| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:00 pm
Post subject: Re: "Aught" and "oftener" |
|
|
Jens Brix Christiansen wrote:
| Quote: | the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.1c034547ba6578698aa24@news.individual.net>...
Mike Lyle typed thus:
the Omrud wrote:
[...]
Winnersh Triangle?
[...]
I mean the name, rather than the station. How perverse to name a
railway station after a geometric shape.
That is popular in other languages too. In Berlin there is a
U-Bahn
station called Gleisdreieck (literally "track triangle").
Confusingly, the modernn day station is a cross-over between two
lines.
|
In case anybody doesn't know, the Winnersh Triangle is a
newly-developed business square mile on the outskirts of Reading;
it's enclosed in a triangle formed by the junction of two motorways.
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:00 pm
Post subject: Re: "Aught" and "oftener" |
|
|
"Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zjomd.24230$P7.18911@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: | "Will" <billrigby@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d36f7597.0411160418.3653e785@posting.google.com...
"Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Slbmd.36419$Q7.18331@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
...
Anyway, in re: "oftener"... I like such words, but it's fair to say
they're
no longer mainstream. The tendency is towards using "more ..." rather
than
"...er" as the comparative. Thus you'll find many instances of "more
happy"
(or, in the vulgar tongue "more happier") instead of "happier". Google
throws up many hits for "oftener" but most of them are in
computer-generated
texts.
Whatever you do, don't mention "funner". Oops.
I don't remember hearing anyone round here use that word, which goes to
show
that the traffic is moving heavily in the other direction. Notice how
there
are many more hits for "more funny (than)" than for "funner (than)".
|
Apples and ... something that's almost but not quite apples? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Post subject: Re: duffle/duffel [WAS: "Aught" and "oftener"] |
|
|
Jess Askin wrote:
| Quote: | "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1gncs8x.v6s116fpvzb4N%trio@euronet.nl...
Laura F Spira <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
Of course! Didn't someone ask about lodenberries? They must be
little fruit in duffle coats! (ObSpelling: Duffel?)
I remember from earlier discussions that you find it both ways.
Duffel cloth and duffel coats come from the town of Duffel,
Flanders
(Belgium), so it makes sense to spell those like the proper name.
Duffle bags do not appear to have the same origin -- it's a much
newer word, the bags are *not* made of duffel cloth,
Not any more, but didn't they use to be?
|
But I don't really see why they'd have made a kit-bag out of overcoat
material when canvas was cheaper and better.
| Quote: | and there was a
little-known 19th c. use of "duffle" for "junk, stuff,
miscellaneous
items" that I suspect gave rise to "duffle bags".
Or the other way round?
|
OED1 has it as a 19C American word for things like a camper's change
of clothing and other personal effects, so it looks as though the
stuff came before the bag.
| Quote: |
All the dictionaries I have access to seem to think the same word
is
used for both cloth or bag, and accept both spellings. Google is
roughly neutral (296,000 for "duffel bag" vs. 217,000 for "duffle
bag"). What saith the OED?
|
OED1 prefers "duffel", giving "duffle" as an alternative. But George
Washington wrote "duffil".
When did the RN start saying "duffel coat"? If they ever did, that
is: my experience says they always used to call the things "lammies",
but that doesn't precisely match OED1's definition of _lammie_.
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M. J. Powell
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Post subject: Re: duffle/duffel [WAS: "Aught" and "oftener"] |
|
|
In message <2vv26sF2qppoeU1@uni-berlin.de>, Mike Lyle
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
| Quote: | Jess Askin wrote:
"Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1gncs8x.v6s116fpvzb4N%trio@euronet.nl...
Laura F Spira <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
Of course! Didn't someone ask about lodenberries? They must be
little fruit in duffle coats! (ObSpelling: Duffel?)
I remember from earlier discussions that you find it both ways.
Duffel cloth and duffel coats come from the town of Duffel,
Flanders
(Belgium), so it makes sense to spell those like the proper name.
Duffle bags do not appear to have the same origin -- it's a much
newer word, the bags are *not* made of duffel cloth,
Not any more, but didn't they use to be?
But I don't really see why they'd have made a kit-bag out of overcoat
material when canvas was cheaper and better.
|
In '55 my RAF duffle bag was white canvas with a broad blue stripe round
it.
I bought my friends bag for 2/6. Still have them both.
2778069 POWELL M. J.
--
M.J.Powell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Post subject: Re: "Aught" and "oftener" |
|
|
M. J. Powell wrote:
| Quote: | In message <2vss6bF2lf6lqU1@uni-berlin.de>, Skitt <skitt99@comcast.net
writes
the Omrud wrote:
I will be missing tomorrow as I have to go to Bracknell. I sometimes
praise my management for paying me so well for the simple job of
driving down motorways.
That's nothing. I was well paid for sitting in airplanes and limos. I
never traveled for business on my own time. When I traveled on a
weekend, I took compensatory time off.
My bosses used to pay me to go to football matches.
|
I once was paid to go on a brewery tour. My boss didn't know, though.
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:01 am
Post subject: Re: duffle/duffel [WAS: "Aught" and "oftener"] |
|
|
In message <2vv26sF2qppoeU1@uni-berlin.de>, Mike Lyle
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
| Quote: |
When did the RN start saying "duffel coat"? If they ever did, that is:
my experience says they always used to call the things "lammies", but
that doesn't precisely match OED1's definition of _lammie_.
|
We used to have a 'family' (ie passed on to the poorer members) duffel
coat which had reputedly been white when it was worn by my uncle on
Arctic convoy duty. So assuming we had acquired its name with the coat,
that puts both back to the early 1940s.
I still have his original order papers to report to the battleship
Repulse. I guess he was transferred before Tojo sank it.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:06 pm
Post subject: Re: duffle/duffel [WAS: "Aught" and "oftener"] |
|
|
Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | In message <2vv26sF2qppoeU1@uni-berlin.de>, Mike Lyle
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
When did the RN start saying "duffel coat"? If they ever did, that is:
my experience says they always used to call the things "lammies", but
that doesn't precisely match OED1's definition of _lammie_.
We used to have a 'family' (ie passed on to the poorer members) duffel
coat which had reputedly been white when it was worn by my uncle on
Arctic convoy duty. So assuming we had acquired its name with the coat,
that puts both back to the early 1940s.
|
The duffel coat goes way back. It's duffel bag we don't have a proper
first cite for.
I just checked the 2001 discussion. We were scant on dates. Maybe
someone with OED or other resources can fill in some.
Merriam-Webster, as usual, only dates the first meaning, which was
duffel cloth (from Duffel, Belgium), 1677.
The _Dictionary of American English_ (U. Chicago, 4 vols, 1938) had many
citations for "duffel, duffle, also duffil, duffield." Yet not a single
reference to a duffel bag (that is, as of 1938). Summarizing:
Meaning 1, a coarse woollen cloth, has citations from 1649 to 1832.
Meaning 2, articles of dress and personal use, carried on a hunting
or camping trip. Always singular. Dates 1884-1925.
Examples:
1889: His dainty craft has room for... a limited amount of duffle.
1894: In a moment our duffle was transferred to the spring wagon.
Meaning 3a, combinations in sense 1 with "blanket, coat," etc.
Dates 1699 to 1782.
1699 a Duffel Blankett
1723 a Blew Duffils loose Coat
1758 a light duffil Cloak
1782 each duffil-dress'd curmudgeon
Meaning 3b. combination in sense 2 with "room".
1893: "...there will be a duffel room to contain all manner of
unclassified things."
That order is unnecessarily confusing, but it's typical of the way the
DAE lists attributive senses separately. It means #1 goes with #3a, and
#2 goes with #3b.
From personal memories, a.u.e members mentioned "duffle bags" in various
military duty from 1950s on.
It still seems likely to me that the "duffel/duffle" comes from Meanings
#2 and #3b above, "personal articles, items carried, unclassified
things" and not from "a woollen cloth." Especially since there is no
reason to think that the bags were ever made of such cloth.
It just sounds strange to us because we've forgotten the word "duffle"
ever had any meaning of "personal articles". Maybe it was never a
widespread word to begin with, and maybe it came from some minority
language group like Scots or Irish. All we ever hear of nowadays
(besides duffle bags) is the cloth/coat one.
So, yes, I think M-W missed the boat on this one. I say there are two
distinct words here that have been conflated. The only other possibility
I can think of is that somehow the word took the same route as "stuff"
-- going from the meaning of cloth to the meaning of any old junk.
--
Best - Donna Richoux
| Quote: |
I still have his original order papers to report to the battleship
Repulse. I guess he was transferred before Tojo sank it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FB
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:07 pm
Post subject: Re: "Aught" and "oftener" |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:55:30 GMT, Adrian Bailey wrote:
| Quote: | Anyway, in re: "oftener"... I like such words, but it's fair to say they're
no longer mainstream. The tendency is towards using "more ..." rather than
"...er" as the comparative. Thus you'll find many instances of "more happy"
(or, in the vulgar tongue "more happier") instead of "happier". Google
throws up many hits for "oftener" but most of them are in computer-generated
texts.
|
1) I'll live without "for aught I know". In time, I'm sure I'll resign to
it.
2) Do you think I could use "oftener"? You say it's no longer mainstream:
do you mean it's mostly used by some inveterate fogeys or is it just less
common than "more often" but then perfectly acceptable?
Bye, FB
--
Domanda: "Era il figlio di Iside e Osiride".
Risposta: "Thor".
(quiz televisivo) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcw
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:01 pm
Post subject: Re: "Aught" and "oftener" |
|
|
In article <MPG.1c034547ba6578698aa24@news.individual.net>,
the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | General Gordon is best known for controlling the mob
during the Gordon Riots of 1780 as recorded in Dicken's "Barnaby
Rudge".
|
Who is this Dicken of whom you speak?
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: "Aught" and "oftener" |
|
|
FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:55:30 GMT, Adrian Bailey wrote:
Anyway, in re: "oftener"... I like such words, but it's fair to say they're
no longer mainstream. The tendency is towards using "more ..." rather than
"...er" as the comparative. Thus you'll find many instances of "more happy"
(or, in the vulgar tongue "more happier") instead of "happier". Google
throws up many hits for "oftener" but most of them are in computer-generated
texts.
|
[snip]
| Quote: | 2) Do you think I could use "oftener"? You say it's no longer mainstream:
do you mean it's mostly used by some inveterate fogeys or is it just less
common than "more often" but then perfectly acceptable?
|
Which continent are you writing for? The American Heritage Dictionary
lists "oftener" as a word, and the Oxford dictionary at
www.AskOxford.com says:
-- USAGE The comparative and superlative forms
oftener and oftenest are not incorrect, but are
rarely used now in British English, the more usual
constructions being more often and most often.
However oftener and oftenest do occur more
frequently in North American English.
I'm North American in origin myself, and I'd say, use it if you have
some special reason to. It's not so long that the "-er" is prohibited
(like *"beautifuller"), the meaning is clear, and here are two
dictionaries indicating it's permitted. What more could you want?
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
An American living in the Netherlands |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Zimmer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: duffle/duffel [WAS: "Aught" and "oftener"] |
|
|
Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: |
The duffel coat goes way back. It's duffel bag we don't have a proper
first cite for.
I just checked the 2001 discussion. We were scant on dates. Maybe
someone with OED or other resources can fill in some.
|
Sure thing. Here are OED2's cites (under the entry for "duffle"):
1917 E. E. CUMMINGS Let. 1 Oct. (1969) 37, I had a
duffle-bag, chuck full.
1939 A. KEITH Land below Wind xx. 312 There were our
two brief-cases..and the duffle bag.
1961 L. VAN DER POST Heart of Hunter I. vii. 114 In
the end the suitcase and duffle bag we had given
Dabé were nearly bursting with presents.
A full-text search finds a slightly earlier cite elsewhere in the OED
(under the entry for "bed"):
1910 S. E. WHITE Rules of Game vi. 203 Thus instead
of his 'turkey' - or duffle-bag - he speaks of his
'bed-roll', and by that term means not only his
sleeping equipment but often all his worldly goods.
The only cite I can find for the "duffel bag" spelling is from 1970
(under the entry for "surplus"). The online databases do better, of
course -- Newspaperarchive.com dates "duffle bag" back to 1899, and
Proquest has "duffel bag" back to 1909. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:04 pm
Post subject: Re: duffle/duffel [WAS: "Aught" and "oftener"] |
|
|
Ben Zimmer wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | 1910 S. E. WHITE Rules of Game vi. 203 Thus instead
of his 'turkey' - or duffle-bag - he speaks of his
'bed-roll', and by that term means not only his
sleeping equipment but often all his worldly goods.
[...] |
Until I saw that Stewart E. White quotation I thought "turkey" was
obsolete Australian (but it's not in Partridge _Historical Sl._).
Properly, I thought, it referred not to a cylindrical kit-bag but to
one of two kinds of bed-roll. I suppose the term drifted into Aus
with the gold rush and failed to take root.
The swagman's swag is the "turkey" kind: a roll of blankets and
possessions classically carried slung across the back with a rope.
The formal bed-roll was a heavy canvas thing which opened out with
two side-flaps, and was fastened with built-in leather straps and
buckles. They were much used in the Colonies in the old days; and I
actually had an ancient one, but chucked it out as it was in poor
condition.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:33 am
Post subject: Re: "Aught" and "oftener" |
|
|
In article <55@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk>, dcw at D.C.Wood@ukc.ac.uk
exposited:
| Quote: | In article <MPG.1c034547ba6578698aa24@news.individual.net>,
the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
General Gordon is best known for controlling the mob
during the Gordon Riots of 1780 as recorded in Dicken's "Barnaby
Rudge".
Who is this Dicken of whom you speak?
|
The author of the "Dicken Jane" schoolbooks.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:33 am
Post subject: Re: "Aught" and "oftener" |
|
|
"Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1gneh75.1by2m8ghvt1q6N%trio@euronet.nl...
| Quote: | FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:55:30 GMT, Adrian Bailey wrote:
Anyway, in re: "oftener"... I like such words, but it's fair to say
they're
no longer mainstream. The tendency is towards using "more ..." rather
than
"...er" as the comparative. Thus you'll find many instances of "more
happy"
(or, in the vulgar tongue "more happier") instead of "happier". Google
throws up many hits for "oftener" but most of them are in
computer-generated
texts.
[snip]
2) Do you think I could use "oftener"? You say it's no longer
mainstream:
do you mean it's mostly used by some inveterate fogeys or is it just
less
common than "more often" but then perfectly acceptable?
Which continent are you writing for? The American Heritage Dictionary
lists "oftener" as a word, and the Oxford dictionary at
www.AskOxford.com says:
-- USAGE The comparative and superlative forms
oftener and oftenest are not incorrect, but are
rarely used now in British English, the more usual
constructions being more often and most often.
However oftener and oftenest do occur more
frequently in North American English.
I'm North American in origin myself, and I'd say, use it if you have
some special reason to. It's not so long that the "-er" is prohibited
(like *"beautifuller"), the meaning is clear, and here are two
dictionaries indicating it's permitted. What more could you want?
|
Its usage is much less common than "more often" on both sides of the
Atlantic, and I can't think of an example where it's actually preferable.
Certainly it's going to sound odd to most people, most of the time. I
recommend avoiding it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:33 am
Post subject: Re: "Aught" and "oftener" |
|
|
don groves wrote:
| Quote: | In article <55@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk>, dcw at D.C.Wood@ukc.ac.uk
exposited:
In article <MPG.1c034547ba6578698aa24@news.individual.net>,
the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
General Gordon is best known for controlling the mob
during the Gordon Riots of 1780 as recorded in Dicken's "Barnaby
Rudge".
Who is this Dicken of whom you speak?
The author of the "Dicken Jane" schoolbooks.
|
But I've only just noticed the above calumniation of the talented but
eccentric General Gordon, aka Chinese Gordon, aka Gordon of Khartoum.
The anti-Catholic Gordon Riots (1780) were led, not quelled, by Lord
George Gordon, who had never got above lieutenant RN, and died a
generation before the other was born.
I'm sure that security-minded readers, other than Joey, will be
relieved to hear that a guardsman is still placed every day in St
James's Park to protect the King from the Gordon rioters on his
afternoon walk.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in