| Author |
Message |
FB
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 3:00 am
Post subject: Thrice as much |
|
|
Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still used in
adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think of "thrice as much"?
Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
Bye, FB
--
Conversation like television set on honeymoon: unnecessary.
(Murder by Death) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 3:00 am
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
FB wrote:
| Quote: | Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still used in
adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think of "thrice as much"?
|
Might be used in AmE for humorous or comical purposes.
Over 4000 Google hits, but a lot of these seem to be Commonwealth
English, ESL English (e.g. LoddE), and archaic (pre-20th century) Modern
English. But if Ron says it's okay, I'm'a start usin' it.
| Quote: | Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
|
Cultural stereotypes in the US suggest that it would be, which probably
means that it isn't.
Google:
thrice 1190000
thrice site:.uk 80400
Richoux Ratio: 15:1
COMPARE:
"cheesy bits" 684
"cheesy bits" site:.uk 310
Richoux Ratio: 2:1
"sexed up" wmd report 25600
"sexed up" wmd report site:.uk 2530
Richoux Ratio: 10:1
"mornington crescent" 127000
"mornington crescent" site:.uk 35000
Richoux Ratio: 4:1
"eccles cakes" 3390
"eccles cakes" site:.uk 1190
Richoux Ratio: 3:1
From these results I'd conclude that, if anything, "thrice" is "commoner"
in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 3:00 am
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: | Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Cultural stereotypes in the US suggest that it would be, which probably
means that it isn't.
Google:
thrice 1190000
thrice site:.uk 80400
Richoux Ratio: 15:1
COMPARE:
"cheesy bits" 684
"cheesy bits" site:.uk 310
Richoux Ratio: 2:1
"sexed up" wmd report 25600
"sexed up" wmd report site:.uk 2530
Richoux Ratio: 10:1
"mornington crescent" 127000
"mornington crescent" site:.uk 35000
Richoux Ratio: 4:1
"eccles cakes" 3390
"eccles cakes" site:.uk 1190
Richoux Ratio: 3:1
From these results I'd conclude that, if anything, "thrice" is "commoner"
in the US.
Richard, please do not attach my name to these. Searching on "site:.uk"
or "site:uk" has been shown to be unreliable and essentially
meaningless, for three or four different reasons.
|
I wouldn't say it's meaningless. Look at those results -- they're pretty
much what you'd expect. Esoteric food items known only within the UK,
like "cheesy bits" and "Eccles cakes", have a
relatively low ratio. Nearly-as-esoteric cultural oddities or insanities
like the "Mornington Crescent" phenomenon, incomprehensible to Americans
and others (except perhaps AusE and SAfrE pretenders), have nearly as low
a ratio. But take something like "sexed up" combined with "wmd" and
"report". Although that concerned a UK-specific event and is associated
with a UK idiom that was, until recently, unknown in AmE (and perhaps even
RonE) -- namely, "sexed up" -- it was so widely reported in the
international press that it gets a relatively high ratio.
If "thrice" were really so much commoner in BrE, I think we'd see a lower
ratio. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 4:50 am
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | FB wrote:
Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still used in
adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think of "thrice as much"?
|
I would never use it. I don't remember seeing or hearing it.
| Quote: |
Might be used in AmE for humorous or comical purposes.
Over 4000 Google hits, but a lot of these seem to be Commonwealth
English, ESL English (e.g. LoddE), and archaic (pre-20th century) Modern
English. But if Ron says it's okay, I'm'a start usin' it.
Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
|
I don't deem "deem" to be common anywhere, any more.
| Quote: |
Cultural stereotypes in the US suggest that it would be, which probably
means that it isn't.
Google:
thrice 1190000
thrice site:.uk 80400
Richoux Ratio: 15:1
COMPARE:
"cheesy bits" 684
"cheesy bits" site:.uk 310
Richoux Ratio: 2:1
"sexed up" wmd report 25600
"sexed up" wmd report site:.uk 2530
Richoux Ratio: 10:1
"mornington crescent" 127000
"mornington crescent" site:.uk 35000
Richoux Ratio: 4:1
"eccles cakes" 3390
"eccles cakes" site:.uk 1190
Richoux Ratio: 3:1
From these results I'd conclude that, if anything, "thrice" is "commoner"
in the US.
|
Richard, please do not attach my name to these. Searching on "site:.uk"
or "site:uk" has been shown to be unreliable and essentially
meaningless, for three or four different reasons.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:08 am
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:50:41 +0200, trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrote:
[-]
| Quote: | I don't deem "deem" to be common anywhere, any more.
|
Your confidence in this resides in a Richoux ratio tucked away in your
extensive archives no doubt, but I for one might be interested in
seeing the evidence. Please share. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:09 am
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
Donna Richoux writes:
| Quote: | Richard, please do not attach my name to these. Searching on "site:.uk"
or "site:uk" has been shown to be unreliable and essentially
meaningless, for three or four different reasons.
|
When was that?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Perhaps their software was written by
msb@vex.net a Byzan-tine-ager" -- Peter Neumann |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 2:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
Adrian Bailey wrote on 10 May 2005:
| Quote: | "FB" <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote...
Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still used
in adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think of
"thrice as much"?
Thrice as little.
Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
Well, it ain't common here, unless you're Stephen Fry.
|
It's not common in American English either, but I use it sometimes.
You'd expect that, though, now, wouldn't you?
| Quote: |
"Thrice" is an example of an as-yet unnamed type of word
|
Nonsense. It's an adverb:
[quote: W3NID]
Main Entry: thrice
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English thries, from thrie three times (from Old
English thriga, thriwa) + -es, gen. singular ending of nouns
(functioning adverbially, as in nedes needs); akin to Old Frisian
thria three times, Old Saxon thriio, thriwo; derivatives from the
root of Old English thr*e three * more at THREE, -S
1 : three times *a cleaning woman thrice weekly should do Waldo
Frank* *bells ... which thrice daily chime ~ the Angelus American
Guide Series: California*
2 a : in a threefold manner or degree b : to high degree : FULLY,
REPEATEDLY used as an intensive *thrice is he armed that hath his
quarrel just ~ Shakespeare*
[/quote]
| Quote: | which I would describe as "It exists so I should use it."
|
Shakespeare used it, so that says nothing but good things about it.
Who cares whether Jane Austen or the Brontes used it? Will is good
enough to justify the word.
I'd say "It exists, so I *can* use it if I need it." Sometimes I feel
I do need it. Why not?
| Quote: | This affliction is common among speakers of English as a
foreign language.
|
It's also common among native anglophones. They are a sloppy lot and
often speak without thinking.
| Quote: | Another example is the overuse of "Xmas" among such people.
|
Goodness, Adrian. "Xmas"? Why can't you bear its use as a symbol?
That also has a long and even more ancient pedigree than "thrice".
That "X" was used in ancient Greek --- and still may be in modern
Greek, for all I know --- to stand for "Christ". Another quote from
W3NID about the symbol "X":
"3 capitalized [from the Greek letter X] Christ : Christian"
In English, the pronunciation is [kai]. The symbol is so much easier
to write than the entire word.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
John Lennon (1970) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adrian Bailey
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 5:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
"FB" <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote in message
news:cn3g1q40hh3y$.10pr29qsgsxu0$.dlg@40tude.net...
| Quote: | Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still used in
adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think of "thrice as much"?
|
Thrice as little.
| Quote: | Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
|
Well, it ain't common here, unless you're Stephen Fry.
"Thrice" is an example of an as-yet unnamed type of word which I would
describe as "It exists so I should use it." This affliction is common among
speakers of English as a foreign language. Another example is the overuse of
"Xmas" among such people.
Adrian (UK) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDB
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
"Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tf1ge.7489$Jc5.6047@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: | "FB" <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote in message
news:cn3g1q40hh3y$.10pr29qsgsxu0$.dlg@40tude.net...
Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still used in
adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think of "thrice as
much"?
Thrice as little.
Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
Well, it ain't common here, unless you're Stephen Fry.
"Thrice" is an example of an as-yet unnamed type of word which I
would
describe as "It exists so I should use it." This affliction is
common among
speakers of English as a foreign language. Another example is the
overuse of
"Xmas" among such people.
Children used "thrice" in the '50s as part of the choosing ritual |
"odds and evens": "Once, twice, thrice, shoot." Maybe they still do.
CDB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 9:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
Adrian Bailey <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "FB" <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote in message
news:cn3g1q40hh3y$.10pr29qsgsxu0$.dlg@40tude.net...
Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still used in
adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think of "thrice as much"?
Thrice as little.
Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
Well, it ain't common here, unless you're Stephen Fry.
"Thrice" is an example of an as-yet unnamed type of word which I would
describe as "It exists so I should use it." This affliction is common among
speakers of English as a foreign language. Another example is the overuse of
"Xmas" among such people.
|
That is of course very hard to avoid.
The required knowledge is negative:
knowing that certain expressions are not used.
The same problem occurs when trying to speak
an other dialect or variant of your own language consistently.
For example, an American wanting to pass for a Brit among the Brits
would find it very hard to avoid using the wrong words
or constructions.
Much harder probably than imitating a British accent.
But isn't 'thrice' in the Snark?
Jan
--
"I've told you thrice!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
J. J. Lodder wrote:
| Quote: | Adrian Bailey <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote:
"FB" <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote in message
news:cn3g1q40hh3y$.10pr29qsgsxu0$.dlg@40tude.net...
Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still used
in
adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think of "thrice
as
much"?
Thrice as little.
Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
Well, it ain't common here, unless you're Stephen Fry.
"Thrice" is an example of an as-yet unnamed type of word which I
would describe as "It exists so I should use it." This affliction
is
common among speakers of English as a foreign language. Another
example is the overuse of "Xmas" among such people.
That is of course very hard to avoid.
The required knowledge is negative:
knowing that certain expressions are not used.
The same problem occurs when trying to speak
an other dialect or variant of your own language consistently.
For example, an American wanting to pass for a Brit among the Brits
would find it very hard to avoid using the wrong words
or constructions.
Much harder probably than imitating a British accent.
But isn't 'thrice' in the Snark?
|
Yes, but then so is "snark".
On the other hand, there's nothing _wrong_ with using "thrice" in
modern discourse. My sense is that it's just that its scope is very
limited: you could occasionally say something like "thrice-daily
xxxs" without raising eyebrows; but I think it would become odd if
you used it a lot, and nearly always plain bizarre if you used it as
the simple adverb = "three times". I'd never seriously say "I've been
to Dublin thrice", but I might say "[A] Thrice-daily dose[s] of
aspirin didn't help".
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 3:21 am
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
Adrian Bailey wrote on 11 May 2005:
| Quote: | "CyberCypher" <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
Adrian Bailey wrote on 10 May 2005:
"FB" <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote...
Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still
used in adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think
of "thrice as much"?
Thrice as little.
Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
Well, it ain't common here, unless you're Stephen Fry.
It's not common in American English either, but I use it
sometimes. You'd expect that, though, now, wouldn't you?
"Thrice" is an example of an as-yet unnamed type of word
Nonsense. It's an adverb:
Don't be obtuse.
|
I think I need to bounce that back at you. You give no clue as to
what you mean by "thrice"'s being "an example of an as-yet unnamed
type of word". What's wrong with it?
| Quote: | [snip]
Another example is the overuse of "Xmas" among such people.
Goodness, Adrian. "Xmas"? Why can't you bear its use as a symbol?
Huh? How did you leap to that conclusion?
|
You didn't provide any specific objection. Am I a mind reader? I
still don't understand why you find it objectionable. Is it because
non-native English speakers use it when you wouldn't? What about us
native anglophones who use it when you wouldn't? (Just guessing, mind
you.)
| Quote: | All I said was that "Xmas" is in the same category of word
as "thrice". Both are acceptable in the right context.
|
As is everything. Got any examples to illustrate when both are
acceptable and unacceptable? Just so your other readers won't feel as
lost as I feel about what you mean.
| Quote: | An extension of this word-type is the misused compound, e.g.
"everyday" used for "every day", "anyway" used for "any way",
"anymore" used for "any more", etc. This kind of error can partly
be blamed on software tools.
|
I think the only software that can rightly be blamed is the human
brain. People have been misusing these misused compounds for more
decades than I can remember (almost 6). Wouldn't they be called
solecisms? But "misused compound" is also good, as is "CLS" or
"complexsol" ("compounded lexemic solecism").
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor --- "Twice the credentials for
thrice the price. That's nice!" But not Dunninger.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain".
John Lennon (1970) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 4:38 am
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Donna Richoux writes:
Richard, please do not attach my name to these. Searching on "site:.uk"
or "site:uk" has been shown to be unreliable and essentially
meaningless, for three or four different reasons.
When was that?
|
I don't know. I searched a while to see if I could find a post where it
was discovered and discussed, but I didn't. It's possible I'm mixing it
up with other situations where the Google counts are unreliable (like
with minus terms), but I do seem to remember that it gave erratic
results.
The other reasons not to trust numbers obtained with "site:" are (l) not
all UK sites have "uk" in the address; (2) not all writing on "site:uk"
page are written by UK speakers; and (3) I know I had a third point when
I thought about this this morning! These sort of objections may not stop
a ratio from being valid but it would have to be thought through.
I've used the "site" trick as a fast way to get a rough estimate, but I
really wouldn't stake anything on it, not at this point. And since
attaching my name as a sort of implicit endorsement, I thought I should
say this.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adrian Bailey
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 6:00 am
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
"CyberCypher" <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9652D31F163ADseednews@139.175.55.249...
| Quote: | Adrian Bailey wrote on 10 May 2005:
"FB" <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote...
Some time ago I was told in this ng that "thrice" is still used
in adjectives such as "thrice-weekly". What do you think of
"thrice as much"?
Thrice as little.
Do you deem "thrice" to be commoner in the US than in Britain?
Well, it ain't common here, unless you're Stephen Fry.
It's not common in American English either, but I use it sometimes.
You'd expect that, though, now, wouldn't you?
"Thrice" is an example of an as-yet unnamed type of word
Nonsense. It's an adverb:
|
Don't be obtuse.
[snip]
| Quote: | Another example is the overuse of "Xmas" among such people.
Goodness, Adrian. "Xmas"? Why can't you bear its use as a symbol?
|
Huh? How did you leap to that conclusion? All I said was that "Xmas" is in
the same category of word as "thrice". Both are acceptable in the right
context.
An extension of this word-type is the misused compound, e.g. "everyday" used
for "every day", "anyway" used for "any way", "anymore" used for "any more",
etc. This kind of error can partly be blamed on software tools.
Adrian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 7:26 am
Post subject: Re: Thrice as much |
|
|
Donna Richoux and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
| Quote: | Searching on "site:.uk" or "site:uk" has been shown to be
unreliable and essentially meaningless, for three or four
different reasons.
When was that?
I don't know. I searched a while to see if I could find a post where it
was discovered and discussed, but I didn't. It's possible I'm mixing it
up with other situations where the Google counts are unreliable ...
|
That is what I suspected. But maybe there's something I've forgotten.
| Quote: | The other reasons not to trust numbers obtained with "site:" are (l) not
all UK sites have "uk" in the address; (2) not all writing on "site:uk"
page are written by UK speakers; and (3) I know I had a third point when
I thought about this this morning! These sort of objections may not stop
a ratio from being valid but it would have to be thought through.
|
Of course. "site:uk" means just what it says, and not "UK speakers".
But it seems fairly clear that if usage A is significantly more common
*relative to usage B* in the .uk domain than outside, then UK users
are *more likely* than others to use A in preference to B.
| Quote: | I've used the "site" trick as a fast way to get a rough estimate, but I
really wouldn't stake anything on it, not at this point...
|
Given the anomalies we do know about, Google ratios are probably never
worth any more than "a rough estimate".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
msb@vex.net | -- Bill Clinton
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in