" to shod " !!

[Wilson Gray]

Nice example, Steve! For me, the regionalism was "a-loose."

"I thought that I had that tied down, but it came a-loose."

"He told me that he had tightened it, but it was a-loose when I checked it."

When I was first told that "a-loose" wasn't standard, I was so stunned
and angry that I simply refused to believe it. I checked damned near
every dictionary that there is, including Funk & Wagnall's. I can tell
you, I was truly shocked and *very* surprised not to find it. In fact,
I was simply amazed. It was as though someone had told me that _is_
with a singular subject was non-standard and research showed that to
be true.

-Wilson


On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Steve Kl.<stevekl at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Steve Kl." <stevekl at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: " to shod " !!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Maybe it's because "boughten" is so thoroughly in my idolect*, but if you
> were to ask me blindly to fill in the blank, I'd probably say "To shodden
> runners..." for what it's worth.
> *After it was called to my attention that boughten was a regionalism [I was
> very surprised - I had no clue it was regional], once when I was home I
> heard my mom, who used to bake her own bread in the 70s, in a discussion
> about food preparation, utter "Anymore, I buy boughten bread."
>
> (If you can make homemade bread, I don't see a problem with buying boughten
> bread.) At any rate boughten stands as an opposite to homemade.)
>
> But, back to shod/shodden.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Sheidlower <jester at panix.com> wrote:
>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       Jesse Sheidlower <jester at PANIX.COM>
>> Subject:      Re: " to shod " !!
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 02:17:40PM -0400, Laurence Horn wrote:
>> > At 2:09 PM -0400 9/2/09, Laurence Horn wrote:
>> >> At 1:55 PM -0400 9/2/09, Wilson Gray wrote:
>> >>> It means "To runners who are shod, ... " = "To runners who have shoes
>> >>> on, ... " right? What's wrong with that? That's *nothing* like
>> >>>
>> >>> "As he quietly and carefully _trodded_ the almost-unseen trail, he was
>> >>> alert to the possibility of booby-traps."
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I agree that Alison's example involves a participial adjective
>> >> modifying "runners", and that "to shod" is not a constituent there.
>> >> But it's not hard to google up examples where it is:
>> >
>> > oops.  I meant to include some "to shod" examples verifying this claim.
>> >
>> > How much does it cost to shod a horse?
>>
>> [etc.]
>>
>> For what it's worth, I became aware some years ago that I
>> internally thought of the verb _trod_ as being present tense;
>> that is, although I don't think I ever said it aloud, I'd
>> always think of statements like "I'm going to trod on that
>> can."
>>
>> I don't know why my mind did this.
>>
>> Jesse Sheidlower
>> OED
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
-Wilson
–––
All say, "How hard it is that we have to die!"---a strange complaint
to come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
-----
-Mark Twain

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