"particular"

[Wilson Gray]

Yes, yes, Joel! Exactly my point! I *got* that! But not *immediately*!
Just as I was starting to think that you had goofed, trying to use
big-boy phraseology, I saw that you were *correct*! That's what makes
that phrase so cool, man! I immediately tried to replace "particular
to" with "peculiar to" and I just as immediately saw that it wasn't
going to be any more "correct." Rather, it was merely *much* more
banal. No doubt my inability to curb my enthusiasm probably makes it
seem that I'm just messing with you, but, for real, man!

Have you ever read Jack Vance? It's his similar ability to turn a
phrase in not *quite* the manner that your prior experience with
English would lead you to expect that makes his writing a pleasure for
me.

-Wilson

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: Â  Â  Â  American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster: Â  Â  Â  "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject: Â  Â  Â Re: "particular"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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. Â 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. Â I have not
> read Ulysses. Â [Yes, I know -- as recalcitrant as
> still using Netscape.] Â Does that mean it is not
> a hapax legomena? Â 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: Â  Â  Â  American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> > Poster: Â  Â  Â  "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
>> > Subject: Â  Â  Â 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. Â I was
>> > probably wrong to imply that the possibility of conception was a
>> > crucial factor in charging adultery. Â (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". Â 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. Â (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. Â 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? Â Must adultery include the
>> >>possibility of conception? Â (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"
>> >> >-- Â "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". Â 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. Â 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. Â (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
>>ннн
>>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
>



--
-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