YOH IN AFRICAN AMERICAN VERNACULAR ENGLISH
Luisanna Fodde
fodde at UNICA.IT
Mon Sep 17 08:27:29 UTC 2001
I have a query which regards the origins of the exclamation YOH in AAVE,
present especially in rap music and spoken language
Thanks
L. Fodde
University of cagliari
Italy
fodde at unica.it
----- Original Message -----
From: Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
To: Recipients of ADS-L digests <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 6:01 AM
Subject: ADS-L Digest - 14 Sep 2001 to 15 Sep 2001 (#2001-259)
> There are 26 messages totalling 1131 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Civil War (2)
> 2. Hollyweed (3)
> 3. FW: lame denials
> 4. What does ACCENT mean in American English? (5)
> 5. Does not compute (4)
> 6. markedness slips are showing
> 7. lame denials (2)
> 8. lame denials (clarification)
> 9. Pancaking
> 10. "nerd" (1951) in Merriam-Webster files
> 11. Here's How! (1927, 1928) & Here's How Again! (1929)
> 12. Flying Tigers magazine (1960s)
> 13. Boundarylessness
> 14. "sleeper cells" (WOTY candidate?) (2)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 23:44:14 -0500
> From: Mark Odegard <markodegard at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Subject: Re: Civil War
>
> <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>>Does anyone know of any
books or articles or dictionaries that </DIV>
> <DIV>> discuss the origin of the term "Civil War," in specific
reference </DIV>
> <DIV>> to the American conflict of 1861-65? <BR>> <BR>>Fred
Shapiro </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>Not me. But the term 'civil war' itself would seem almost as old as
English itself, and most certainly, considerably older than the late
unpleasentness. Certainly, it's the actual English lexical term for such
events.</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>Ask me what a WASP liberal feels when he discovers he has a dead Reb
ancestor buried in a mass grave in Nancy/Mill Springs, Kentucky. (Answer:
you become respectful).</DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download
of MSN Explorer at <a
href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br
></html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 07:04:51 EDT
> From: Bapopik at AOL.COM
> Subject: Hollyweed
>
> HOLLYWEED
>
> "Hollyweed" (for "Hollywood") came up on some net surfing today.
It's not in Jonathan Green's CDS or the HDAS.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> "Of the many fabulous coinages of Dr. Seuss," he (Saul
Steinmetz--ed.) recalls, "only _grinch_ made it into the common vocabulary,
in the transferred sense of 'a spoilsport or killjoy'--and it took 20
years."
> ---"Screening the novel words of Harry Potter" by Jeff McQuain, the
"On Language" column in the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, 16 September 2001.
>
> "Nerd."
> From Dr. Seuss. Made it into the vocabulary almost immediately. Any
lexicographer would be able to point this out.
> YOU write a letter to the editor and correct it. They didn't believe
me recently when I walked over a 1959 ad for "personal computer." The "On
Language" column, in particular, wouldn't spell a dead man's name correctly,
cite his words correctly, correct a quote of mine, or even talk to me about
it. No ADS members would help on my behalf. It took the New York Times
four years to even correct Barry "Popick." And even that--my
NAME!--involved an extended bit of trickery on the Times's Abuzz network to
get right.
> I've had it.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 09:14:32 -0400
> From: Frank Abate <abatefr at EARTHLINK.NET>
> Subject: FW: lame denials
>
> Arnold Z's comment (cc'd below) reminded me of the attacks on talk radio
> hosts like Rush Limbaugh in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. As in
> that case, here some nearsighted individuals, out of their hatred or
anger,
> look to place blame in mistaken places.
>
> Frank Abate
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf
> Of sagehen
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 7:45 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: lame denials
>
>
> arnold zwicky writes:
> >3. speaker asserts that members of the aclu, abortionists, pagans,
> >feminists, gays, and lesbians must bear some responsibility for the
> >atrocities in new york and washington, because their attempts to
> >"secularize America" "make God mad", but a spokesperson denies hateful
> >intent by saying these remarks were "taken out of context".
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:00:52 -0400
> From: "Dennis R. Preston" <preston at PILOT.MSU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: What does ACCENT mean in American English?
>
> Remember too the research which shows that undergraduates rated a
> native speaker of Amnerican Englisbh (with outward Asian identity) as
> more difficult to understand than other native speakers of the same
> variety. We must always remember that the ear its attached to all of
> the brain - not just the part that converts signals to phonemes, then
> to morphemes, etc... .
>
> dInIs
>
> PS: Jessica Williams' research. University of Illinois Chicago? I can't
recall.
>
>
>
> >>True enough, but what I was looking at (out of the full discourse
> >>context, to be sure) was not just "accent" but "I don't like her
> >>accent", which I think for most speakers represents quite a different
> >>environment than "the accent is on participation".
> >
> >Certainly the quotation as read would seem to refer to "accent" in sense
#3
> >in the AHD4:
> >
> ><<3. A characteristic pronunciation, especially: a. One determined by the
> >regional or social background of the speaker. b. One determined by the
> >phonetic habits of the speaker's native language carried over to his or
her
> >use of another language.>>
> >
> >It is not so clear (to me) whether it refers to (a) or to (b).
> >
> >When I was in college, I heard many complaints from classmates about the
> >instructors' "accents", and I don't remember a case where the reference
was
> >to social or political implications: the complaint generally was simply
> >that a "strong" Indian/Russian/Filipino/whatever "accent" made the
> >lecture/discussion partially incomprehensible. In some cases, I think
> >"accent" subsumes grammatical peculiarities along with "foreign"
> >pronunciations, in this sort of casual usage.
> >
> >-- Doug Wilson
>
> --
> Dennis R. Preston
> Department of Linguistics and Languages
> Michigan State University
> East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA
> preston at pilot.msu.edu
> Office: (517)353-0740
> Fax: (517)432-2736
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:26:58 -0400
> From: "Dennis R. Preston" <preston at PILOT.MSU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: What does ACCENT mean in American English?
>
> One would grant Ron that accent has several non-pronuciation senses,
> and one would certainly grant that a careful investigation of
> discourses will turn up multiplicities of meaning not seen out of
> context. But I would also argue that these meanings here are all
> rather "marked," at least in the limited context given (althoujgh I
> also agree with Ron that a "markedness slip" - we'll now hear no
> doubt that Ron and I are the first to use that heady phrase - could
> have occurred).
>
> My main point here, however, is to note that from hours and hours
> (and hours) of our folk linguistic recordings (with full contexts,
> many reported on concerning just this topic in Niedzielski and
> Preston 1999, Folk LInguistics, Mouton de Gruyter) we do indeed find
> that "pronunciation" is the primary sense of "accent" for
> nonlinguists (although expansion of this to include other aspects of
> language - lexicon, grammar) is also common.
>
> dInIs
>
> >In a message dated 9/14/2001 12:17:44 PM, laurence.horn at YALE.EDU writes:
> >
> ><< >>"The only reason I am dropping the class is because of the teacher.
I
> >> >don't like her accent."
> >> >
> >The only way I can take the above is the phonological one; I can't
> >imagine in being used anywhere I've lived to refer to the content,
> >focus, or direction of the course "she" teaches.
> >
> >Larry
> > >>
> >
> >Think again, Larry, about what people do in actual conversations!
> >
> >See NEW OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH, s.v. ACCENT, "3. a special or
> >particular emphasis: _the accent is on participation_."
> >
> >I don't have time to do a web search, but I'd guess one could find
examples
> >of this pretty easily. I will grant you that general ACCENT is not used
this
> >way without some explicitly defining context. However, as I'm sure Larry
> >knows (!), a snippet of conversation divorced from the rest of the
> >conversation may well divorce the snippet from the explicitly defining
> >context that was implicitly understood by the participants in the
> >conversation.
> >
> >I'd even go farther and suggest that, even if this sense of ACCENT had
not
> >been explicitly defined by the parties in the conversation, the speaker
could
> >well have assumed that it was implicit (if she believed that her friend
would
> >not believe that mere pronunciation would drive her away from a class).
> >
> >I'd even go farther than that and suggest that, given that the above
> >definition of ACCENT is common to native speakers of American English,
the
> >speaker was at worst making a very low-level performance error such as is
> >frequently common in actual conversation, i.e., using a word in one of
its
> >"marked" senses in a context where it would be most likely to be
construed in
> >its unmarked or default sense.
> >
> >Finally, I'm not totally sure that for anyone other than a linguist
ACCENT is
> >so strongly associated with 'pronunciation' as its default meaning.
>
> --
> Dennis R. Preston
> Department of Linguistics and Languages
> Michigan State University
> East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA
> preston at pilot.msu.edu
> Office: (517)353-0740
> Fax: (517)432-2736
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:19:44 -0400
> From: "Douglas G. Wilson" <douglas at NB.NET>
> Subject: Re: Hollyweed
>
> > "Nerd."
> > From Dr. Seuss. Made it into the vocabulary almost immediately.
Any
> > lexicographer would be able to point this out.
>
> A more balanced discussion appears in AHD4:
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/N0063200.html
>
> The word could have been taken from among the MANY Seuss
nonsense-coinages,
> or it could have been someone-else's nonsense-coinage. I would tentatively
> prefer the latter explanation, since there are so many someone-elses. What
> about Mortimer Snerd? Whence came his surname? And what about "Mad"
> magazine's favorite surname, "Furd"?
>
> -- Doug Wilson
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:29:02 -0400
> From: Fred Shapiro <fred.shapiro at YALE.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Hollyweed
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 Bapopik at AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > "Nerd."
> > From Dr. Seuss. Made it into the vocabulary almost immediately.
> > Any lexicographer would be able to point this out.
> > YOU write a letter to the editor and correct it.
>
> > I've had it.
>
> Actually, in my opinion, it's likely that Dr. Seuss did not coin "nerd."
> Merriam-Webster has a 1951 citation in its files indicating the word was
> already current by that year and making no reference to Seuss (I have seen
> the citation, but don't have it handy, perhaps Joanne Despres could post
> it). Given the facts that the Seuss usage was 1950 and that the Seuss
> usage may be a coincidental occurrence, I would surmise that there was a
> slang word "nerd" not originating with Seuss and going back at least to
> the late 1940s.
>
> Fred Shapiro
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fred R. Shapiro Editor
> Associate Librarian for Public Services YALE DICTIONARY OF QUOTATIONS
> and Lecturer in Legal Research Yale University Press,
> Yale Law School forthcoming
> e-mail: fred.shapiro at yale.edu http://quotationdictionary.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:58:16 -0400
> From: "Douglas G. Wilson" <douglas at NB.NET>
> Subject: Does not compute
>
> The odd 'ergative' declaration "[Expression X] does not compute" (spoken
by
> a computer) must have appeared in some old "Star Trek" program or some old
> science-fiction movie, I guess. I suppose it means roughly "[Expression X]
> cannot be parsed" or "[Expression X] is invalid". It is now used like "...
> doesn't make sense" or so, I think.
>
> Is there any information on the origin of this clumsy declaration?
>
> It was my unsupported casual impression, ca. 1970 IIRC, that this was an
> alteration of "[Operator/variable X] does not commute".
>
> As I recall, operators which correspond to simultaneously measurable
> observables in quantum mechanics must commute ... or something like that.
> And in classical dynamics, isn't it sometimes important to determine
> whether something-or-other commutes with the Hamiltonian? I suppose this
> sense of "commute" is not instantly familiar to the average citizen, but
it
> might very well have been familiar to an SF-movie technical adviser
> (physics and SF nerd) or to an SF author/editor, back in the day.
>
> [This came up in a recent conversation about 'ergative' constructions such
> as "Campbell's Chunky Soup eats like a meal." (Sorry if I'm taking undue
> liberties in my use of 'ergative'.)]
>
> -- Doug Wilson
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 11:19:59 EDT
> From: RonButters at AOL.COM
> Subject: markedness slips are showing
>
> In a message dated 9/15/2001 10:18:34 AM, preston at PILOT.MSU.EDU writes:
>
> << One would grant Ron that accent has several non-pronuciation senses,
> and one would certainly grant that a careful investigation of
> discourses will turn up multiplicities of meaning not seen out of
> context. But I would also argue that these meanings here are all
> rather "marked," at least in the limited context given (althoujgh I
> also agree with Ron that a "markedness slip" - we'll now hear no
> doubt that Ron and I are the first to use that heady phrase - could
> have occurred).
>
> My main point here, however, is to note that from hours and hours
> (and hours) of our folk linguistic recordings (with full contexts,
> many reported on concerning just this topic in Niedzielski and
> Preston 1999, Folk LInguistics, Mouton de Gruyter) we do indeed find
> that "pronunciation" is the primary sense of "accent" for
> nonlinguists (although expansion of this to include other aspects of
> language - lexicon, grammar) is also common.
>
> dInIs >>
>
> Sure! The difference between a default reading and a nondefault reading is
> that the default reading is the one that most often occurs. Duh!
>
> The point is that in conversation--when the speaker feels certain that the
> hearer is going to interpret what the speaker says as one of the
nondefault
> readings--then a nondefault reading may well be (or even has to be) the
one
> intended. For example:
>
> Speaker A: I really like it that she is accenting the course towards
> contemporary history.
> Speaker B: Well, I'm dropping the course because *I* just don't like her
> accent.
>
> Or what if Speaker A and Speaker B both have heard the instructor speak
and
> both know that the instructor has no noticeable pronunciational
differences
> between her speech and the speech of Speakers A and B?
>
> How can Larry ("I still don't get the 'content' reading") Horn--who
teaches
> courses in pragmatics--eliminate potential contexts from consideration in
> determining the possible range of meanings of the utterance in question?
> These aren't far-fetched examples, they are typical of what people do in
real
> conversations.
>
> Maybe a different example will help. Take the noun IRON. As a count noun,
> IRON would seem to have the default meaning 'appliance used to press
> clothing'. In isolation, then, in a sentence such as
>
> She hit her sister on the head with the iron
>
> IRON would have the default reading 'appliance used to press clothing'.
>
> But IRON also can refer to a golf club, though this usage is normally
> combined with a number, as in FOUR IRON.
>
> However, it is fairly easy to construct contexts in which
>
> She hit her sister on the head with the iron.
>
> Would unambiguously refer to a golf club--for example, if the incident in
> question took place on a golf course.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:16:07 -0600
> From: Victoria Neufeldt <vneufeldt at MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM>
> Subject: Re: What does ACCENT mean in American English?
>
> I believe that the unmarked, basic meaning of 'accent' in the speech
> community as a whole is the linguistic one. I'd bet a week's pay that
> virtually anyone encountering the word in isolation and asked what it
meant
> would say something about speech. In the context under discussion, the
fact
> that the speaker says "her" (instead of "the") makes it pretty clear that
> that must have been the meaning here too. It may not have been
> specifically a geographical accent or even a non-English one that was
> meant -- maybe just a dislike of the general way the teacher spoke that
for
> some reason grated on the student (who knows what personal associations
> might be involved here).
>
> Victoria
>
> Victoria Neufeldt
> 1533 Early Drive
> Saskatoon, Sask.
> S7H 3K1
> Canada
>
>
>
> > On Friday, September 14, 2001 11:48 AM, RonButters writes:
> > In a message dated 9/14/2001 12:17:44 PM, laurence.horn at YALE.EDU writes:
> >
> > See NEW OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH, s.v. ACCENT, "3. a special or
> > particular emphasis: _the accent is on participation_."
> >
> > I don't have time to do a web search, but I'd guess one could
> > find examples
> > of this pretty easily. I will grant you that general ACCENT is
> > not used this
> > way without some explicitly defining context. However, as I'm sure Larry
> > knows (!), a snippet of conversation divorced from the rest of the
> > conversation may well divorce the snippet from the explicitly defining
> > context that was implicitly understood by the participants in the
> > conversation.
> >
> > I'd even go farther and suggest that, even if this sense of ACCENT had
not
> > been explicitly defined by the parties in the conversation, the
> > speaker could
> > well have assumed that it was implicit (if she believed that her
> > friend would
> > not believe that mere pronunciation would drive her away from a class).
> >
> > I'd even go farther than that and suggest that, given that the above
> > definition of ACCENT is common to native speakers of American English,
the
> > speaker was at worst making a very low-level performance error such as
is
> > frequently common in actual conversation, i.e., using a word in
> > one of its
> > "marked" senses in a context where it would be most likely to be
> > construed in
> > its unmarked or default sense.
> >
> > Finally, I'm not totally sure that for anyone other than a
> > linguist ACCENT is
> > so strongly associated with 'pronunciation' as its default meaning.
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:43:09 EDT
> From: RonButters at AOL.COM
> Subject: Re: What does ACCENT mean in American English?
>
> In a message dated 9/15/01 12:26:09 PM, vneufeldt at MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM
writes:
>
> << In the context under discussion, the fact
>
> that the speaker says "her" (instead of "the") makes it pretty clear that
>
> that must have been the meaning here too. >>
>
> Well, see my slip-is-showing examples before you say "must"; better to
say,
> "... makes it pretty clear that THE MOST LIKELY meaning here IS
> 'PRONUNCIATION'." Which is all that I have been trying to say all along.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:52:38 -0400
> From: Jesse Sheidlower <jester at PANIX.COM>
> Subject: Re: Does not compute
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:58:16AM -0400, Douglas G. Wilson wrote:
> > The odd 'ergative' declaration "[Expression X] does not compute" (spoken
by
> > a computer) must have appeared in some old "Star Trek" program or some
old
> > science-fiction movie, I guess. I suppose it means roughly "[Expression
X]
> > cannot be parsed" or "[Expression X] is invalid". It is now used like
"...
> > doesn't make sense" or so, I think.
> >
> > Is there any information on the origin of this clumsy declaration?
>
> The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang says that
> it was introduced as a catchphrase by the television show _My Living
> Doll_ in 1964.
>
> Jesse Sheidlower
> OED
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 14:01:18 -0400
> From: Gareth Branwyn <garethb2 at EARTHLINK.NET>
> Subject: Re: Does not compute
>
> I believe it was also used on Irwin Allen's "Lost in Space" (1965),
> along with "Affirmative!," "Warning! Warning!," and of course, "Danger,
> Will Robinson."
>
>
> Jesse Sheidlower wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:58:16AM -0400, Douglas G. Wilson wrote:
> > > The odd 'ergative' declaration "[Expression X] does not compute"
(spoken by
> > > a computer) must have appeared in some old "Star Trek" program or some
old
> > > science-fiction movie, I guess. I suppose it means roughly
"[Expression X]
> > > cannot be parsed" or "[Expression X] is invalid". It is now used like
"...
> > > doesn't make sense" or so, I think.
> > >
> > > Is there any information on the origin of this clumsy declaration?
> >
> > The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang says that
> > it was introduced as a catchphrase by the television show _My Living
> > Doll_ in 1964.
> >
> > Jesse Sheidlower
> > OED
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 14:29:15 EDT
> From: "James A. Landau" <JJJRLandau at AOL.COM>
> Subject: Re: Civil War
>
> In a message dated 09/14/2001 12:41:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> fred.shapiro at YALE.EDU writes:
>
> > Does anyone know of any books or articles or dictionaries that discuss
the
> > origin of the term "Civil War," in specific reference to the American
> > conflict of 1861-65?
>
> I have a copy of the _Annual Cyclopaedia of the year 1862_ (New York: D.
> Appleton & Company, 1863, no ISBN).
>
> A brief, less-than-thorough thumbing through this book produced
innumerable
> references to "the war", "this war", and "the present war." There are
also
> several citations for "insurrection" and "rebellion", e.g. (page 294) a
> letter from Secretary of State Seward to the Senate, dated December 19,
1861,
> contains "From the beginning of the insurrection..." and page 295 a
> resolution offered by Senator Waltman T. Willey of Virginia, also on
December
> 19, 1861, begins "Resolved, That the existing war, forced upon the county
by
> the instagotors of the rebellion without justifiable cause or
provocation..."
>
> However, I found the following:
>
> page 277, article on "Congress, U.S." on December 4, 1861, in the House of
> Representatives, William S. Holman of Indiana quoted a resolution of July
22,
> 1861 introduced by John J. Crittenden of Kentucky which included the
> following words
> "That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by
> the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the
> consititutional Government..."
>
> page 270, article on "Congress, Confederate", Senator Lewis T. Wigfall of
> Texas is quoted (apparently in paraphrase) as saying "the gentleman was as
> much mistaken as Abraham Lincoln or William H. Seward if he thought this
was
> a revolution---that we were subjects fighting against an established
> Government. If we were we would be entitled to the term "rebels." This
is
> no civil war. It is a war of some sovereign States against other States.
> There was civil war in Kentucky, where citizens of the same State were at
war
> against one another."
>
> Page 726 article "Public Documents" Message of President Lincoln at the
third
> session of the Thirty-seventh Contress, December 1, 1862 includes the
> following "The civil war which has so radically changed, for the moment,
the
> occupations and habits of the American people" and "A civil war occurring
in
> a country where foreigners reside and carry on trade under treaty
> stipulations is necessarily frruitful of complaints of the violation of
> neutral rights." and (page 727) "The Territories of the United States,
with
> unimportant exceptions, have remained undisturbed by the civil war".
>
> - Jim Landau
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 15:43:28 -0400
> From: Grant Barrett <gbarrett at WORLDNEWYORK.ORG>
> Subject: Re: lame denials
>
> On 9/14/01 19:45, "sagehen" <sagehen at WESTELCOM.COM> wrote:
>
> > arnold zwicky writes:
> >> 3. speaker asserts that members of the aclu, abortionists, pagans,
> >> feminists, gays, and lesbians must bear some responsibility for the
> >> atrocities in new york and washington, because their attempts to
> >> "secularize America" "make God mad", but a spokesperson denies hateful
> >> intent by saying these remarks were "taken out of context".
> >
> > A friend wrote me that NYT & WP were reporting that Jerry Falwell & Pat
> > Robertson had concurred in these just these opinions on the latter's
"700
> > Club" (radio? or tv?) but I didn't hear that either had issued denials,
> > lame or otherwise!
>
> Those denials are in today's paper. I can't find it in the online version,
> but today's New York Times, page A15, right two columns:
>
> "Mr. Falwell released a statement yesterday on the controversy, saying,
> 'Despite the impression some may have from news reports today, I hold no
one
> other than the terrorists and the people and nations who have enabled and
> harbored them responsible for Tuesday's attacks on this nation.'
>
> 'I sincerely regret that the comments I made during a long theological
> discussion on a Christian television program yesterday were taken out of
> their context and reported and that my thoughts--reduced to sound
> bites--have detracted from the spirit of this day of mourning.'"
>
> Robertson had a similar, but shorter denial.
>
> Part of what Falwell said: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden
> for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million
> little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans,
> and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who
> are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU,
People
> for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize American, I
> point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
>
> --
>
> Grant Barrett
> gbarrett at worldnewyork.org
> http://www.worldnewyork.org/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:00:17 +0800
> From: Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Does not compute
>
> >...
> >[This came up in a recent conversation about 'ergative' constructions
such
> >as "Campbell's Chunky Soup eats like a meal." (Sorry if I'm taking undue
> >liberties in my use of 'ergative'.)]
> >
> >-- Doug Wilson
>
> Well, in fact, without making too fine a point on it, yes, there are
> some liberties taken here; how undue depends on the theory. For most
> who have worried about them, what you call ergative constructions
> (and are more generally called unaccusatives) are ultimately distinct
> from, although on some level (especially in sharing a "patient
> subject") related to, the "middles" exemplified by "the soup that
> eats like a meal" (the actual phrase used in the Cambpell ads). The
> former (e.g. "The boat sank", "The door closed", "The ice melted",
> "The building exploded") do not imply the existence of an agent
> responsible for the event in question, although as in each of these
> cases, the event may indeed have been caused either by an agent or a
> force of nature. The latter ("This bread slices easily", "He don't
> scare", "Shakespeare translates with difficulty", "The car is selling
> like hotcakes") do have implicit agents, although typically these
> cannot be directly expressed the way passive agents can. Middles
> also often sound funny if they're not modified with an adverb
> (including negation), while unaccusatives/ergatives don't need any
> modification. (Yes, you can say "The car sold/drives", but it sounds
> funny unless there's a contrastive context and intonation, neither of
> which is necessary for "The boat sank". And "Campbell's Chunky Soup
> eats" sounds like a failed attempt at an insult.)
>
> larry
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:23:54 -0400
> From: sagehen <sagehen at WESTELCOM.COM>
> Subject: Re: lame denials (clarification)
>
> I see from Grant Barrett's post that I need to proofread better. I
> certainly DIDN'T mean "these just opinions." Falwell's disingenuous
> retraction is ridiculous. He's saying, in effect, he doesn't really mean
> it, it's just part of his doctrine. I'm happy to say I would qualify for
> most of his opprobrium, but feel neither more nor less responsible than
any
> other citizen of this privileged country for Tuesday's horror.
>
> ><sagehen at WESTELCOM.COM> wrote:
> >> A friend wrote me that NYT & WP were reporting that Jerry Falwell &
Pat
> >> Robertson had concurred in these just these opinions on the latter's
"700
> >> Club" (radio? or tv?) but I didn't hear that either had issued
denials,
> >> lame or otherwise!
>
> >...Falwell said...... "I really believe that the pagans,
> >and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians
who
> >are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU,
People
> >for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize American,
I
> >point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
>
> A. Murie
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:32:07 EDT
> From: Bapopik at AOL.COM
> Subject: Pancaking
>
> From the LOS ANGELES TIMES, 12 September 2001, pg. A4:
>
> 'The technical term is progressive collapse--the slang term is
pancaking," said Ron Klemencic, president of Skilling Ward Magnusson
Barkshire, the Seattle firm that engineered the World Trade Center. "What
basically happens is that one floor falls on top of the floors below it, and
with one floor falling on top of another there's no way to stop it."
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:06:13 -0400
> From: Beverly Flanigan <flanigan at OAK.CATS.OHIOU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: lame denials
>
> At 03:43 PM 9/15/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >On 9/14/01 19:45, "sagehen" <sagehen at WESTELCOM.COM> wrote:
> >
> > > arnold zwicky writes:
> > >> 3. speaker asserts that members of the aclu, abortionists, pagans,
> > >> feminists, gays, and lesbians must bear some responsibility for the
> > >> atrocities in new york and washington, because their attempts to
> > >> "secularize America" "make God mad", but a spokesperson denies
hateful
> > >> intent by saying these remarks were "taken out of context".
> > >
> > > A friend wrote me that NYT & WP were reporting that Jerry Falwell &
Pat
> > > Robertson had concurred in these just these opinions on the latter's
"700
> > > Club" (radio? or tv?) but I didn't hear that either had issued
denials,
> > > lame or otherwise!
> >
> >Those denials are in today's paper. I can't find it in the online
version,
> >but today's New York Times, page A15, right two columns:
> >
> >"Mr. Falwell released a statement yesterday on the controversy, saying,
> >'Despite the impression some may have from news reports today, I hold no
one
> >other than the terrorists and the people and nations who have enabled and
> >harbored them responsible for Tuesday's attacks on this nation.'
> >
> >'I sincerely regret that the comments I made during a long theological
> >discussion on a Christian television program yesterday were taken out of
> >their context and reported and that my thoughts--reduced to sound
> >bites--have detracted from the spirit of this day of mourning.'"
> >
> >Robertson had a similar, but shorter denial.
> >
> >Part of what Falwell said: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden
> >for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million
> >little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the
pagans,
> >and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians
who
> >are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU,
People
> >for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize American,
I
> >point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
> >
> >--
> >
> >Grant Barrett
> >gbarrett at worldnewyork.org
> >http://www.worldnewyork.org/
>
> E. L. Doctorow, on NPR this morning, had it right: He said Falwell is no
> different from the perpetrators of this horrible week when he justifies
the
> murder of thousands.
>
>
> _____________________________________________
> Beverly Olson Flanigan Department of Linguistics
> Ohio University Athens, OH 45701
> Ph.: (740) 593-4568 Fax: (740) 593-2967
> http://www.cats.ohiou.edu/linguistics/dept/flanigan.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 18:18:35 -0500
> From: Gerald Cohen <gcohen at UMR.EDU>
> Subject: "nerd" (1951) in Merriam-Webster files
>
> Fred Shapiro today requested Merriam-Webster's Joanne Despres to
> post the 1951 citation of "nerd":
>
> >Actually, in my opinion, it's likely that Dr. Seuss did not coin "nerd."
> >Merriam-Webster has a 1951 citation in its files indicating the word was
> >already current by that year and making no reference to Seuss (I have
seen
> >the citation, but don't have it handy, perhaps Joanne Despres could post
> >it). Given the facts that the Seuss usage was 1950 and that the Seuss
> >usage may be a coincidental occurrence, I would surmise that there was a
> >slang word "nerd" not originating with Seuss and going back at least to
> >the late 1940s.
> >
> >Fred Shapiro
>
> I checked my files on "nerd" and find the following e-mail
> from Joanne Despres:
>
> >Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000
> >From: "Joanne M. Despres" <jdespres at MAIL.M-W.COM>
> >Subject: Re: Wuss & others
> >To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> >
> >No, the 1951 citation in our files does not have anything to do with
> >the Dr. Seuss character; it is the first use of _nerd_ we've been able to
> >find that applies to any person having the characteristics
> >described in the definition ("an unstylish, unattractive, or socially
> >inept person"). The Seuss critter is, however, mentioned in our
etymology
> >as a possible source for the generic term.
> >
> >The citation, by the way, comes from Newsweek (October 8, 1951, p.
> >28) and reads as follows:
> >
> >"In Detroit, someone who once would be called a drip or a square is
> >now, regrettably, a nerd, or in a less severe case, a scurve."
> >
> >Joanne Despres
> >Merriam-Webster
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:49:09 EDT
> From: Bapopik at AOL.COM
> Subject: Here's How! (1927, 1928) & Here's How Again! (1929)
>
> HERE'S HOW!
> New and Revised Edition
> By Judge Jr. (Norman Anthony--ed.)
> The John Day Company, NY
> 1927, 1928
>
> Could it be possible that I missed this book? I found it while looking
up another of Anthony's books.
> FYI: there was Prohibition at this time.
>
> The Apple Jackrabbit...11
> Everything But--...12
> The White Lily...13
> The Dodge Special...14
> Little Willie...15
> The Mamie Taylor...16 (OED should have this drink--ed.)
> The White Cargo...17
> The Royal Smile...18
> The Nose Dive...19
> The Magnolia Blossom...20
> The Judgette...21
> The Grape Vine...22
> Mint Fizz...23
> The Golden Gate...24
> Oh, Henry!...25
> Judge, Jr...26
> Silver Fizz...27
> Silver Stallion...28
> The Los Angeles...29
> Polo Cocktail...30
> The Corn Popper...31
> The Mule's Hind Leg...32
> The Nevada...33
> Cornell Special...34
> The Philadelphia Scotchman...35
> The French '75...36
> The Cubano...37
> De Riguer...38
> Alexander's Sister...39
> Bacardi Punch...40
> Bacardi Cocktail...41
> The Wop...42
> Barbary Coast...43
> Brandy Gump...44
> The Hurricane...45
> The Earthquake...46
> The Frankenjack...47
> The Swiss Itch...48
> Old Reliables...49
> The Crow...51
> Louisiana Fizz...52
> Champagne Cocktail...53
> The Lion...54
> Whiskey Sour...55
> A Hot Toddy...56
> The Cowboy...57
> An Egg Nog...58
> The Dacqueri Cocktail...59
> Jack Rose Cocktail...60
> Attaboy Cocktail...61
> The Mint Julep...62
>
> Pg. 12:
> _Everything but--_
> THIS little drink is christened thusly because it contains everything
but the kitchen stove!
> 1/4 Scotch;
> 1/4 Gordon water;
> 1/4 lemon juice;
> 1/4 orange juice;
> 1 egg;
> 1 teaspoonful of Apricot brandy;
> powdered sugar.
>
> Pg. 32:
> _The Mule's hind leg_ (See archives for Moscow Mule--ed.)
> THIS title is not an exaggeration--we know--we tried it!
> 1/5 Gordon water;
> 1/5 benedictine;
> 1/5 Applejack;
> 1/5 Apricot brandy;
> 1/5 maple syrup.
>
> Pg. 47:
> _The frankenjack_
> INVENTED by the two proprietors of a very, very well-known Speakeasy in
New York City. (Jack & Charlie's 21?--ed.)
> 1/3 Gordon water;
> 1/3 French vermouth;
> 1/6 apricot brandy;
> 1/6 Cointreau.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> HERE'S HOW AGAIN!
> By Judge Jr.
> The John Day Company, NY
> 1929
>
> APPLEJACK DRINKS
> Eve's Apple...13
> The Pump...14
> The Parachute...15
> The Tunney...16
> APPLEJACK AND BRANDY DRINKS
> The Swan Song...17
> The Lightning Bug...18
> BACARDI DRINKS
> Southern Honeysuckle...19
> The Red Flag...20
> The South Sea...21
> Leave Me With a Smile...22
> BRANDY DRINKS
> The Upanattem...23
> The Yegg...24
> The Monte Cristo...25
> The Cloven Hoof...26
> The Zowie...27
> Side Car...28
> The Million Dollar Cocktail...29
> GIN DRINKS
> The Kummel Ye Faithful...30
> The Bronx Express...31
> The Transatlantic Flyer...32
> The Gray Dawn...33
> The Barney...34
> The Ciro...35
> The Hooperdooper...36
> The Peacherino...37
> Peach Dream...38
> The Straight Eight...39
> The Spearmint...40
> The Oliver Twist...41
> The Razzberry...42
> The Highbrook...43
> The Green-eyed Monster...44
> GIN-BACARDI DRINKS
> Palm Beach Cocktail...45
> RYE DRINKS
> The Revolving Door...46
> Whiskey Sour...47
> Ward Eight...48
> The Sunkist...49
> The Snake-in-the-grass...50
> SCOTCH DRINKS
> The Prodigal...51
> The Thistle...52
> Hell's Belles...53
> The Beautifier...54
> The Black Eye...55
> MISCELLANEOUS
> The Kitchen Stove...56
> The Mussolini...57
> The Alps...58
> The Norman...59
> The Sweet Mama...60
> Hot Chocolate!...61
> The Tomato Cocktail...62
>
> ("SIDECAR" SIDEBAR: I had to request this microfilm twice before I got
it--about three hours later. Then, the library closed. I'll be out of NYC,
so I can't immediately copy the entries. However, it appears to antedate
"Sidecar." John Mariani's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN FOOD AND DRINK has: "The
bar's owner, Harry MacElhone, claimed the drink was concocted in 1931 for a
customer who always arrived in a motocycle sidecar. But the sidecar appears
in several places in Carl Van Vechten's 1931 short story collection,
_Parties_." Sidecar supposedly was invented during WWI--ed.)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:31:39 EDT
> From: Bapopik at AOL.COM
> Subject: Flying Tigers magazine (1960s)
>
> (ADDENDUM TO LAST POST: OED has "Sidecar" in 1928.)
>
> The NYPL gave me just reel two of ANNUAL PICTORIAL BULLETIN, 14TH AIR
FORCE ASSOCIATION, FLYING TIGERS. It's an annual.
>
> 1962
> Pg. 9: A "B.S. Artist" at work.
>
> 1963
> Pg. 2: ...singing:
> "We never falter, we never fail,
> We sober up on wood alcohol..."
>
> 1963
> Pg. 6: In the upper left, Col. Robert L. "God is My Co-Pilot" Scott, Jr.,
of the 23rd Fighter Group, one of our earliest and greatest aces, helps
S/Sgt. R. Fuller and Sgt. J. Teague load his guns in preparation for Scott's
final Jap hunt before leaving for the United States in January, 1943.
>
> 1963
> Pg. 7: But they also served who acted as "honey-dippers" (left
center)--one of the less glamorous occupations in the Far East--and female
grain carrier (lower left).
>
> 1963
> Pg. 13: Milk and Cookie Bar.
>
> 1963
> Pg. 20: ...soup-and-fish-clad oilman Gene Ledeker (22 BS)(his motto: It
taked but little toil--to get a goil--if you strike oil!)...
>
> 1964
> Pg. 9: ...such platitudes as "You Can't Win 'Em All", "There's One in
Every Crowd" and "Even Babe Ruth Struck Out Over 1000 Times."
>
> 1964
> Pg. 20: ...a card over the bar that reads, "If This Sign is Blurred You
Either Need Stronger Glasses or Weaker Drinks"...
>
> 1965
> Pg. 7: Not to be outdone by these refinements of an ancient civilization,
a Pentagon-based masochist offered his own version of the "Chinese Torture
treatment, lower left. Captioned "Men of Gen. Chennault's 14th USAF eagerly
await chance to buy beer at first ration in China"...
>
> 1968
> Pg. 10: Next we see, complete with moat, the Imperial Palace in Tokyo,
where the first few exotic days and nights were spent (in Tokyo, that is,
not the Palace) and, lastly, the grounds around the Chinsanzo Restaurant,
where our first Japanese meal together--a Mongolian Barbecue--was
voraciously consumed with surprisingly favorable results.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:29:30 -0400
> From: Thomas Paikeday <t.paikeday at SYMPATICO.CA>
> Subject: Re: What does ACCENT mean in American English?
>
> A very interesting discussion.
>
> I think more evidence is needed in regard to what is generally
> understood and more of the context of "I don't like her accent" to
> determine the intended meaning here. A web search may indeed prove
> useful in regard to the first point. Perhaps Sonja Lanehart could supply
> more of the particular context in which the sentence was uttered. I do
> think it is worthwhile flogging this horse.
>
> RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 9/14/2001 12:17:44 PM, laurence.horn at YALE.EDU writes:
> >
> > << >>"The only reason I am dropping the class is because of the teacher.
I
> > > >don't like her accent."
> > > >
> > The only way I can take the above is the phonological one; I can't
> > imagine in being used anywhere I've lived to refer to the content,
> > focus, or direction of the course "she" teaches.
> >
> > Larry
> > >>
> >
> > Think again, Larry, about what people do in actual conversations!
> >
> > See NEW OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH, s.v. ACCENT, "3. a special or
> > particular emphasis: _the accent is on participation_."
> >
> > I don't have time to do a web search, but I'd guess one could find
examples
> > of this pretty easily. I will grant you that general ACCENT is not used
this
> > way without some explicitly defining context. However, as I'm sure Larry
> > knows (!), a snippet of conversation divorced from the rest of the
> > conversation may well divorce the snippet from the explicitly defining
> > context that was implicitly understood by the participants in the
> > conversation.
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:27:32 EDT
> From: Bapopik at AOL.COM
> Subject: Boundarylessness
>
> "Boundarylessness."
> The big story this week was going to be the deapture of General
Electric chairman Jack Welch. "Boundarylessness" was a key word at GE.
CNN's Lou Dobbs mentioned that this word is not in any dictionary.
> See "Neutron Jack Exits" in last Sunday's NEW YORK TIMES
Week-in-Review, 9 September 2001, pg. 18, col. 1. Other key terms are "fix
it, clost it, or sell it" and "creative destruction."
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:12:26 +0800
> From: Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject: "sleeper cells" (WOTY candidate?)
>
> I just heard (Retired?) General Clark, who I remember from the Bosnia
> war and who is now a CNN military consultant, refer to the existence
> of "sleeper cells" in the terrorist network. A google search turned
> up this earlier use in a column at
> http://www.onlinecolumnist.com/032601.html called "Terrorism's New
> Malignancy" by John M. Curtis that warned last March rather
> prophetically, "Entering a bold new age of global terrorism, the U.S.
> is no longer immune to subversion and infiltration, requiring
> heightened security and adroit counter-measures":
> =================
> When a suicide bomber blasted a 40-foot long hole in the hull of the
> U.S.S. guided missile destroyer Cole in the Yemen port of Aden
> killing 17 seamen, suspicions were raised about a "sleeper cell"
> being activated in the Arabian peninsula. All CIA reports pointed in
> the direction of Osama bin Laden. Dismissing this fact makes good
> public relations, but doesn't acknowledge the reality that most
> recent terrorism against U.S. interests leads to Kabul.
> =============
> Other cites refer directly to the current attack and the
> investigation of the perpetrators. I don't know how far back the
> term goes. There are earlier medical uses of "sleeper cell"
> (referring to cancer), but I don't know if this is a coincidence.
>
> larry
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:38:21 -0400
> From: "Douglas G. Wilson" <douglas at NB.NET>
> Subject: Re: "sleeper cells" (WOTY candidate?)
>
> I think "sleeper cell" means simply a cell of sleepers. "Cell" meaning
> "small group [of spies/subversives/etc.]" -- back in the day, it was
> usually "Communist cell", and I think this type of organization was
> considered characteristic of Communists -- is cited from 1925 in my OED.
> "Sleeper" = "dormant spy/saboteur" is cited from 1955 in my OED, but I
> think it might be older. AHD4 gives good definitions.
>
> -- Doug Wilson
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ADS-L Digest - 14 Sep 2001 to 15 Sep 2001 (#2001-259)
> ************************************************************
>
>
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list