"particular"

Mon Sep 14 00:41:07 UTC 2009

Gee, Wilson, I must be smarter than I think I am
(difficult to believe, I know, but ...)

I meant "2. a. That is a unit or one among a
number; taken or considered as an individual,
apart from the rest; single; distinct, individual, *specific*;"

or "3.b. Belonging only to a specified person or
thing; proper, peculiar, restricted."

Ah, I see.  Scrolling down to
"5.d. euphem. in a particular condition:
pregnant. Cf. (to be) in an interesting condition at INTERESTING adj. 3. rare."
With only one quotation in the draft revision
Sept. 2009, from ... yes, you guessed it, J. Joyce (1922), Ulysses.

Well, I admit to having known this sense, (from
whence is an interesting question.  I have not
read Ulysses.  [Yes, I know -- as recalcitrant as
still using Netscape.]  Does that mean it is not
a hapax legomena?  Or perhaps more mundanely, I
heard it.), but I assert I played it completely
unconsciously, not as an intentional trump.

joel

At 9/13/2009 03:39 PM, Wilson Gray wrote:
>"... anything _particular to_ an infertile married woman."
>
>Good one, Joel! Magnificent use of the particularities of English
>syntax and semantics! Just beautiful! Bravo! I was faked right out of
>my drawers! ("Faked out of one's *shoes*," etc. are euphemisms. I
>prefer the original.) For a split second, I thought  that you had
>miswritten. Then, your meaning, in all its
>messing-with-your-mind-if-you're-not-truly-hip-to-the-tip clarity, was
>revealed unto me. Bra-vo!
>
>To borrow what's-her-face's catch phrase: "I love it! I love it! I love it!"
>
>Sigh! I've just heard "Knock yourself out!" used as a slogan in a
>Sprint commercial. That bugs my head! I gots to go!
>
>-Wilson
>
>
>
>On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
> > ---------------------- Information from the
> mail header -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> > Subject:      Re: The OED and "adulterous" & "adultery"
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > At 9/12/2009 02:39 PM, ronbutters at AOL.COM wrote:
> >>Where is there a law that says anything about conception? Would a
> >>married man who had intercourse with an 80-year-old woman not be
> >>guilty of adultery? Or if he had anal
> intercourse with a fertile young woman?
> >>
> >>Just wondering.
> >
> > Me too -- about the law in modern times.
> >
> > In colonial New England (i.e., before 1692), adultery would only have
> > been charged in an opposite-sex circumstance, specifically of a man
> > with a married woman; that is how the law was written.  I was
> > probably wrong to imply that the possibility of conception was a
> > crucial factor in charging adultery.  (I don't recall reading
> > anything particular to an infertile married woman.)
> >
> > The possibility of conception -- or rather its absence -- was the
> > significant factor in considering a sexual act "unnatural".  Thus
> > anal intercourse by a man with a fertile young woman, even if she
> > were married, would have been presented as sodomy (a capital crime),
> > not adultery, as would male-male sexual activity.  (Sexual activity
> > between two women was not sodomy by law, with possibly no cases
> > having been discovered -- it would be difficult to produce witnesses
> > or other evidence.  If such a case had been presented, the charge
> > would have been something like "unnatural acts".)
> >
> > Joel
> >
> >>------Original Message------
> >>From: Joel S. Berson
> >>Sender: ADS-L
> >>To: ADS-L
> >>ReplyTo: ADS-L
> >>Subject: Re: [ADS-L] The OED and "adulterous" & "adultery"
> >>Sent: Sep 12, 2009 2:23 PM
> >>
> >>At 9/12/2009 02:06 PM, ronbutters at AOL.COM wrote:
> >> >"opposite sex" seems archaic.
> >>
> >>Perhaps -- what does modern law say?  Must adultery include the
> >>possibility of conception?  (It certainly had
> to in the early modern period.)
> >>
> >>Joel
> >>
> >> >------Original Message------
> >> >From: Joel S. Berson
> >> >Sender: ADS-L
> >> >To: ADS-L
> >> >ReplyTo: ADS-L
> >> >Subject: [ADS-L] The OED and "adulterous" & "adultery"
> >> >Sent: Sep 12, 2009 10:30 AM
> >> >
> >> >The OED (1989) defines "adulterous" solely in terms of "adultery"
> >> >--  "1. Pertaining to, or characterized by the practice of adultery"
> >> >(senses 2 and 3 are not relevant here).
> >> >
> >> >It defines adultery (also 1989) as:
> >> >
> >> >"1. Violation of the marriage bed; the voluntary sexual intercourse
> >> >of a married person with one of the opposite sex, whether unmarried,
> >> >or married to another ...
> >> >"b. Extended in Scripture, to unchastity generally ..." (Again,
> >> >omitted portions and sense 2 are not relevant.)
> >> >
> >> >But "adulterous" was not only "extended in Scripture, to unchastity
> >> >generally".  It was extended in colonial New England not to
> >> >"unchastity generally" -- that was "fornication" or "uncleanness" --
> >> >but to unchastity by or with a married person.  This can be seen in
> >> >the reports of numerous legal cases where adultery was suspected or
> >> >charged, but not proven, and "adulterous conduct" found
> >> >instead.  (Where both parties were single, adultery was not charged
> >> >and "adulterous conduct" not found, only "fornication".)
> >> >
> >> >Can a change in the definitions be expected when the OED gets around
> >> >to the (black and white) A?
> >> >
> >> >Joel
> >> >
> >> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >> >
> >> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------
> >>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >>
> >>
> >>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------
> >>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

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