In message <q4k0ug5mppbjdlk3933eemnut60r7mo6a7@4ax.com> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 15:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>>In message <9uivtg1mc0dkpigp04i3gh8qi20qreersm@4ax.com> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
>>> <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>>>I used to have a t-shirt when I was a kid (Before Good Omens was
>>>>published) that said something like "It may be Hell, but it's got the
>>>>best band" and then had a lot of dead musicians listed.
>>>>
>>>>I suspect a large part of the appeal of that shirt was that it had the
>>>>word "Hell" on it because I think I was about 10 or 12yo.
>>
>>> There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>> sticker"?)
>>
>>We put stickers on our bumpers over here (well, not me, but people who do
>>so). I don't recall seeing any bumper stickers on the body of a car
>>other than the very very few cars that have dozens of them all over
>>their cars. These are usually kooks (either far right or far left
>>politically) but sometimes it's just someone with a lot of funny bumper
>>stickers.

> Political bumper stickers, telling you who the car owner will vote for
> and who you should vote for, are very common.

Yes, I didn't say anything to the contrary. Those common bumper
stickers go on the bumper, and are not placed upon the fenders.

--
If you think that Mick Jagger will still be doing the whole rock star
thing at age fifty, well, then, you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>you".
>
>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>at the rear of the car.
>
>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.

Ah, I misunderstood.

Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.

My bad.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Remember when Ken Blake bragged outrageously? That was Thursday:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:52:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
>>> <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I used to have a t-shirt when I was a kid (Before Good Omens was
>>>> published) that said something like "It may be Hell, but it's got the
>>>> best band" and then had a lot of dead musicians listed.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect a large part of the appeal of that shirt was that it had the
>>>> word "Hell" on it because I think I was about 10 or 12yo.
>>>
>>> There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>> sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>> you".
>>
>> In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>> front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>> something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>> bumpers.
>
> With an occasional exception.
>
>
>> The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>> at the rear of the car.

I disagree. There is a very definite bumper, typically a steel beam,
underneath the plastic cover. The plastic cover is occasionally left
alongside the freeway.

>> The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>> past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>
> With an occasional exception.

Fenders have been distinctive on a recurring basis, disappearing as
aerodynamic styling developed in the '30s and late '40s, appearing
again for a short while in the late '50s, and then giving the bulging
muscle look in the late '60s and early '70s. Early '60s got the Mr
Business Man (thanks, Paul Stookey) look, with nice square lines across
the width of the car, and the pickups invented the double-wall box.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Nowadays some sports cars and the Corvette still show off their
fenders, and pickups have fender flares added. When I see a Tacoma
that isn't the midsize monster of today, I expect to see a hawkbill
profile to the front fenders.

/dps

--
"Inviting people to laugh with you while you are laughing at yourself
is a good thing to do, You may be a fool but you're the fool in
charge." -- Carl Reiner

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>>you".
>>
>>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>>bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>>at the rear of the car.
>>
>>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>
>Ah, I misunderstood.
>
>Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,

No.

>but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.

No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)

The red things are fenders.

I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
that they fend off pedestrians. Years ago I was hit by a car making a
right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
light).

I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
probably have been run over and perhaps killed.

Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
being splashed up all over the car.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:57:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
>><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>>>you".
>>>
>>>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>>>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>>>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>>>bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>>>at the rear of the car.
>>>
>>>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>>>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>>
>>Ah, I misunderstood.
>>
>>Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>>other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
>
>
>No.
>
>
>>but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>
>
>No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)
>
>The red things are fenders.
>
>I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
>that they fend off pedestrians. Years ago I was hit by a car making a
>right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
>light).
>
>I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
>suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
>probably have been run over and perhaps killed.
>
>Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
>being splashed up all over the car.

Those are called "mudflaps" in the US.

The term is so established in the US that there's a Wiki article on
the "Mudflap Girl". Trucks with mudflaps adorned with the chromed
mudflap girl can be seen any day on any US highway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudflap_girl

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:15:03 -0500, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:57:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
>>><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>>>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>>>>you".
>>>>
>>>>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>>>>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>>>>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>>>>bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>>>>at the rear of the car.
>>>>
>>>>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>>>>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>>>
>>>Ah, I misunderstood.
>>>
>>>Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>>>other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
>>
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>>but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>>
>>
>>No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)
>>
>>The red things are fenders.
>>
>>I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
>>that they fend off pedestrians. Years ago I was hit by a car making a
>>right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
>>light).
>>
>>I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
>>suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
>>probably have been run over and perhaps killed.
>>
>>Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
>>being splashed up all over the car.
>
>Those are called "mudflaps" in the US.

They are called both "mudflaps" and "mudguards." See, for example,
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mudguard

In message <7683ug5q71vc3nv4dp3g471ve5b09s90da@4ax.com> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:57:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
> wrote:

>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
>>><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>>>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>>>>you".
>>>>
>>>>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>>>>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>>>>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>>>>bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>>>>at the rear of the car.
>>>>
>>>>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>>>>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>>>
>>>Ah, I misunderstood.
>>>
>>>Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>>>other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
>>
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>>but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>>
>>
>>No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)
>>
>>The red things are fenders.
>>
>>I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
>>that they fend off pedestrians. Years ago I was hit by a car making a
>>right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
>>light).
>>
>>I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
>>suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
>>probably have been run over and perhaps killed.
>>
>>Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
>>being splashed up all over the car.

> Those are called "mudflaps" in the US.

> The term is so established in the US that there's a Wiki article on
> the "Mudflap Girl". Trucks with mudflaps adorned with the chromed
> mudflap girl can be seen any day on any US highway.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudflap_girl

I had a window sticker on my van something like that, only the girl had
a pony tail, a skirt, proportionally appropriate breasts, and a book.

Amazon called it "Smart Mudflap Girl" but the item I ordered in 2015
cannot be found, and the searches for similar items are not much like the
one I had. They do still have an image, however.

<https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31fO5Wyj5bL._SY180_.jpg>

There is a somewhat similar one available, but I prefer the one I had.

--
After a bad breakup, woman goes on a violent crime spree and kidnaps a child.
(Harley Quinn)

In message <u8c3ug1kmqq8b9jt3cbaoc3cqibeuhcipk@4ax.com> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:15:03 -0500, Tony Cooper
> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:57:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
>>>><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>>>>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>>>>>you".
>>>>>
>>>>>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>>>>>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>>>>>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>>>>>bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>>>>>at the rear of the car.
>>>>>
>>>>>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>>>>>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, I misunderstood.
>>>>
>>>>Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>>>>other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>
>>>>but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)
>>>
>>>The red things are fenders.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
>>>that they fend off pedestrians. Years ago I was hit by a car making a
>>>right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
>>>light).
>>>
>>>I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
>>>suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
>>>probably have been run over and perhaps killed.
>>>
>>>Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
>>>being splashed up all over the car.
>>
>>Those are called "mudflaps" in the US.

> They are called both "mudflaps" and "mudguards." See, for example,
> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mudguard

I've only heard "mudguard" for the metal covers on bicycle wheels, not
the rubber flaps on cars (and mostly on trucks).

--
Don't kink-shame!

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:47:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>In message <u8c3ug1kmqq8b9jt3cbaoc3cqibeuhcipk@4ax.com> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:15:03 -0500, Tony Cooper
>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:57:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>>><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
>>>>><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>>>>>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>>>>>>you".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>>>>>>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>>>>>>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>>>>>>bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>>>>>>at the rear of the car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>>>>>>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, I misunderstood.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>>>>>other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)
>>>>
>>>>The red things are fenders.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
>>>>that they fend off pedestrians. Years ago I was hit by a car making a
>>>>right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
>>>>light).
>>>>
>>>>I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
>>>>suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
>>>>probably have been run over and perhaps killed.
>>>>
>>>>Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
>>>>being splashed up all over the car.
>>>
>>>Those are called "mudflaps" in the US.
>
>
>> They are called both "mudflaps" and "mudguards." See, for example,
>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mudguard
>
>I've only heard "mudguard" for the metal covers on bicycle wheels, not
>the rubber flaps on cars (and mostly on trucks).

You might want to do a search on mudguard on Amazon.com.

* Ken Blake:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
>><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>>>you".
>>>
>>>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>>>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>>>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>>>bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>>>at the rear of the car.
>>>
>>>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>>>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>>
>>Ah, I misunderstood.
>>
>>Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>>other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
>
> No.
>
>>but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>
> No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)
>
> The red things are fenders.
>
> I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
> that they fend off pedestrians. Years ago I was hit by a car making a
> right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
> light).
>
> I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
> suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
> probably have been run over and perhaps killed.
>
> Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
> being splashed up all over the car.

Given that the fenders are called Kotflügel - "mud wings"* - in German,
I think they had something to do with preventing the splattering of mud.
Bicycle fenders certainly work this way - a few years ago, I rode a few
kilometers on dirt paths in the rain on a bike without fenders, and my
back was almost completely covered in mud.

* In contemporary German, "Kot" usually means feces, but this is the
older, more general meaning of dirt or mud.

--
Doris did not usually leave men to port and cigars except
at large,formal dinners because Frank was a man who often
found other men's company gross and tedious.
-- Jane Rule, This Is Not For You, p.93

In message <57h3ug90nj502jkk46jej2jd8j41irep4m@4ax.com> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:47:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>>In message <u8c3ug1kmqq8b9jt3cbaoc3cqibeuhcipk@4ax.com> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:15:03 -0500, Tony Cooper
>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:57:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>>>><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
>>>>>><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>>>>>>>sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>>>>>>>you".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>>>>>>>front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>>>>>>>something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>>>>>>>bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>>>>>>>at the rear of the car.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>>>>>>>past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah, I misunderstood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>>>>>>other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)
>>>>>
>>>>>The red things are fenders.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
>>>>>that they fend off pedestrians. Years ago I was hit by a car making a
>>>>>right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
>>>>>light).
>>>>>
>>>>>I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
>>>>>suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
>>>>>probably have been run over and perhaps killed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
>>>>>being splashed up all over the car.
>>>>
>>>>Those are called "mudflaps" in the US.
>>
>>
>>> They are called both "mudflaps" and "mudguards." See, for example,
>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mudguard
>>
>>I've only heard "mudguard" for the metal covers on bicycle wheels, not
>>the rubber flaps on cars (and mostly on trucks).

> You might want to do a search on mudguard on Amazon.com.

That is not going to change what I have heard.

--
We all need help with our feelings. Otherwise, we bottle them up, and
before you know it powerful laxatives are involved.

On 14/01/22 12:18, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be
>>> "fender sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the
>>> hell out of you".
>>
>> In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on
>> the front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when
>> bumped into something. I use the past tense because modern cars do
>> not have bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in
>> the bodywork at the rear of the car.
>>
>> The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels.
>> Again, past tense because they are no longer a distinctive
>> feature.
>
> Ah, I misunderstood.
>
> Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps
> from other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for
> bumpers, but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.

That was also my belief, and it's taken until now for me to hear the
correct meaning. It's interesting how long such a misapprehension can last.

On the question of mudguards vs mudflaps: in AusE the mudguards are
definitely the parts of the car body that go over the wheels, as Steve
described. (This was more obvious in older car designs, where that part
of the body followed the shape of the wheel.) Mudflaps are the rubbery
things that hang down behind the wheels.

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

On Friday, Ken Blake yelped out that:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:29:28 -0500, Tony Cooper
>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> There was a bumper sticker (would the AmE version of that be "fender
>>>> sticker"?) that read "Read the Bible -- it'll scare the hell out of
>>>> you".
>>>
>>> In the US, the sticker goes on the bumper. The "bumpers" were on the
>>> front and back of the vehicle, and protected the car when bumped into
>>> something. I use the past tense because modern cars do not have
>>> bumpers. The sticker would now go on the curved bump in the bodywork
>>> at the rear of the car.
>>>
>>> The fenders were at the sides of the vehicle over the wheels. Again,
>>> past tense because they are no longer a distinctive feature.
>>
>> Ah, I misunderstood.
>>
>> Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>> other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
>
>
> No.
>
>
>> but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>
>
> No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)

That's an example of a URL that really, really, should be bracketed
since some noosereeders take the '(' as a terminator. The Good
Postkeeping Approved form:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)>

>
> The red things are fenders.
>
> I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
> that they fend off pedestrians.

And your hypothesis is not defended by your cite:

"Early automobile fenders set over the wheels to prevent mud, sand and
dust being thrown on to the body and the occupants.[2] Fenders
typically became a more integral part of overall auto bodies by the
mid-1930s.[3] In contrast to the slab-sided cars, the Volkswagen Beetle
had real bolt-on fenders over both its front and rear wheels.[4]"

> Years ago I was hit by a car making a
> right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
> light).
>
> I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
> suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
> probably have been run over and perhaps killed.
>

And your hypothesis is not defended there:
more, ibid:
"n current US auto industry nomenclature, usually only the panels over
the front wheels are called fenders. The auto industry changed from
rear fenders bolted onto a quarter panel to an enlarged welded-on
quarter panel that fulfilled both functions. This resulted in one piece
where there had previously been two, and name of the larger welded
piece, the quarter panel, survived the consolidation. Quarter panels
are at the rear, with an exception made for dual rear wheel trucks,
where the panel at the rear is called a fender. For vehicles with a
narrow car body that exposes the tire, the fender is an exposed curve
over the top of the tire. For wide body vehicles that cover the tire,
the fender forms the wheel well surrounding the tire, and is not
directly visible from above the car body."

> Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
> being splashed up all over the car.

Mudflaps are not mudguards to Steve Hayes, or presumably to Charles:

"In British English, the fender is called the wing (this may refer to
either the front or rear fenders. However, in modern unibody vehicles,
rear fenders may also be called quarter panels.) The equivalent
component of a bicycle or motorcycle, or the "cycle wing" style of wing
fitted to vintage cars, or over tires on lorries which is not integral
with the bodywork, is called a mudguard in Britain, as it guards other
road users – and in the case of a bicycle or motorcycle, the rider as
well – from mud, and spray, thrown up by the wheels."

The olde days covered by Cycle Wings:

"Certain types of cars with narrow bodies, such as the Lotus and later
Caterham Seven or the Allard J2, use what are called cycle fenders in
the US or cycle wings in Britain, for their resemblance to those used
on bicycles. They are attached to the wheel suspension and remain at a
fixed distance from the tire regardless of wheel motion, and can
therefore be much closer to the tire than fixed wheel wells. This was
popular on early Classic Trials cars because the fenders were
lightweight and allowed for a thin streamlined body. They persist on
cars wanting a "vintage" look."

--
"First thing in the morning, before I have coffee, I read the obits, If
I'm not in it, I'll have breakfast." -- Carl Reiner, to CBS News in
2015.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:57:30 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:18:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>>Ah, I misunderstood.
>>
>>Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps from
>>other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for bumpers,
>
>
>No.
>
>
>>but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>
>
>No, nothing like mudguards. See the picture on
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_(vehicle)
>
>The red things are fenders.

Those are mudguards in my idiolect.

>I'm not sure why they are called "fenders," but one possibility is
>that they fend off pedestrians. Years ago I was hit by a car making a
>right turn as I was walking across the street (with the traffic
>light).
>
>I was pushed by the car's fender and knocked down, but I fortunately
>suffered no real damage. If the car didn't have fenders, I would
>probably have been run over and perhaps killed.
>
>Mudguard are small flaps attached to the fenders to stop mud from
>being splashed up all over the car.

And those are mudflaps in MyE.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:01:53 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 14/01/22 12:18, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> Fenders sounded as though they were meant to fend of minor bumps
>> from other vehicles, and so I thought they were the AmE word for
>> bumpers, but it appears that they were actually more like mudguards.
>
>That was also my belief, and it's taken until now for me to hear the
>correct meaning. It's interesting how long such a misapprehension can last.
>
>On the question of mudguards vs mudflaps: in AusE the mudguards are
>definitely the parts of the car body that go over the wheels, as Steve
>described. (This was more obvious in older car designs, where that part
>of the body followed the shape of the wheel.) Mudflaps are the rubbery
>things that hang down behind the wheels.

So it seems that AusE and SAfE are agreed on those meanings.

The red things in the WikiP article are definitely mudguards.

When they got incorporated into the general bodywork, as in most
current cars, they tend to be referred to as "wings".

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On 1/13/2022 1:23 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>
>>> To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>> to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>
>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>
> Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
> fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
> able adjective.
>

I'd agree with Steve but only to the extent of "religious." I'd call
gods and angels "entities" but maybe say they are "supernatural
entities" or something such. To me, a "religious entity" is either some
mundane item used in a religious way (a hymnal is a book but it's used
to hold religious songs instead of folk songs so it's a "religious"
book) or a mundane object/being that has some qualities related to
religion ("he is a religious person due to his beliefs in a god") but I
wouldn't say an object/entity that is the basis of a religion is
"religious." So a song about a god is a religious song. A belief that
someone has about a god is a religious belief. But "religious" has a
connotation that it's not so much about something specifically but how
someone acts towards or about that thing. So my "belief there is a god"
may not be religious, specifically, but my "going to church on Sundays
to worship said god" or that I "give to the poor" or "I will go to
heaven when I die" is.

A book can be made religious with how it's used. A person can be taught
religious ways of acting. A god is just that: a god. A god isn't
"religious" because of how someone sees it or acts towards it.

A sphere is round. It's inherent in its nature. You can't even made a
sphere that is NOT round. A piece of ivory, on the other hand, can be
made "billiardish" so that it can be used in a billiards game but it's
not inherently "a round ball designed to be struck by a cue."

So a cup can be made "religious" by using it in a religion but a god
can't be (or maybe we should say "doesn't *HAVE* to be religious just to
be a god.")

(side note: I don't have any religious beliefs like that and I treat
people in good ways simply because it helps society, and thus me
specifically, to survive and thrive. I don't "rape, pillage and plunder"
because I see the benefits directly to an ordered society and not simply
because I'm afraid of some sky-daddy. So the comments about church, etc
are in general/for examples.)

On 1/13/2022 1:49 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
> <anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>>
>>>> To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>>> to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>>
>>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>>
>> Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>> fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>> able adjective.
>
> As you noted earlier, "entity" has a legal connotation, which doesn't
> seem appropriate. A religious organisation could be regarded as a
> legal entity, but I doubt that any could would recognise an angel or a
> demon as an entity capable of suing or being sued in a court of law.

"Entity" doesn't specifically have a legal connotation to me. It can be
treated in a specific legal manner but I'd say a dog, cat, squirrel, etc
is also an entity but one that has no legal specialness.

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:18:58 -0500, Mike Anderson
<prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:

>On 1/13/2022 1:49 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
>> <anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>>>
>>>>> To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>>>> to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>>>
>>>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>>>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>>>
>>> Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>>> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>>> fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>>> able adjective.
>>
>> As you noted earlier, "entity" has a legal connotation, which doesn't
>> seem appropriate. A religious organisation could be regarded as a
>> legal entity, but I doubt that any could would recognise an angel or a
>> demon as an entity capable of suing or being sued in a court of law.
>
>"Entity" doesn't specifically have a legal connotation to me. It can be
>treated in a specific legal manner but I'd say a dog, cat, squirrel, etc
>is also an entity but one that has no legal specialness.

Is "specialness" a commonly-used word? I would say "specialty," and I
believe that in BrE, it's usually "speciality."

"Speciality" always reminds me of "Romance at short notice was her
"speciality."

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 14:30:15 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:18:58 -0500, Mike Anderson
><prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:
>
>>On 1/13/2022 1:49 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
>>> <anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>>>>
>>>>>> To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>>>>> to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>>>>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>>>> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>>>> fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>>>> able adjective.
>>>
>>> As you noted earlier, "entity" has a legal connotation, which doesn't
>>> seem appropriate. A religious organisation could be regarded as a
>>> legal entity, but I doubt that any could would recognise an angel or a
>>> demon as an entity capable of suing or being sued in a court of law.
>>
>>"Entity" doesn't specifically have a legal connotation to me. It can be
>>treated in a specific legal manner but I'd say a dog, cat, squirrel, etc
>>is also an entity but one that has no legal specialness.
>
>
>Is "specialness" a commonly-used word? I would say "specialty," and I
>believe that in BrE, it's usually "speciality."
>
>"Speciality" always reminds me of "Romance at short notice was her
>"speciality."

Put me down for favoring "specialness" in that context. It's the
status of being special. "Speciality" is an area of expertise or
favor.

"My speciality in photography is landscapes" (It's not, but that an
example that everyone understands.

"My photographs of the Wetlands have a specialness to me".

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022, at 14:30:15, Ken Blake posted:
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:18:58 -0500, Mike Anderson
>>On 1/13/2022 1:49 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
>>>> Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>>>>
>>>>>> To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>>>>> to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>>>>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>>>> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>>>> fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>>>> able adjective.
>>>
>>> As you noted earlier, "entity" has a legal connotation, which doesn't
>>> seem appropriate. A religious organisation could be regarded as a
>>> legal entity, but I doubt that any could would recognise an angel or a
>>> demon as an entity capable of suing or being sued in a court of law.
>>
>>"Entity" doesn't specifically have a legal connotation to me. It can be
>>treated in a specific legal manner but I'd say a dog, cat, squirrel, etc
>>is also an entity but one that has no legal specialness.
>
It turns out that an entity is really an ens. The whole concept is based
on absence; what is present has no absence, and the absence of absence
is ence, or ens, easily generalised to entity; something that is there.
>
>Is "specialness" a commonly-used word? I would say "specialty," and I
>believe that in BrE, it's usually "speciality."

You are correct in the two variants. But as for 'specialness', I approve
that choice of word. It means the quality of being special. Special(i)ty
on the other hand denotes a quality that is distinctive of an agent
(typically, of a person, or of a company). In the case in point,
'entity' has no special legal meaning; it has no legal specialness.

(I'm risking the possibility that Mike Anderson and I are both wrong in
that.)
>
>"Speciality" always reminds me of "Romance at short notice was her
>"speciality."
Pass.
--
Paul

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:21:40 +0000, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2022, at 14:30:15, Ken Blake posted:
>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:18:58 -0500, Mike Anderson
>>>On 1/13/2022 1:49 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
>>>>> Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>>>>>> to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>>>>>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>>>>> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>>>>> fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>>>>> able adjective.
>>>>
>>>> As you noted earlier, "entity" has a legal connotation, which doesn't
>>>> seem appropriate. A religious organisation could be regarded as a
>>>> legal entity, but I doubt that any could would recognise an angel or a
>>>> demon as an entity capable of suing or being sued in a court of law.
>>>
>>>"Entity" doesn't specifically have a legal connotation to me. It can be
>>>treated in a specific legal manner but I'd say a dog, cat, squirrel, etc
>>>is also an entity but one that has no legal specialness.
>>
>It turns out that an entity is really an ens. The whole concept is based
>on absence; what is present has no absence, and the absence of absence
>is ence, or ens, easily generalised to entity; something that is there.
>>
>>Is "specialness" a commonly-used word? I would say "specialty," and I
>>believe that in BrE, it's usually "speciality."
>
>You are correct in the two variants. But as for 'specialness', I approve
>that choice of word. It means the quality of being special. Special(i)ty
>on the other hand denotes a quality that is distinctive of an agent
>(typically, of a person, or of a company). In the case in point,
>'entity' has no special legal meaning; it has no legal specialness.
>
>(I'm risking the possibility that Mike Anderson and I are both wrong in
>that.)
>>
>>"Speciality" always reminds me of "Romance at short notice was her
>>"speciality."
>Pass.

Saki's "The Open Window."
https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/OpeWin.shtml

On 23/01/22 08:16, Mike Anderson wrote:
>
> (side note: I don't have any religious beliefs like that and I treat
> people in good ways simply because it helps society, and thus me
> specifically, to survive and thrive. I don't "rape, pillage and
> plunder" because I see the benefits directly to an ordered society
> and not simply because I'm afraid of some sky-daddy. So the comments
> about church, etc are in general/for examples.)

I've seen many people claim that you can't have morality without
religion, but it's easy to counter that by looking at the moral
standards of non-religious people.

I see this as the result of social evolution. The sort of people who
delighted in rape, pillage, and plunder did not prosper in the long run,
because societies where people helped one another had better survival
value. Very gradually, we're breeding the anti-social people out of the
species. Admittedly we haven't eliminated them completely, but we've
moved a long way along that path.

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

Den 22-01-2022 kl. 22:30 skrev Ken Blake:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:18:58 -0500, Mike Anderson
> <prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/2022 1:49 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
>>> <anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>>>>
>>>>>> To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>>>>> to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>>>>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>>>> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>>>> fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>>>> able adjective.
>>>
>>> As you noted earlier, "entity" has a legal connotation, which doesn't
>>> seem appropriate. A religious organisation could be regarded as a
>>> legal entity, but I doubt that any could would recognise an angel or a
>>> demon as an entity capable of suing or being sued in a court of law.
>>
>> "Entity" doesn't specifically have a legal connotation to me. It can be
>> treated in a specific legal manner but I'd say a dog, cat, squirrel, etc
>> is also an entity but one that has no legal specialness.
>
>
> Is "specialness" a commonly-used word? I would say "specialty," and I
> believe that in BrE, it's usually "speciality."
>
> "Speciality" always reminds me of "Romance at short notice was her
> "speciality."

That sounds specious.

/Anders, Denmark

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 01:38:37 +0100, "Anders D. Nygaard"
<news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:

>Den 22-01-2022 kl. 22:30 skrev Ken Blake:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:18:58 -0500, Mike Anderson
>> <prabbit237@gmail.com.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/13/2022 1:49 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:23:38 +0300, Anton Shepelev
>>>> <anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve Hayes to Peter Duncanson:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, "religious entities" could easily be understood
>>>>>>> to include Gods, angels, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems rather inappropriate to me -- it's not what
>>>>>> comes to mind when I hear the term "religious entities".
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, and especially to a believer. But God is not a
>>>>> creature, so what is one to call God and agels, including
>>>>> fallen ones? I think of `beings' but am casting for a suit-
>>>>> able adjective.
>>>>
>>>> As you noted earlier, "entity" has a legal connotation, which doesn't
>>>> seem appropriate. A religious organisation could be regarded as a
>>>> legal entity, but I doubt that any could would recognise an angel or a
>>>> demon as an entity capable of suing or being sued in a court of law.
>>>
>>> "Entity" doesn't specifically have a legal connotation to me. It can be
>>> treated in a specific legal manner but I'd say a dog, cat, squirrel, etc
>>> is also an entity but one that has no legal specialness.
>>
>>
>> Is "specialness" a commonly-used word? I would say "specialty," and I
>> believe that in BrE, it's usually "speciality."
>>
>> "Speciality" always reminds me of "Romance at short notice was her
>> "speciality."
>
>That sounds specious.

They are some species of animals that believe so.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:03:37 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>I've seen many people claim that you can't have morality without
>religion,

I've often heard the same.

>but it's easy to counter that by looking at the moral
>standards of non-religious people.

Of course. It's complete nonsense as far as I'm concerned.