Negative Nancies and other related musings

[Joel S. Berson]

Has no-one yet mentioned the ancient John Doe and Richard Roe (both
b. 1768) , and their surprisingly two-generation more ancient
ancestor Jane Doe (b. 1703)?

Joel

At 3/20/2010 08:03 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>Both GI J's (not just the dolls) can be applied to individuals. "John Law"
>(usu.) and "John Q. Public" personify groups.
>
>JL
>
>On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Mark Mandel <thnidu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
> > Subject:      Re: Negative Nancies and other related musings
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Unless you mean the dolls, how are the GI J's significantly less generic
> > than John Law? -- and why not John Q. Public?
> >
> > m a m
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Also GI Joe and GI Jane.
> > >
> > > I assume we're ignoring more abstract personifications like "John Q.
> > > Public"
> > > and "John Law."
> > >
> > > JL
> > >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>
>
>--
>"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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