rectangle vs. square

[Dan Goncharoff]

It turns out the company used both phrases, with and without the *just*.
danG

On 6/27/2010 9:38 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
> At 6:32 PM -0400 6/27/10, Dan Goncharoff wrote:
>> I disagree with Larry Horn's example. I remember the phrase as, "It's
>> not *just* a car, it's a Volkswagen." Doesn't help.
>>
>> DanG
>
> see, inter alia,
> http://www.thesamba.com/vw/classifieds/detail.php?id=130616
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Volkswagen-Hat-Pin-ITS-NOT-CAR-ITS-VOLKSWAGEN-/220626614580
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gagc/3904248374/
>     (including the version "No es un coche... Es un Volkswagen")
>
> Googling "It's not a car it's a Volkswagen" brings in well over a
> hundred additional hits of a similar kind.  The "promotional embossed
> plate" in the first of these hits should be pretty conclusive.
>
> LH
>
>>
>> On 6/27/2010 2:55 PM, Garson O'Toole wrote:
>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>> -----------------------
>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society<ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>> Poster:       Garson O'Toole<adsgarsonotoole at GMAIL.COM>
>>> Subject:      Re: rectangle vs. square
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Mandel wrote
>>>
>>>> One disagreement with Garson: example (3) is not relevant. "Square
>>>> with"
>>>> refers to relative orientation, not to shape: '(of the room in
>>>> question)
>>>> having the sides parallel with the sides of (the sepulchral chamber'.
>>>>
>>> Yes, example 3 is flawed. Thank you for pointing that out.
>>>
>>> (3 new version) Flats, or Flat Bars. - Rolled bars of iron or steel of
>>> rectangular but not square sections.
>>>
>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=DmAwAAAAMAAJ&q=%22not+square%22#v=snippet&
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, I should have noted Larry Horn's example (one of several):
>>>
>>>> "It's not sufficient to call that a ___, you can more
>>>> perspicuously call it a ____"  (as in the old
>>>> Volkswagen commercial's claim "It's not a car,
>>>> it's a VW").
>>>>
>>> Following this pattern a speaker who believed squares were instances
>>> of rectangles might still say:
>>> It's not a rectangle, it's a square.
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Garson O'Toole
>>>> <adsgarsonotoole at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I certainly agree that the issue is complex and context is important.
>>>>> Consider the following example in the domain of architecture. The
>>>>> writer assumes that the set of rectangular objects includes squares.
>>>>> Therefore he or she must explicitly rule out the inclusion of
>>>>> squares.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] ... what Pliny tells us is that the building was rectangular (but
>>>>> not square), that it was surrounded by a colonnade of thirty-six
>>>>> columns, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The parenthetical remark "(but not square)" would be redundant if the
>>>>> speaker thought that the set of rectangles already excluded squares.
>>>>> Here are another two examples:
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] Lumber is used that has rectangular, but not square, cross
>>>>> section, and is always oriented so that the longer dimension is
>>>>> parallel to the load (ie, usually is vertical).
>>>>>
>>>>> [3] This room was rectangular, but not square with the sepulchral
>>>>> chamber, as it lay 25=C2=B0 east of north ; =E2=80=A6
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>

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