Negative Nancies and other related musings

[Laurence Horn]

>Both GI J's (not just the dolls) can be applied to individuals. "John Law"
>(usu.) and "John Q. Public" personify groups.
>
>JL

Then there's Joe Sixpa(c)k, who's an individual (of sorts).

LH

>
>On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Mark Mandel <thnidu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>  -----------------------
>>  Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>  Poster:       Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
>>  Subject:      Re: Negative Nancies and other related musings
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  Unless you mean the dolls, how are the GI J's significantly less generic
>>  than John Law? -- and why not John Q. Public?
>>
>>  m a m
>>
>>  On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com
>>  >wrote:
>>
>>  > Also GI Joe and GI Jane.
>>  >
>>  > I assume we're ignoring more abstract personifications like "John Q.
>>  > Public"
>>  > and "John Law."
>>  >
>>  > JL
>>  >
>>
>>   ------------------------------------------------------------
>>  The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
>
>
>--
>"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org