?
>
> Not till Wednesday.

Memory failed me; it was honey I was longing for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_There_Honey_Still_for_Tea%3F

And Teatime is anytime, as it's permanently 2:45pm in Grantchester. (Or have they fixed the clock already?)

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Sat, 21 May 2022, at 12:12:11, Janet posted:
>
>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:35:27 AM UTC-6, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> > The laws governing abortion in Ireland (both countries) are far more
>> > relevant to the United Kingdom than those the other side of the
>> > Atlantic, in my judgement. They affect us directly. Has yesterday's
>> > abortion news concerning Northern Ireland hit the BBC bulletins with
>> > such a fanfare yet?
>
> The BBC (and other UK news media) have been reporting NI's abortion
>issues to RUK for years. Because womens' rights are a major issue to
>at least half of their audience.
>
>If you were unaware of that, it's a reflection on yourself rather than
>UK news reports.

If you want to speculate about me and then condemn your suggestions,
that's a reflection on etc etc.
>
>Most of the BBC/ UK /Irish news media audiences have an interest in/
>follow NI politics and governance, perhaps you're also unaware of the
>reasons for that?
>
See above.

I was writing about yesterday's news, not about the last several years.
This was the announcement on 19th May that the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland "will lay regulations that remove the need for the
Department of Health to seek Executive Committee approval to commission
and fund abortion services in Northern Ireland. If the Health Minister
fails to act, the regulations also give the Secretary of State the same
power to put abortion services in place."

I dare say you were not unaware of that, but wouldn't blame you if you
hadn't known, because it may have been poorly reported, not being
American news about a new rumour of suspicion.
--
Paul

On 2022-05-21 00:27, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 19:31:29 -0400
> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 22:50:57 +0100, Paul Wolff
>> <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Where do you draw the line? Should the BBC hold off on stories about
>>>> Monkeypox until there's a reported case in the UK?
>>>>
>>> Too late - we have had twenty of them. But the number of Covid-19 cases,
>>> which I am pretty sure is more than twenty, was strangely not mentioned.
>>
>> I am waiting for Tucker Carlson to report that monkeypox is part of
>> The Great Replacement Theory. He will probably question if monkeys
>> from the Dark Continent are inflicting a pox on the legacy voters in
>> the US. However, with no evidence to support that Carlson is a
>> racist, he is not using "monkey" in *that* sense.
>>
>
> I'll try hard to not be seen as racist here.
>
> Yup, here's the 'but'
>
> Some diseases are transmitted to the human population in Africa by close proximity to and eating monkeys,
> and there's some transmissions that can only be by by *very* close proximity.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2464272/
> NSFW!
>
> Of course eating pangolins is also not such a good move, nor is cramming thousands of chickens into a confined space. Or French Kissing strangers. I mean the way the French do on both cheeks, not oh pass me a bigger shovel.

ObAuE; Found this on that page.

"What kind of relationship did humans and apes really had and still have?"

--
Some people say, contractions in the English language are difficult.
Indeed, they're.

On 21/05/22 16:15, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 20:50:05 +0100 Paul Wolff
> <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 19:48:06, Adam Funk posted:
>>> On 2022-05-19, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 19-May-22 1:42, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> On 19/05/22 02:31, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>> On 18-May-22 1:59, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 01:33:33 +0100, Sam Plusnet
>>>>>>> <not@home.com>
>>
>>>>>> (Of When I'm sixtyfour.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know where "Chuck" came from. It isn't a
>>>>>>>> diminutive form of Charles that I've ever heard in
>>>>>>>> BrE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some here will remember Charles Riggs. While he lived in
>>>>>>> Ireland, he was an American. He had been living in
>>>>>>> Ireland when I first encountered him here in a.u.e.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He posted as "Chuck Riggs" and at other times as "Charles
>>>>>>> Riggs".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/alt.usage.english@googlegroups.com/msg0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
0070.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this thread, he posts as "Chuck", but discusses
>>>>>>> "chuckless Ireland".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://alt.usage.english.narkive.com/r9E9jpWv/literary-bulletin#post2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Fair enough, but is any evidence that Paul McCartney knew of aue when
>>>>>> he wrote the song - in 1967?
>>>>>
>>>>> His choosing that name continues to be a mystery. I would
>>>>> have guessed that Chuck is a name that one almost never
>>>>> encounters in England.
>>>>>
>>>> By 1967 they'd visited the US at least a couple of times. If
>>>> they came across it there, they might have remembered & used it
>>>> simply because of its novelty value.
>>>
>>> Could be. I've never met an English person named or nicknamed
>>> "Chuck".
>>>
>> Nor I (presuming perfect memory). Isn't it just a familiar
>> diminutive, like 'duck', 'ducky', or 'ducks'? Suspect fowl play if
>> you like.
>
> It shure is, ma liddle chickadee. </bad WCFields impersonation>
>
> Awright Hen?

As I recall it, the people of county Mayo (where Charles Riggs went to
live) couldn't adapt to "Chuck" at all. Instead, they called him The
Yank With The Hat.

Health problems subsequently forced him to move to Dún Laoghaire, a
place known for the difficulty of pronouncing its name. (Hint: try dun
leary.) When I was in Dublin I went there to try to track him down, but
I failed.)

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Sat, 21 May 2022, at 01:57:44, Sam Plusnet posted:
>On 20-May-22 20:40, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 19:31:44, Sam Plusnet posted:
>>> On 20-May-22 2:19, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/22 22:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Last night, watching a TV program, two different women said "oh em
>>>>> gee".  The program is a Canadian production set in Toronto.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were mothers at a party for one mother's child's first
>>>>> birthday.
>>>>  Social media - Usenet and its successors - are to blame for this. In
>>>> online discussions it's natural to create abbreviations for common
>>>> phrases. Eventually newcomers arrive who have little or no knowledge of
>>>> the original phrase, and know only the abbreviation.
>>>>  It's very possible that some of the OMG users have no idea that gods
>>>> were originally being invoked.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>> O Krikey?
>
>Was the telegraph the 'social media' of its day?
>
>It certainly 'did' abbreviations - of one sort or another.
>
>"How Old Cary Grant?"
>
"Fine". (We go full circle.)

ObAue: The police here issue fines to people. I like that idea. Back in
the day, the people had to pay the fines, not collect them.
--
Paul

On Sat, 21 May 2022, at 04:27:43, Richard Heathfield posted:
>On 21/05/2022 4:19 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 21/05/22 11:48, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 7:30:48 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>>>> In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
>>>> cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a
>>>> religious origin.
>>>
>>> I've never seen or heard that phrase.  I figured out early on that
>>> "Jeez" has a religious origin, but I was surprised to learn that
>>> "Sheesh" is supposed to have the same origin.
>> That surprises me, too. I have always assumed that "sheesh" was a
>>minced
>> "shit".
>
>Nope, "sheesh" is just "furrfu", ROT-13d.
>
Not many people know that. At least, I know that, and I'm not many.
--
Paul

* Jerry Friedman <212ff004-259f-4fcc-8323-6923d7733f5cn @googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Thu, 19 May 2022 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT):
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:28:31 AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:46:39 AM UTC-4, bvs wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:19:42 PM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 18 May 2022 21:40:42 -0500, (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>
>> > > >It's only in southern California and southern Ontario that main roads
>> > > >get a "the". When you get to the border you're on I-5.
>> >
>> > No, I don't think it's only in those places. I don't know in how
>> > many regions you have driven, but every North American region where
>> > I've driven had roads or highways called "the" something or
>> > another.
>>
>> If they have names. I don't take "the 17" to get onto the NYS Thruway.
>> (That's Route 17, which has the same number as both NJ-17 and NY-17.)
> ...
>
> That's also my experience in Ohio, Illinois, and New Mexico. To visit my
> father, I used to take (I-)271 to (I-)90, or the Shoreway. Here in New Mexico,
> I can take 84/285, the Chama Highway, or 68, the low road to Taos.

I think when I lived in the US i used the definite article when
referring to freeways the eye-five the eye-forty , but no one pulled me
up on it. (prraps politely indulging the non-native)

Even my memory of the lyrics of the memorable "I'm driving down highway
40 in my big ol' pickup" are wrong. I could have sworn i'd heard a "the
40" in the following

https://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/space+ghost/highway+40+brak+feat+freddie+prinze+jr_20631668.html

Sat, 21 May 2022 00:57:47 -0700: Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
scribeva:

>Watch this space, where Ruud Harmsen advised that...
>> Fri, 20 May 2022 10:32:49 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 1:01:21 PM UTC-4, ruudhar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:13:07 PM UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> This morning I heard a silly ad on Youtube, in which an English
>>>>> expression was translated literally. It was wrong, because the same
>>>>> expression exists in Dutch, but slightly different, minus one word.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I wish I could remember what the expression was. But I can't.
>>>>
>>>> Heard it again. It was about an air conditioner.
>>>> "Heeft u genoeg gehad van warme [something]".
>>>>
>>>> The almost identical expressions are:
>>>> English: "I've had enough of it."
>>>
>>> No "of it."
>>
>> Both, say these URLs:
>> https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/have-had-enough-of-something
>> https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+had+enough+of+him
>> And "had enough of him" /her/you etc. googles.
>
>And there's plenty of use of "I've had enough of that!"
>
>>>> Dutch: "Ik heb er genoeg van".
>>>>
>>>> So a correct translation would have left out the "gehad" as the direct
>>>> translation of the English "had". This bad translation, with a human
>>>> voice, pretending to be a computer voice by using a strange intonation
>>>> and a strange rhythm, was word for word. Probably intentionally done
>>>> so badly. To irritate people, or make them laugh (not me), and thereby
>>>> getting more attention.
>
>I'd be inclined, in your last sentence, to include the second "to" ...
>"or to make them laugh". And I might do your parenthetical as "(I
>didn't)".

Yes, good suggestions. If this were from a web article, I'd apply
them. Thanks.

>I don't know if I'd laugh or snort in an equivalent situation. I do
>raise an eyebrow when Speechelo's "Joey" reads his advertising script.
>And a lot of ootoob commercials seem to use "Joey"'s colleagues.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Sat, 21 May 2022 06:24:06 -0400: CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On 5/20/2022 1:32 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> ruudhar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>>>> This morning I heard a silly ad on Youtube, in which an English
>>>> expression was translated literally. It was wrong, because the
>>>> same expression exists in Dutch, but slightly different, minus
>>>> one word.
>
>>>> Now I wish I could remember what the expression was. But I
>>>> can't.
>
>>> Heard it again. It was about an air conditioner. "Heeft u genoeg
>>> gehad van warme [something]".
>
>>> The almost identical expressions are: English: "I've had enough of
>>> it."
>
>> No "of it."
>
>>> Dutch: "Ik heb er genoeg van".
>
>>> So a correct translation would have left out the "gehad" as the
>>> direct translation of the English "had". This bad translation, with
>>> a human voice, pretending to be a computer voice by using a strange
>>> intonation and a strange rhythm, was word for word. Probably
>>> intentionally done so badly. To irritate people, or make them laugh
>>> (not me), and thereby getting more attention.
>
>"... to make them laugh and thereby get ..." or "... to make them laugh,
>thereby getting ...".

Yes, good corrections, thanks. English isn't an easy language to learn
perfectly, being a non-native speaker.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Fri, 20 May 2022 23:42:51 -0700: Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
scribeva:

>Peter Moylan is guilty of <t69g98$mo9$1@dont-email.me> as of 5/20/2022
>6:46:12 PM
>> On 21/05/22 03:01, ruudhar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:13:07 PM UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>>>> This morning I heard a silly ad on Youtube, in which an English
>>>> expression was translated literally. It was wrong, because the same
>>>> expression exists in Dutch, but slightly different, minus one
>>>> word.
>>>>
>>>> Now I wish I could remember what the expression was. But I can't.
>>>
>>> Heard it again. It was about an air conditioner. "Heeft u genoeg
>>> gehad van warme [something]".
>>>
>>> The almost identical expressions are: English: "I've had enough of
>>> it." Dutch: "Ik heb er genoeg van".
>>>
>>> So a correct translation would have left out the "gehad" as the
>>> direct translation of the English "had". This bad translation, with
>>> a human voice, pretending to be a computer voice by using a strange
>>> intonation and a strange rhythm, was word for word. Probably
>>> intentionally done so badly. To irritate people, or make them laugh
>>> (not me), and thereby getting more attention.
>>
>> I once embarrassed myself at a meal with a French-speaking family. When
>> I was offered a second serving, I replied "Non, merci. J'en ai eu assez".
>>
>> That "J'en ai eu assez" means literally "I've had enough of it", and
>> it's just as offensive as the English version can be. Don't say it
>> (in either language) unless you want to start a fight.
>
>Du hattest eine Nase voll?

I think the expression is "[...] die Nase [davon] voll". But my German
is just as non-native as my English.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:05:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022, at 06:41:27, Peter T. Daniels posted:
> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 2:53:21 PM UTC-6, Paul Wolff wrote:

> >> > It seems to me that 'how' in 'how are you?' is an interrogative adverb,
> >> > so any good one-word answer must have adverbial force.
> >> But they don't. All of those answers are adjectives. (Some of them,
> >> such as "well", "ill", and "poorly" (rare in my country) look like adverbs,
> >> but the OED classifies them as adjectives in the senses we're talking
> >> about, which I think is right.
> >> On the other hand, it classifies "how" as an adverb, which I think is
> >> wrong.
> >It would be a good place to look for what it thinks "adverb" means!
> >OED does a truly lousy job with "grapheme" -- the definition it offers
> >doesn't even cover the examples it gives. There's a paragraph about
> >it in my book.

(My point having been that OED may not be a good place to look up
technical terminology in linguistics.)

> Forgive me, but I had to smile here. I'm very interested in graphene, so
> much so that I don't need the OED to define it for me. Or was that not a
> typo, but something else? A graphic meme, perhaps. And I'm still smiling
> to myself at the thought.

-eme is, or has been, a productive suffix in linguistics.

You've probably heard of phoneme, maybe even of morpheme. There
are others.

Graphene might have something to do with buckyballs?

On Sat, 21 May 2022 23:56:51 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>As I recall it, the people of county Mayo (where Charles Riggs went to
>live) couldn't adapt to "Chuck" at all. Instead, they called him The
>Yank With The Hat.
>
>Health problems subsequently forced him to move to Dún Laoghaire, a
>place known for the difficulty of pronouncing its name. (Hint: try dun
>leary.) When I was in Dublin I went there to try to track him down, but
>I failed.)

We figured out that our destination was pronounced "dun leary" on the
ferry over from Wales. A later problem was finding something on a
Dublin map that didn't seem to any such places.

If forget what it was we were looking for, but the word "key" was in
the spoken directions. No "keys" in Dublin, but there are "quays".
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:15:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022, at 06:31:20, Peter T. Daniels posted:
> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:53:21 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022, at 10:29:46, CDB posted:
> >> >On 5/18/2022 9:41 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> >> Hibou wrote:
> >> >>> Hibou a écrit :

> >> >>>> But it's true that I haven't answered the question about why
> >> >>>> 'fine' is an adverb in this context. The exchange "How are you?"
> >> >>>> "Fine" is abbreviated, and in full would be "How are you doing?"
> >> >>>> "I am doing fine." 'Fine' qualifies 'am doing' and is therefore
> >> >>>> an adverb. When an American replies "Good", that is a non
> >> >>>> sequitur. "I am doing good" means that one is working to improve
> >> >>>> the world, and does not answer the question "How are you doing?"
> >> >>> So I did make a mistake, but not about 'fine'. 'Good' here is a
> >> >>> noun, not an adjective.
> >> >> Good grief.
> >> >owls are so obsessed with categories, you'd think they were mice.
> >> >I believe what Peter meant by "good grief" is that "good" is an
> >> >adjective in that phrase and also in an American response to "howya
> >> >doin'?": in that case, it's an adjective in adverbial use.
> >> It seems to me that 'how' in 'how are you?' is an interrogative adverb,
> >> so any good one-word answer must have adverbial force.
> >Good grief.
> >"How are you?" "Poorly." That's considered dialectal/nonstandard.
> >"How's the tea?" "Tepidly."
>
> Taste the tea, I pray you, as I pour'd it to you, tepidly on the tongue;
> but if you gulp it, as many of our players do, I had as lief
> the ale-conner quaffed my brew.

:-)

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 May 2022 06:29:54 -0400
> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/21/2022 2:41 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Paul Wolff wrote:
> > >>> Peter T. Daniels posted:
> > >>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
> > >> ...
> >
> > >>>>> It seems to me that 'how' in 'how are you?' is an
> > >>>>> interrogative adverb, so any good one-word answer must have
> > >>>>> adverbial force.
> >
> > >>>> Good grief.
> >
> > >>>> "How are you?" "Poorly." That's considered
> > >>>> dialectal/nonstandard.
> >
> > >>>> "How's the tea?" "Tepidly."
> >
> > >>> Taste the tea, I pray you, as I pour'd it to you, tepidly on the
> > >>> tongue; but if you gulp it, as many of our players do, I had as
> > >>> lief the ale-conner quaffed my brew.
> >
> > >> Brew, brew, brew your pot At one for half-past three.
> > > Issat the time already?
> > >> Tepidly, tepidly, tepidly, tepidly, Not my cup of tea.
> >
> > > Whot, no buttered scones?
> >
> > Not till Wednesday.
>
> Memory failed me; it was honey I was longing for.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_There_Honey_Still_for_Tea%3F
>
> And Teatime is anytime, as it's permanently 2:45pm in Grantchester.
> (Or have they fixed the clock already?)

"I want a clean cup," interrupted the Hatter:
"let's all move one place on."

--
^Ï^ Slava Ukraini

My pet rock Gordon just is.

Sat, 21 May 2022 23:13:42 +1000: Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:

>On 21/05/22 22:33, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Just like Dutch: 'Ik heb er mijn buik vol van'. Also in // 'Ik heb
>> er genoeg van' <-> I'm fed up with it'.
>
>That's another education for me. I didn't know that a Dutch sentence
>could end with "van". That's mostly impossible in English, although it's
>possible to find exceptions, e.g. "That wasn't what I was thinking of".

That's the wonders of this o-so-difficult Dutch wordlet "er". Without
it, you'd get "*Ik heb mijn buik vol van dat", similar to English. But
fact, that is ungrammatical (hence my asterisk), because "van dat"
needs to be replaced by "daarvan" (similar to English "thereof"). So:

Ik heb mijn buik vol daarvan.
=> better ordering:
Ik heb mijn buik daarvan vol.
=> with reduction of "daar" to "er" (pronounced "d'r")
Ik heb mijn buik ervan vol.
=> More native ordering
Ik heb mijn buik er vol van.
=> or
Ik heb er mijn buik vol van.
And so we're back at Jan Lodder's original sentence.

Also possible:
Ik heb er mijn buik van vol.

>Normally such an English sentence would end with "of it". But I guess
>that in both Dutch and French that possibility is covered with a pronoun
>that necessarily comes before the verb (in French) or the direct object
>(in Dutch). English doesn't have such a genitive pronoun. Nor does it
>have the dative pronoun that is so common in French.

I don't know if "er" is a pronoun, probably more like an adverb. But
otherwise: yes, it can have that function.

>Now I'm going to have to look up the Anglo-Saxon rules again, because
>English definitely used to have genitive and dative forms of pronouns.
>The dative forms have collapsed to being identical with the accusative
>(as in "Give me a call"), while the genitive forms headed in an entirely
>different direction.

In Dutch, genitives are only still used in archaic and Biblical
expressions. Zondag is de dag des Heeren = Sunday is the day of the
Lord. Also in modern derivations thereof ('s morgens < des morgens =
in the morgen, in the morning).

There is no formal difference between dative and accusative, except in
the distinction between "hun" (dative plural) and "hen" (accusative
plural), which was already artificial when it was invented in the 16th
or 17th century.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:32:42 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 13:09:44, Jerry Friedman posted:
> >On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:35:27 AM UTC-6, Paul Wolff wrote:

> >> I'm interested in ethical issues anywhere. Take a world view, and see
> >> where the stories are coming from. The reporting is grossly unbalanced.
> >> I thought it wholly disproportionate for the question whether abortion
> >> falls under the Constitution or under State law in the USA to be
> >> promoted to the top item of news locally in Britain.
> >Well, in practical terms, it means abortion will become illegal, always or
> >almost always, in eleven states as soon as the decision is announced,
> >and in another fifteen or so shortly afterwards, IIRC.
>
> So between a quarter and a half of all US states will join how many
> other states worldwide where that is currently true? [Rhetorical
> question for effect, not for the answer, which actually I do not know,
> but I suspect it's not the number anyone first thinks of.]
>
> Looking at it another way, which wasn't even mentioned in the BBC news,
> our liberal western democratic values ought to applaud democracy in
> action, should they not? Or should we stamp on democracy when it makes
> the wrong decision. Tricky one, that. I offer N. Ireland in evidence.

In the latest (NPR/PBS/NORC) poll, 64% of Americans say that abortion
should be legal in all or most cases. [NORC is the National Opinion Research
Center, a U of Chicago outfit]

The problem is that (I think this is how a senator put it on one of the Sunday
shows last week) 75% of the senators represent 44% of the people.

> >> And it's still undecided, by the way.
> >It's now clear how the decision will go.
>
> We've been spared the updates, thank goodness.

No "updates." The decision will be announced at the end of June or the
beginning of July -- they always save the biggest ones for last. We don't
know how much of Alito's venom had already been taken out between
the writing in February and the publication in May. Or in what way the
public reaction will influence any further changes.

On 21/05/22 19:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 21/05/2022 10:43 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 23:33:00 -0700
>> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Chrome also has that feature. I think that among some other browsers,
>>> less well known, that might be offered as the default.
>>>
>> Iron is Chrome without the google bits;
>
> ...but two extra protons and two extra neutrons.

but not as morons as Chrome.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Sat, 21 May 2022 07:32:51 +0100: "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
scribeva:

>On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:55:44 -0700
>Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Wolff wrote on 5/20/2022 :
>>
>> > And I don't believe that /any/ cookies can truly be
>> > "strictly necessary" in order to show a simple web page. But I respect
>> > Amnesty International's ethos.

Cookies are only technically necessary to remember logins. And most
sites don't need a login. So then they're not necessary.

The only cookies I use on my site are:
- To remember a color preference (weird or boring).
- To remember button presets in https://rudhar.com/nlia .
Those in my opinion are legimate uses, even in the EU under the GDPR,
for which asking permission is unnecessary. So I don't.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com