On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 16:33:11, Tony Cooper posted:
>On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:02:37 +0100, Paul Wolff
>>On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 10:31:21, Peter T. Daniels posted:
>>>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:35:27 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 16:50:14, Janet posted:
>>>
>>>> > The BBC (and other UK news media) report US Abortion issues to
>>>> >Britain, for the same reason they report on the fate of girls schools in
>>>> >Afghanistan and loss of womens' rights in Iran. Because at least half
>>>> >the UK audience has a personal interest in the emancipation of women.
>>>> >
>>>> 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. And it's still
>>>> undecided, by the way.
>>>
>>>It's not interesting that the residents of half the states will no longer
>>>have access to abortion? That those who need it will have to travel
>>>hundreds at least, in some cases thousands of miles for care?
>>
>>First of all, that's not actually what happened, which was that someone
>>unidentified sent a preliminary draft of an opinion to the mass media.
>>
>>As to the question itself, isn't that already the case the world over?
>>Why should it suddenly be the principal headline news one morning in
>>Britain?
>
>I have made my case on this in another post,

Yes, thank you, but I had little reason to follow up. You were being too
sensible for me to want to add anything.

>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.
>
>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.
--
Paul

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:
>> > 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.
>> 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.

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.
--
Paul

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.
--
Paul

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:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 16:50:14, Janet posted:
>> >> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A recent puzzle was why the BBC promoted to its No. 1 news item some
>> >> >> weeks ago a leaked draft judgement of the American Supreme
>> >> >>Court on the
>> >> >> matter of whether abortion was covered by their constitution. I mean -
>> >> >> as a British news headline, that's got everything wrong with it.
>> >> >> Foreign, underhand provenance, irrelevant to British interests.
>
>If the British media avoid stories of underhand provenance, they're very
>different from all the American media I know about.

Don't panic. They go so far as to report political speeches before they
have even been made. Their insight is truly amazing. Why, sometimes it
seems as if the morning news is much like the day's weather forecast:
so-and-so will do this today, Jack-in-office will say that.
>...
>> > The BBC (and other UK news media) report US Abortion issues to
>> >Britain, for the same reason they report on the fate of girls schools in
>> >Afghanistan and loss of womens' rights in Iran. Because at least half
>> >the UK audience has a personal interest in the emancipation of women.
>> >
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>But I'm not arguing about what stories the British media should emphasize
>and how much.
>
>> 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? If it did, I missed it. Amnesty International
>> didn't:
>>
>> <https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/northern-ireland-westminster-
>> steps-deliver-abortion-services>
--
Paul

* CDB:

> On 5/19/2022 5:51 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>> CDB:
>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>> CDB:
>
>>> [Veras]
>
>>>>> And who can forget the beautiful Vera Hruba Ralston?
>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whslTp-Oe7g
>
>>>> Not me, since I never knew her in the first place.
>
> Me neither, but I have remembered that name for many years.
>
>>> How about the ever-popular Mae Busch?
>
>> Since she played in Laurel & Hardy movies, I've certainly seen her,
>> but didn't remember her name. The secondary characters in those
>> movies tend to not have a lot of personality.
>
>> I didn't recognize any other movie titles. What do you remember her
>> for?
>
> Mostly for being a stock line of Jackie Gleason's on '50s television,
> with "Busch" pronounced "boosh" [buS].

Well, another unfamiliar name. You had to be there, I guess.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

Friday, Paul Wolff murmurred ...
> 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:
>>> > 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.
>>> 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.
>
> 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.

Not a typo, a different word. You read of phonemes here, which are
sound pieces of a word (very roughly, syllables as spoken). Do you not
see that "grapheme" is a corresponding word referring to writing?

/dps "graphemes, mmmmm, lucious"

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

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.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On Fri, 20 May 2022 22:50:57 +0100, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 16:33:11, Tony Cooper posted:
>>On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:02:37 +0100, Paul Wolff
>>>On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 10:31:21, Peter T. Daniels posted:
>>>>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:35:27 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 16:50:14, Janet posted:
>>>>
>>>>> > The BBC (and other UK news media) report US Abortion issues to
>>>>> >Britain, for the same reason they report on the fate of girls schools in
>>>>> >Afghanistan and loss of womens' rights in Iran. Because at least half
>>>>> >the UK audience has a personal interest in the emancipation of women.
>>>>> >
>>>>> 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. And it's still
>>>>> undecided, by the way.
>>>>
>>>>It's not interesting that the residents of half the states will no longer
>>>>have access to abortion? That those who need it will have to travel
>>>>hundreds at least, in some cases thousands of miles for care?
>>>
>>>First of all, that's not actually what happened, which was that someone
>>>unidentified sent a preliminary draft of an opinion to the mass media.
>>>
>>>As to the question itself, isn't that already the case the world over?
>>>Why should it suddenly be the principal headline news one morning in
>>>Britain?
>>
>>I have made my case on this in another post,
>
>Yes, thank you, but I had little reason to follow up. You were being too
>sensible for me to want to add anything.
>
>>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.

I would imagine that many Americans shared that kind of puzzlement
when Diana and Chuck got married in 1981.

It may surprise you that when Chuck married his bit-on-the-side in
April of 2005, that the wedding displaced the news in the US that the
Patent Law Treaty (2000) took effect that month, but sometimes our
priorities are not what you think they should be.

Almost 6 years later to the day, American newspapers and television
news led with the news of Kate and Will's special day at Westminster
Abbey. Well, except for the ones who featured sister Pippa's
derrière.

There was a more legitimate reason for the US media to put the story
of Harry and Meghan above the fold. The now Duchess of Sussex is an
American actress who appeared in the television show "Suits". "Suits",
by the way, was not a show about the bespoke gentleman's attire trade.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 4:32:42 PM UTC-6, 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:
> >> On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 16:50:14, Janet posted:
> >> >> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> A recent puzzle was why the BBC promoted to its No. 1 news item some
> >> >> >> weeks ago a leaked draft judgement of the American Supreme
> >> >> >>Court on the
> >> >> >> matter of whether abortion was covered by their constitution. I mean -
> >> >> >> as a British news headline, that's got everything wrong with it.
> >> >> >> Foreign, underhand provenance, irrelevant to British interests.
> >
> >If the British media avoid stories of underhand provenance, they're very
> >different from all the American media I know about.
> Don't panic. They go so far as to report political speeches before they
> have even been made. Their insight is truly amazing. Why, sometimes it
> seems as if the morning news is much like the day's weather forecast:
> so-and-so will do this today, Jack-in-office will say that.
....

Whew!

> >> > The BBC (and other UK news media) report US Abortion issues to
> >> >Britain, for the same reason they report on the fate of girls schools in
> >> >Afghanistan and loss of womens' rights in Iran. Because at least half
> >> >the UK audience has a personal interest in the emancipation of women.
> >> >
> >> 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.]

Certainly an interesting way to look at it. I was just pointing out that
the matter wasn't as academic as it sounded in your summary.

> 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.

I didn't hear much coverage, but what I did hear didn't address that question--
whether the majority has the right to prevent a minority that's a majority
in certain jurisdictions to restrict individual rights in those jurisdictions. It
also didn't address the Constitutional question, which is what the decision
will supposedly be based on.

> >> 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.
....

I mean those reports made it clear--though it had been 95% clear for almost
two years.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 5:22:08 PM UTC-6, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> Friday, Paul Wolff murmurred ...
> > On Thu, 19 May 2022, at 06:41:27, Peter T. Daniels posted:
....

> >>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.
> >
> > 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.

> Not a typo, a different word. You read of phonemes here, which are
> sound pieces of a word (very roughly, syllables as spoken).

The linguists will be along soon, but that would be less rough if you'd
said "sounds" instead of "syllables".

> Do you not
> see that "grapheme" is a corresponding word referring to writing?

I actually wouldn't mind a bit of discussion of graphemes, to the extent
that they exist.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 21/05/2022 12:54 am, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 4:32:42 PM UTC-6, 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:
>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 16:50:14, Janet posted:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 5:13:22 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A recent puzzle was why the BBC promoted to its No. 1 news item some
>>>>>>>> weeks ago a leaked draft judgement of the American Supreme
>>>>>>>> Court on the
>>>>>>>> matter of whether abortion was covered by their constitution. I mean -
>>>>>>>> as a British news headline, that's got everything wrong with it.
>>>>>>>> Foreign, underhand provenance, irrelevant to British interests.
>>>
>>> If the British media avoid stories of underhand provenance, they're very
>>> different from all the American media I know about.
>> Don't panic. They go so far as to report political speeches before they
>> have even been made. Their insight is truly amazing. Why, sometimes it
>> seems as if the morning news is much like the day's weather forecast:
>> so-and-so will do this today, Jack-in-office will say that.
> ...
>
> Whew!
>
>>>>> The BBC (and other UK news media) report US Abortion issues to
>>>>> Britain, for the same reason they report on the fate of girls schools in
>>>>> Afghanistan and loss of womens' rights in Iran. Because at least half
>>>>> the UK audience has a personal interest in the emancipation of women.
>>>>>
>>>> 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.]
>
> Certainly an interesting way to look at it. I was just pointing out that
> the matter wasn't as academic as it sounded in your summary.
>
>> 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.
>
> I didn't hear much coverage, but what I did hear didn't address that question--
> whether the majority has the right to prevent a minority that's a majority
> in certain jurisdictions to restrict individual rights in those jurisdictions. It
> also didn't address the Constitutional question, which is what the decision
> will supposedly be based on.

Should we then also consider whether the majority has or has not
the right to prevent honour killings, FGM, and the like in areas
where these crimes may well have majority support? Should not the
law's protection extend to the most vulnerable in the very
jurisdictions where they are most at risk?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 4:15:39 PM UTC-6, 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:
....
> >> 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.
Tepidly, tepidly, tepidly, tepidly,
Not my cup of tea.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 11:52:22 PM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 22:01:36 +0100
> Paul Wolff <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > A recent puzzle was why the BBC promoted to its No. 1 news item some
> > weeks ago a leaked draft judgement of the American Supreme Court on the
> > matter of whether abortion was covered by their constitution. I mean -
> > as a British news headline, that's got everything wrong with it.

> > Foreign, underhand provenance, irrelevant to British interests. Would
> > they report a leaked draft ruling of Iranian mullahs on the same subject
> > in the Iranian constitution? No, of course they wouldn't.

> Indeed.

I saw it for what it was: a strong signal that, after about 60 years of women's rights
being broadened throughout the western world, the U.S. Supreme Court is
signalling that it is of a mind to restrict them in the near future. That is and should
be world-wide news, and the millions of women and men who marched for the right
of women to have access to abortion on demand should be checking to see whether
their marching shoes are in good condition.

The suggestion that this is "irrelevant to British interests" is shortsighted "indeed".
You may want to think about this when the marches reach London. I hope you'll
show up to support women's rights when the time comes, but your judgment that
this is "irrelevant" -- along with other women's rights, I presume -- is discouraging.

bill

On 21/05/2022 1:00 am, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 5:22:08 PM UTC-6, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Friday, Paul Wolff murmurred ...
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022, at 06:41:27, Peter T. Daniels posted:
> ...
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>> Not a typo, a different word. You read of phonemes here, which are
>> sound pieces of a word (very roughly, syllables as spoken).
>
> The linguists will be along soon, but that would be less rough if you'd
> said "sounds" instead of "syllables".
>
>> Do you not
>> see that "grapheme" is a corresponding word referring to writing?
>
> I actually wouldn't mind a bit of discussion of graphemes, to the extent
> that they exist.

Thus quoth Wiktionary: "In linguistics, a grapheme is the
smallest functional unit of a writing system."

So for English that'd be the full stop.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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.

It is often true that a /single/ webpage can be shown without the use
of cookies, but most sites expect you to examine more than one webpage
during a visit. Things that directly effect your viewing of the
subsequent pages, such as language settings and other preferences, then
become cookie batter. Then again, some toolsets for building and
deploying the webpage source may expect cookie values to be obtainable.
Rewriting the page to not use those toolsets is probably more
expensive than its value warrants, and would also slow loading of the
page; this can be noticeable even at giganet speeds, and may require
you to login for every page of your account.

Of course, it is difficult for an outside observer to judge the
necessity for cookie values in detail, because cookies are typically
encrypted to avoid the purloining of the information by third parties.
That also makes it possible to mask the information from the client,
depending on the developer tools the client has.

/dps

--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>

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?"

--
Sam Plusnet

On 20-May-22 21:46, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Windows users (of which PTD is one) can easily delete all cookies at
> any time. I know people who delete all cookies after every online
> session. I sometimes do, but clearing cookies also clears the
> browser history and saved passwords. I don't consider that a problem
> because my passwords are stored in a password manager, and I seldom
> need to refer to my browser history.

Where I visit a website fairly often, I usually find cookies to be
convenient.

When accessing a website on a one-off basis, I do so in a "private
window" and accept any cookies it may care to to throw at my browser -
because they are all discarded when I close that private window.

I use Opera, but Firefox offers the same facility.
I don't know anything about other browsers.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 21/05/22 05:40, 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?

In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a religious
origin.

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

On 20/05/22 22:47, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 12:39:19 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>> Le jeudi 19 mai 2022 à 23:09:49 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:53:55 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>
>>>> But ptd seems to think that "kaff" is a possible BrE pronunciation
>>>> in "Le Café" (see upthread), whereas it's not.
>>> I'll ask again. Where the hell do you see "Le Café"?
>>
>> My mistake, it was "The Cafe", but that doesn't change anything
>> as "café" and "cafe" are pronounced the same , i.e. as "kaffay".
>
> In French.
>
> In American English.
>
> Not necessarily, however, in British English.

Yes, in British English too.

The word "caff" has a different spelling.

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

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.)

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

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.

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

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 7:30:48 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 21/05/22 05:40, 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?

> 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.

--
Jerry Friedman

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 יְהוֹשֻׁעַ down through Ἰησοῦς
amd Iesus and finally to sheesh. I'd never heard of those earlier steps,
and I'm still not convinced about the final step.

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

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.

;-)

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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