Peasant?
Laurence Horn
laurence.horn at YALE.EDU
Mon Apr 10 16:55:10 UTC 2006
At 12:36 PM -0400 4/10/06, sagehen wrote:
> >>
>>Interesting. The oddity of "peasants in the Connecticut River
>>valley" or "Arkansas peasants" is reminiscent of Bolinger's
>>observation that there's something peculiar about "a village in
>>Kansas" as opposed to "a village in
>>Burgundy/Saxony/Silesia/Lancaster/...". Not totally impossible, but
>>a bit odd. (Of course we have "Greenwich Village" or "Stonington
>>Village", or "(go into) the village" (for '(into) town'), but how
>>often do we have "a village" as such in North America? Maybe we
>>don't have peasants because we don't have villages...
>>
>>Larry
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>But we *do* have villages in the US. Up here in northern NY, and --for
>all I know -- elsewhere in NY, "village" is the official designation of
>the smallest jurisdictional unit, as opposed to "towns" which are what are
>called "townships" in many other parts of the country. This was also true
>in Ohio. Some, at least, of the north shore suburbs of Chicago were called
>"villages" when I lived there just after WWII, but that may have been an
>affectation.
As noted, I'm not disputing the use of "village" as an official
designation for townships--this is a practice in much of the country,
including Long Island, where I partly grew up. I'm talking only
about the use of "village" descriptively, in contexts like
"I come from a small (picturesque,...) village in the foothills."
"There a quaint village near here worth visiting."
AHD4 provides the relevant distinction:
1. A small group of dwellings in a rural area, usually ranking in
size between a hamlet and a town.
2. In some U.S. states, an incorporated community smaller in
population than a town.
It's #1 I'm discussing, not #2.
Larry
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list