Negative Nancies and other related musings

[Laurence Horn]

At 8:15 PM -0400 3/20/10, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>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

And the parties of the 3rd and 4th part, John Stiles and Richard Miles.

LH

>
>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

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