al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (02/14/85)
There are some words whose meanings have become perverted into
a near reversal of what their origins would suggest. Here are
a few that have stuck in my mind over the years. Does anyone know
of any others?
chaos-- Originally, according to Hesiod, the god Chaos represented
Emptyness or the Void. Today, if we say someone's desk
is "chaotic", we hardly mean that it is empty.
amazon-- Many men seem to fantasize an "Amazon" to be a big,
well-built, wildish woman such as might be found in a Frazetta
painting. Odd, since "Amazon" = "a-" (without) + "madzon" (breast).
An Amazon is therefore a flat-chested woman. Of course, this is
related to the old legend of the tribe of female archers who found
their right breasts an inconvenience and cut them off.
unravel-- Means exactly the same as "ravel".
shameless-- Isn't "shameless" behavior a lot like "shameful"
behavior and vice versa?
asbestos-- "Asbestos" is a Greek word meaning "Unquenchable",
as when Homer says "asbestos d'ar enorto gelos makaressi
theoisin" (and laughter unquenchable arose among the blessed gods).
Odd that a material noted for its non-flammability
is called "unquenchable". It would be more reasonable if
Magnesium or maybe Napalm were called "Asbestos".
spry-- Most people think of a spry person as one whose main
characteristic is "old" instead of "agile". Can you
imagine a spry young person?
--------------------------------
Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A
{allegra | ihnp4 } ! sftig ! mot ! al
{seismo | ihnp4 } ! ut-sally ! oakhill ! mot ! al
--------------------------------
"The moving cursor writes, and having writ moves on,
and not all your piety not wit shall lure it back
to cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out a word of it."debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (02/16/85)
> There are some words whose meanings have become perverted into > a near reversal of what their origins would suggest. ... > > unravel-- Means exactly the same as "ravel". > invaluable : really means very valuable inflammable : one would think this might mean _not_ flammable! prove : originally, meant "to test; to throw doubt upon", e.g. "the exception proves the rule". indefatigable: (I'm extemporizing here ...) you'd think the two negatives ("in-" and "de-") would cancel out, to have the word mean "easily fatigued". Along the same lines, shouldn't a person who's "intense" be very relaxed? -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray CSNet: debray@sbcs
lazeldes@wlcrjs.UUCP (Leah A Zeldes) (02/18/85)
In article <101@mot.UUCP> al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) writes: >shameless-- Isn't "shameless" behavior a lot like "shameful" > behavior and vice versa? No. "Shameful" implies "causing shame," at least others, if not to the originator of the behavior. "Shameless" means "without shame." -- Leah A Zeldes ...ihnp4!wlcrjs!lazeldes
cs2534ai@unm-cvax.UUCP (02/18/85)
[lineaters must wear shoes, shirt to be served]
One of my favorites:
concupiscent
This word originally referred to man's tendency to do that which he knows
he should not do, for his own sake. For instance, a man leaving a party
knows that he is too drunk to drive, but he chooses to drive anyway,
concupiscent person that he is.
Today, this word means downright HORNY. You see, a couple hundred years
ago, what was the one thing people KNEW they should not do (it was a sin!)
but did anyway, again and again and again? Well, that's how concupiscent
came to mean what it does today.
I still use the word for its original meaning, since I have no other word
for it, and lots of other words for "horny". For instance, if I weren't so
concupiscent, I would be writing my program for computer class instead of
posting this article!
-DT
[The Deranged Terrestrial]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::::::::
___________HOME___________ ::::: ::::: _____________WORK_______________
David B. Thomas ::___ ___:: Rocky Mountain Computers (Apple)
1406 Calle Del Ranchero NE ::\_*|-|_*/:: 2109 Wyoming Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87106 :: \_/ :: Albuquerque, NM 87112
(505) 266-1016 : (___) : (505) 292-2775 that's 292-APPL
:_______:
UUCP: {{purdue,cmcl2,ihnp4}!lanl,ucbvax}!unmvax!unm-cvax!cs2534ai
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man: the rationalizing animal.jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (02/20/85)
> There are some words whose meanings have become perverted into > a near reversal of what their origins would suggest. Here are > a few that have stuck in my mind over the years. Does anyone know > of any others? > > unravel-- Means exactly the same as "ravel". Another example is "unloose", which means to let loose. I remember hearing that the "un" prefix can intensify as well as negate, but my dictionary doesn't confirm this. A similar word is "inflammable", which means the same as "flammable". > > shameless-- Isn't "shameless" behavior a lot like "shameful" > behavior and vice versa? > . . > Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A My Webster's 2nd defines "shameless" as "destitute of shame; wanting modesty; brazenfaced; insensible to disgrace", and "shameful" as "bringing shame or disgrace; injurious to reputation; disgraceful; as a shameful sight". It's hard to think of a shameless act that isn't also shameful; this is probably because a shameless act deserves disgrace and so must be shameful. The meaning of "shameless" hasn't been perverted, but it's odd that "shameless" and "shameful" have similar meanings. Another example is "apparent", which means "able to be seen" or "easily seen" (again from Webster's 2nd). Sometimes this word is used to mean "obvious" ("It is apparent that..."). In some common usages it means "not as appearances would indicate" ("This apparently true statement suggests ..."). Thus, this word can be used to indicate obvious truth or non-obvious falsehood (such is the nature of appearances). This reminds me of the word "cleave" which means "to cling together" and "to split apart". The two meanings have different etymologies. Are there any other examples of words that have two opposite (or nearly opposite) meanings? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (02/21/85)
One traditional collection of such words was in a king's supposed compliment to the builder of St. Paul's that the cathedral was pompous, gaudy, and awful (i.e. stately, joy-inspiring, and awe-inspiring). Other such words include: decimate: originally to kill 10% of a population, now often used to mean killing at least half of a group. sophisticated: originally meaning veneered/fake artificial: originally meaning artistic literally: often used these days as a synonym for "figuratively" Recently in a conversation with a guest from Britain, I discovered that "prevaricate" meant to "waffle" or "straddle the issue without taking a definitive position" in British--and to "lie" in American. (Luckily I've got a number of dictinaries around, including one British one, so we were able to straighten out our misunderstanding relatively easily.) --Lee Gold
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (02/21/85)
One curious semantic reversal occurs in the expression:
The exception proves the rule.
Originally 'prove' used to mean 'test' (cf. 'probe', a related word).
But as the meaning of this word changed, the expression changed also.
Until I heard of this explanation I [mis]understood this expression
to mean:
Don't worry about the rule at hand having an exception
since all rules have exceptions, here's the one exception that
qualifies this rule as a true rule.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob
_^__
~/ \_.\
_ ~/ \_\
~/ \_________~/
~/ /\ /\
_/ \ / \
_/ \ _/ \
\ / darryl@ISM780.UUCP (02/24/85)
[] ...And, of course, let us not forget that new favorite irregardless --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Inc. ...!cca!ima!ism780!darryl The views expressed above are my opinions only.
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/25/85)
Some of these are not strictly reversals, and in some cases the semantic shift may have occurred before the word got into English rather than after. But I think they're all interesting. "Automobile" - a streetcar "Ship" [verb] - to transport *by ship* "Sail" [verb] - what a *sailing* ship does "Manuscript" - document written by hand - and "Manufacture" - to produce by hand "Computer" - a person who does computations - and "Typewriter" - a typist "Rival" - pertaining to a river bank [prime land -> conflict -> ...] "Villain" - what pertains to a villa [ -> peasant -> ... ] "Naughty" - poor [having naught] "Brave" - crooked [related to "depraved"; -> scoundrelly -> requiring courage -> ...; in French this transformation continues to the complete reversal -> good, worthy] "Nice" - silly [ -> overprecise -> precise -> ... ] "Silly" - blessed [ -> blessed fool* -> fool ] "Cretin" - Christian [similarly] * Woody Allen fans may note the German cognate "selig", which still means blessed. Except for "computer", all of these (and the signature line) are paraphrased from Mario Pei's book "The Story of Language" (1965 ed.). Posted by Mark Brader "John's house burned up, and Jim's house burned down too."
mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (02/25/85)
Here's a curiosity: why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean virtually the same thing? -- Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh)
gary@arizona.UUCP (Gary Marc Levin) (02/25/85)
My pet reversal is "sanction".
(1) Formal approval.
(2) A penalty to force conformity.
--
Gary Levin / Dept of CS / U of AZ / Tucson, AZ 85721 / (602) 621-4231gary@arizona.UUCP (Gary Marc Levin) (02/25/85)
> One curious semantic reversal occurs in the expression: > The exception proves the rule. > Originally 'prove' used to mean 'test' (cf. 'probe', a related word). > But as the meaning of this word changed, the expression changed also. > Until I heard of this explanation I [mis]understood this expression > to mean: > Don't worry about the rule at hand having an exception > since all rules have exceptions, here's the one exception that > qualifies this rule as a true rule. > Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California Actually there are two reversals in the phrase. "exception" only meant "unusual", not "not covered". The sentence really is a reminder to use boundary cases when testing programs. (I seem to remember going to a lot of effort once to find the history of all this. It may just be folk-etymology on my part. Still, makes more sense than the usual "modern" reading of the sentence.) -- Gary Levin / Dept of CS / U of AZ / Tucson, AZ 85721 / (602) 621-4231
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (02/27/85)
> > There are some words whose meanings have become perverted into > > a near reversal of what their origins would suggest. > ... > > invaluable : really means very valuable > Really means "impossible to put a value on". Here the root is the verb "value" instead of the noun. > > prove : originally, meant "to test; to throw doubt upon", e.g. "the exception > proves the rule". > > -- > Saumya Debray > SUNY at Stony Brook > This is not the origin of the phrase "the exception proves the rule". The idea is that it would be impossible to have an exception to a rule if there were no rule. Fowler's "Modern English Usage" explains this very well, but I can't lay my hands on it right now. I'll post an excerpt at a later time. Has anyone noticed that in most of these cases the word in question hasn't really reversed its meaning through usage, but instead looks as if it means the opposite of what it really means? There is usually a good explanation for how this came about. An example of a word which has reversed its meaning is "bad" in modern slang, which some people use to mean "good" ("Hey, that's a really bad car, man."). Can anyone think of some other "real" reversals? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
asente@Cascade.ARPA (02/27/85)
> Here's a curiosity: why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean virtually > the same thing? > -- > Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh) The story I heard sounds reasonable but it may just be folk etymology rearing it's ugly head. At one point certain products had to be labelled if they were flammable. The word "inflammable" was invented to describe these things and meant the same thing as flammable; however, it sounded like it meant non-flammable and so the public was fooled/uninformed/whatever. -paul asente decwrl!glacier!cascade!asente asente@Cascade.ARPA "But I burn, Mr. A!" "So do I, Mr. J!"
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (02/27/85)
> Here's a curiosity: why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean > virtually the same thing? > -- > Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh) Strunk and White have a wonderful paragraph on this. It notes how "inflammable", a real word, might be mistaken to mean "not combustible" because the prefix in- sometimes means "not". So the people who make tank trucks decided not to take chances, and invented the appellation "flammable". Their conclusion: Unless you are illiterate or drive such a truck, prefer "inflammable". -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 26 Feb 85 [8 Ventose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (02/27/85)
> > This is not the origin of the phrase "the exception proves the rule". The idea > is that it would be impossible to have an exception to a rule if there were no > rule. Fowler's "Modern English Usage" explains this very well, but I can't lay > my hands on it right now. I'll post an excerpt at a later time. > Here is what Fowler has to say about "the exception proves the rule": "'The exception proves the rule', and phrases implying it, are so constantly introduced in argument, and so much more often with obscuring than with illuminating effect, that it is necessary to set out its different possible meanings, viz. (1) the original simple legal sense, (2) the secondary rather complicated scientific sense, (3) the loose rhetorical sense, (4) the jocular nonsense, (5) the serious nonsense. The last of these is the most objectionable, though (3) and (4) must bear the blame for bringing (5) into existence by popularizing an easily misunderstood phrase; unfortunately (5) is much the commonest use. See POPULARIZED TECHNICALITIES. "1. 'Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11:00 P.M.'; 'The exception proves the rule' means that this special leave implies a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier. The value of this in interpreting statutes is plain. 'A rule is not proved by exceptions unless the exceptions themselves lead one to infer a rule' (Lord Atkin). The formula in full is 'exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis'." Fowler goes on to give examples and explanations of 2 through 5. I won't give them here because I am lazy and you probably don't want to read all of it. Fowler's "Modern English Usage" is a valuable and entertaining book. I enjoy paging through it and reading random entries. It's somewhat out of date, but many of the ideas are still useful. Fowler is at his best when making fine distinctions ("Fatalism says: every event is pre-ordained; You cannot act as you will, but only in the pre-ordained way. Determinism says: You can act (barring obstacles) as you will; but then you cannot will as you will; your will is determined by a complex of antecedents the interaction of which makes you unable to choose any but the one course."), and when he gets sarcastic ("... the fastidious people, if they are foolish, get excited and talk of ignorance and solecisms, and are laughed at as pedants; or, if they are wise, say no more about it and wait."). The book's main weaknesses are a chaotic method of naming the entries and a reliance on the rules of Latin to prove things about English. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (02/27/85)
In article <22060@arizona.UUCP> gary@arizona.UUCP (Gary Marc Levin) writes: >> One curious semantic reversal occurs in the expression: >> The exception proves the rule. >> Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California > >Actually there are two reversals in the phrase. "exception" only >meant "unusual", not "not covered". The sentence really is a reminder >to use boundary cases when testing programs. > >(I seem to remember going to a lot of effort once to find the history >of all this. It may just be folk-etymology on my part. Still, makes >more sense than the usual "modern" reading of the sentence.) Another simple reading of this is that the exception to the rule is what brings to light (or underscores) the fact that there is a rule. That is, you don't realize there is a rule at all until you come across something which violates it. Does anyone know of a etymology (i.e., a book) of idioms? -- -- Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science -- UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west -- ARPA: west@NPRDC { NOT: <sdcsla!west@NPRDC> }
wyatt@cfa.UUCP (Bill Wyatt) (02/27/85)
"Cleave" means (1) "to split apart"
(2) "to adhere to"
The first meaning is transitive, e.g. cleaving firewood, while the
second is (always?) intransitive, e.g., (a phrase from the woman's vows
in an old-fashioned wedding ceremony) "Wilt thou cleave unto thine husband?",
and is rarely used, although not quite archaic.
The two forms come from slightly different Old English words (I don't
have an OED, so I'm not sure which ones) that probably became confused
over the centuries.
--
Bill {harvard,genrad,allegra,ihnp4}!wjh12!cfa!wyattrjw@ptsfc.UUCP (Rod Williams) (02/27/85)
In article <398@hou5h.UUCP> mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) writes: >Here's a curiosity: why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean virtually >the same thing? "flammable" = American English "inflammable" = Rest-Of-World English and they mean *exactly* the same thing! -- rod williams -------------------- dual!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjw
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/28/85)
> > Here's a curiosity: why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean virtually > > the same thing? > The story I heard sounds reasonable but it may just be folk etymology > rearing it's ugly head. At one point certain products had to be > labelled if they were flammable. The word "inflammable" was invented > to describe these things and meant the same thing as flammable; > however, it sounded like it meant non-flammable and so the public was > fooled/uninformed/whatever. This story is itself a case of reversal! The original form is "inflammable", where "in-" means "in/into": the thing will go up IN flames. Then certain products had to be labelled if they were inflammable. But some people interpreted "in-" as "not", and assumed things so marked were safe. So the clearly understandable form "flammable" was coined. I think it was Fowler who said: Flammable: a non-word, chiefly useful in saving lives. Mark Brader Please don't post minor corrections to the quote. Mail me, if you must.
hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) (02/28/85)
<*munch*> => ...And, of course, let us not forget that new favorite => => irregardless => --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Inc. ..!cca!ima!ism780!darryl Except that it isn't a real word in any real dictionary extant, so it doesn't count . . . flame me if I'm wrong. Helen Anne
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/28/85)
Lee Gold (sdcrdcf!barryg) had trouble posting her followup to my item about "flammable". She wanted to say: > Flammo and inflammo are separate Latin words, both with roughly the > same meaning, so the history of the two parallel words goes back further > than English. This prompted me to check my references. In English, the OED gives "inflammable" as the older form by a couple of centuries, but "flammable" is cited as early as 1813. There was also at one time a less Latinistic form "inflamable", apparently from "inflame". My copy of Modern English Usage is not straight Fowler but the one edited by Gowers. It does not have "a nonword, chiefly useful in saving lives", and now I don't know where I saw that. Anyway, Fowler/Gowers does say that "flammable" was presumably created because of a "supposed ambiguity" in "inflammable" (even if it was derived from a separate Latin form), and he points out that the existence of both words makes the matter worse. Since he's talking about British English, he says "flammable" is "now rare". Mark Brader
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (02/28/85)
> > => ...And, of course, let us not forget that new favorite > => irregardless > => --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Inc. ..!cca!ima!ism780!darryl > > Except that it isn't a real word in any real dictionary extant, so it doesn't > count . . . flame me if I'm wrong. > > Helen Anne No need to flame. It is a common misconception that there is a pool of words that are "English words" and that that pool is static. My mother used to say "ain't ain't in the dictionary (she was wrong too). Anyway, p. 692 of the American Heritage Dictionary has: irregardless - adv. *Nonstandard*. Regardless. My theory about why people use it is a linguistic process called "analogy." People do it by analogy with "irrespective," which also means "regardless." -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\ 109 Torrey Pine Terr. ucbvax!twg --> scc!steiny Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 fortune!idsvax -/
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (02/28/85)
[please don't burn this line] > > Here's a curiosity: why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean virtually > > The story I heard sounds reasonable but it may just be folk etymology > rearing it's ugly head. At one point certain products had to be > labelled if they were flammable. The word "inflammable" was invented > to describe these things and meant the same thing as flammable; > however, it sounded like it meant non-flammable and so the public was > fooled/uninformed/whatever. Does this shed light on the word "inflame"?* "In" has two sources, one meaning "not" and one meaning "in", which is also used as an intensifier. Both are eventually from Latin. One English "un", from germanic, means "not", and is a cognate of the first "in". The other English "un" relates to "anti", but to me is semantically indistinguishable from "un" #1. It also has an intensification function (unloosen, for instance). My source is the American Heritage Dictionsry (the good old one with the Indo-European glossary). * NOT to be confused with <flame on> or other nettisms :-) -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) The accidents expressed above are opinions.
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (03/01/85)
[] My favorite semantic reversal: "best" and "worst" are, in some legitimate circumstances, synonyms. How? Either one can be used as a transitive verb, meaning: "to defeat in a contest." Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 870-5853
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (03/01/85)
> My pet reversal is "sanction". > > (1) Formal approval. > (2) A penalty to force conformity. > > -- > Gary Levin / Dept of CS / U of AZ / Tucson, AZ 85721 / (602) 621-4231 I think the original meaning of "sanction" was "a formal ruling". The context determined whether the ruling was for or against something. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
wyatt@cfa.UUCP (Bill Wyatt) (03/01/85)
> In article <22060@arizona.UUCP> gary@arizona.UUCP (Gary Marc Levin) writes: > >> One curious semantic reversal occurs in the expression: > >> The exception proves the rule. > >> Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California > > > >...[ other responses ] ... > Another simple reading of this is that the exception to the rule is > what brings to light (or underscores) the fact that there is a rule. > That is, you don't realize there is a rule at all until you come across > something which violates it. > -- Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science (I think these comments have already been made, but I had to put in my two cents...) "Proves" in the above statement harks back to the earlier meaning of "tests". The same meaning is behind "proof" in alcohol content of liquor, wine, beer, etc. - the distiller would test the alcohol content by seeing if it would burn, and what the color of the flame was. I'm not sure how sensitive this test was, or how high the proof has to be for liquor to burn, but I think it's 80+ proof, the traditional whiskey proof. Anyway, "the exception proves the rule" really means that APPARENT exceptions to a rule *test* that rule. If and only if you can explain why that "exception" is not really an exception does the rule stand. TRUE RULES DO NOT HAVE EXCEPTIONS! (except in politics, economics... :-)) The modern interpretation that this saying means "exceptions to some hypothesized rule prove it really is a rule" is a misinterpretation. Unfortunately too many people think it's somehow valid, and that's fuzzy thinking. -- Bill {harvard,genrad,allegra,ihnp4}!wjh12!cfa!wyatt
urban@spp2.UUCP (Mike Urban) (03/04/85)
Another reversal found in common use:
"I could care less"
to mean
"I couldn't care less"
Probably derives from an ironic use.
--
Mike Urban
{ucbvax|decvax}!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban
"You're in a maze of twisty UUCP connections, all alike"hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) (03/05/85)
<*munch*>
=> Anyway, p. 692 of the American Heritage Dictionary
=> has:
=>
=> irregardless - adv. *Nonstandard*. Regardless.
=> scc!steiny
=> Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\
=> 109 Torrey Pine Terr. ucbvax!twg --> scc!steiny
=> Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 fortune!idsvax -/
I'd say my face is red, except that I think the ones with the red faces
should be the editors of AHD. Honestly, now, who out there thinks that
nonstandard words should be included in the dictionary as acceptable usages?
(This is a serious question.) Colloquialisms like "ain't" are one thing, but
*wrong* usages?
Helen Anne
{ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,decwrl,unisoft,fortune,sun,nsc}!dual!hav
If a man does not keep pace with his companions,
perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.
Let him step to the music he hears,
however measured or far away.hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) (03/06/85)
<*munch*>
=> One curious semantic reversal occurs in the expression:
=>
=> The exception proves the rule.
=>
=> Originally 'prove' used to mean 'test' (cf. 'probe', a related word).
=> But as the meaning of this word changed, the expression changed also.
=> Until I heard of this explanation I [mis]understood this expression
=> to mean:
=>
=> Don't worry about the rule at hand having an exception
=> since all rules have exceptions, here's the one exception that
=> qualifies this rule as a true rule.
=>
=> Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
=> {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob
In German, there's "probieren" meaning "to try" (i.e., to attempt). Another
form is "ausprobieren" which means "to try out" (i.e., to sample, as with
food). Both are derived from a Latin root.
Helen Anne
{ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,decwrl,unisoft,fortune,sun,nsc}!dual!hav
If a man does not keep pace with his companions,
perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.
Let him step to the music he hears,
however measured or far away.hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) (03/06/85)
<*munch*>
=> I'd say my face is red, except that I think the ones with the red faces
=> should be the editors of AHD. Honestly, now, who out there thinks that
=> nonstandard words should be included in the dictionary as acceptable usages?
=> (This is a serious question.) Colloquialisms like "ain't" are one thing, but
=> *wrong* usages?
It really makes me wonder whether perhaps I should rethink my preference in
dictionaries. AHD has been my favorite since my father (who was at the time
an English literature professor) got a complimentary copy when it first came
out. Now I'm not so sure . . .
Helen Anne
{ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,decwrl,unisoft,fortune,sun,nsc}!dual!hav
If a man does not keep pace with his companions,
perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.
Let him step to the music he hears,
however measured or far away.mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (03/07/85)
Just a short follow up to what Bill Wyatt was saying about "proof" and its meaning in the alcoholic context. Proof spirit (100 proof spirit to be precise) is the mixture which will just permit gunpowder to go off still. A lower proof rating and it fizzles out, a higher one and it is still fearsome. If my memory serves me correctly, 100 proof is 58.42% alcohol by volume. Of course, in the US this isn't true because the proof values have been fiddled around with to make them simple (100 proof = 50% by volume?) which is why you should thik twice before saying that one liquor is stronger than another if they've been brought back from a vacation. -- Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh)
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/07/85)
<484@lsuc.UUCP> cancelled from rn.
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/07/85)
> => irregardless - adv. *Nonstandard*. Regardless. > > ... Honestly, now, who out there thinks that nonstandard words should > be included in the dictionary as acceptable usages? (This is a serious > question.) The serious answer is, those who believe dictionaries should be *descriptive* rather than *prescriptive* -- i.e., that they should tell you what someone else means when they use a word, rather than what you should mean when you use it. And they *didn't* say it was acceptable -- they labeled it "nonstandard". Mark Brader
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (03/07/85)
[don't eat this line irregardless of bugs] On the subject of `irregardless' appearing in the American Heritage Dictionary: > It really makes me wonder whether perhaps I should rethink my preference in > dictionaries. AHD has been my favorite since my father (who was at the time > an English literature professor) got a complimentary copy when it first came > out. Now I'm not so sure . . . > Helen Anne Whoa there! Why should a dictionary NOT include words you're likely to see in your reading (and hear too)? And my copy of the AHD states VERY CLEARLY that `irregardless' is considered non-standard. Of course, this is the old prescriptive-descriptive argument, which is basically religious in nature (and in truth, I vacillate almost criminally on the subject). The AHD is probably my favorite, but there are natheless times when I want to throw it out the window ... :-). -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) The accidents expressed above are opinions.
rgh@inmet.UUCP (03/09/85)
Helen Anne (dual!hav) sounds embittered that the American Heritage
Dictionary (my favorite!) dares to list "irregardless" [defined
as "regardless", and tagged as Nonstandard usage]. I don't understand
her attitude. Various semiliterates DO use "irregardless" --
in cases similar to this, AHD helps me determine
what in the world the user might have been trying to say.
That AHD lists the word does not mean they condone it (that's what
the "Nonstandard" tag is for), only that they recognize an unfortunately
widespread usage. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Randy Hudson {ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!rghnather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (03/09/85)
> Various semiliterates DO use "irregardless" -- > > Randy Hudson {ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!rgh I use it, but never unaccompanied. It's a great preamble to gentle disagreement: "Irregardless and disrespective, ..." -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
larry@hpfclg.UUCP (larry) (03/12/85)
What about flammable and inflammable, regardless and irregardless ?
Larry Fenske
{ihnp4, hplabs}!hpfcla!larry-fmuffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (03/13/85)
In article <950@dual.UUCP> hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) writes: > >I'd say my face is red, except that I think the ones with the red faces >should be the editors of AHD. Honestly, now, who out there thinks that >nonstandard words should be included in the dictionary as acceptable usages? >(This is a serious question.) Colloquialisms like "ain't" are one thing, but >*wrong* usages? > >Helen Anne > > {ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,decwrl,unisoft,fortune,sun,nsc}!dual!hav Wait a minute. (As I pull out my Webster's (Merriam-Webster)) nonstandard adj 1 : not standard 2 : not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language. Okay, I see nothing here that implies that the usage is *wrong*. If someone else does, please point it out to me. Also, I recall that the original posting mentioned something about this word becoming common usage...which would seem to imply that it is becoming standard. Of course, this may not mean that it is becoming common among "edu- cated" speakers of English, which seems to be required. Muffy
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (03/20/85)
> Another reversal found in common use: > "I could care less" > to mean > "I couldn't care less" > > Probably derives from an ironic use. > -- > Mike Urban More likely from carelessness. People don't often bother to think what phrases like this really mean; they just become idiomatic. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (03/29/85)
I often here a radio commercial for a furniture store chain which repeats
the following slogan ad nauseum:
I've been to Breuner's and now I've seen everything.
No, Breuner's is not the name of the competition but of the store being
advertized!
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob
_^__
~/ \_.\
_ ~/ \_\
~/ \_________~/
~/ /\ /\
_/ \ / \
_/ \ _/ \
\ / mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (04/04/85)
Here are two slogans for shops that fit into this category: "Second to none!" meaning nobody comes in ahead of us "Never knowingly undersold." Meaning we never knowingly price our merchandize at a level higher than other stores -- Marcus Hand (hou5h!mgh)