msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/21/85)
Frank Mankiewicz, son of the screenwriter Joseph, defines a *retronym*
as "a noun fitted with an adjective that it never used to need, but now
cannot do without".
William Safire, quoting this in his New York Times Magazine column,
cites these examples:
"analog watch"
"day baseball game"
"therapeutic massage"
"human-readable"
(In other words, ALL watches used to be analog, and so on.)
If you want to mail more of these to me, I'll post a summary.
{ allegra | decvax | duke | ihnp4 | linus | watmath | ... } !utzoo!lsuc!msb
also via { hplabs | amd | twg | ... } !pesnta!lsuc!msb
Mark Brader and uw-beaver!utcsri!lsuc!msb
"I'm a little worried about the bug-eater," she said. "We're embedded
in bugs, have you noticed?" -- Niven, "The Integral Trees"chabot@miles.DEC (L S Chabot) (04/11/85)
How about gender-designators, like "male secretary"? (-: No comments about how the first programmer was a Lady! :-) L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) (04/15/85)
How about "wood-burning fireplaces"? -- Bob Kaplan "Our love burns like fire, then turns to ashes."
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (04/16/85)
In article <1613@decwrl.UUCP> chabot@miles.DEC (L S Chabot) writes: >How about gender-designators, like "male secretary"? > >(-: No comments about how the first programmer was a Lady! :-) I read somewhere that until about 100 years ago secretaries were male, and that there was a great hue and cry when women entered the field. It seems that when we expect something to have a certain quality that quality is not verbalized- it is "unmarked". Qualities seem to be verbalized only when they are not expected, such as a female secretary 100 years ago and a male secretary today. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (04/17/85)
-- > I read somewhere that until about 100 years ago secretaries were > male, and that there was a great hue and cry when women entered > the field... > -- > Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) Yes, most were male. Those who were able to operate the then new-fangled typing machines were called "typewriters". -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 16 Apr 85 [27 Germinal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (04/20/85)
In article <532@cadovax.UUCP> bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) writes: >How about "wood-burning fireplaces"? >-- Have you never seen a fireplace burning coal? -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc.
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (04/24/85)
In article <400@tymix.UUCP> kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) writes: >In article <532@cadovax.UUCP> bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) writes: >>How about "wood-burning fireplaces"? > >Have you never seen a fireplace burning coal? Only indirectly -- I have seen electric fireplaces. Of course, the word "fireplace" is then a misnomer, as there is no real flame. But it looks like a fireplace, and it isn't burning wood. -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (04/25/85)
In article <4098@mit-eddie.UUCP> barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: >In article <400@tymix.UUCP> kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) writes: >>In article <532@cadovax.UUCP> bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) writes: >>>How about "wood-burning fireplaces"? >> >>Have you never seen a fireplace burning coal? >Only indirectly -- I have seen electric fireplaces. There are gas firelaces that have concrete "logs" that do have flames; gas flames. Personally this seems like having plastic food, but then McDonald's does pretty well :->
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (05/03/85)
In article <532@cadovax.UUCP> bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) writes: >How about "wood-burning fireplaces"? >-- >Bob Kaplan > Sorry -- that's a valid distinction. It means the flue and fireplace itself is designed for handling woodsmoke. It is used to distinguish these from those which can only take a gas fire -- either with fake logs or from a burner behind a cast-iron decorative plate. Trying to burn wood in a fireplace built to handle gas only is a good way to burn down your house or apartment building... I've had both kinds of fireplaces in houses I've owned. The gas-burner kind were common in this area [St. Louis] in pre-WWI houses, where they were really used for heat. The burners were large sheets of perforated brass, so you had a large number of tiny flames. This was concealed behind a cast-iron perforated panel. Trying to convert such fireplaces to handle wood is usually a mistake and costs more than it's worth. There are also coal-burning fireplaces, and I think the distinction there is that the flue is midway in size between the gas and wood varieties. Also the firebox is of a different depth (the gas ones are quite shallow). Will