"block" ~= street, and the OED?

Fri Apr 29 12:48:55 UTC 2011

As one who grew up among blocks, I agree that the OED def. is not quite
adequate.

Every day one would go "up" or "down" the "block."  Location X was "just
down (or 'up') the block" from Y.

Strangely, I can't recall whether it was possible to go "across the block"
(i.e., straight across the street), but I doubt it. My ambivalence may
reflect a childhood usage that I had to abandon as too advanced for society
at that time.

JL
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:28 AM, victor steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       victor steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "block" ~= street, and the OED?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A few other "blocks" that are missing. (Also some "busts".)
>
> Yes, "block-buster" is there for the bombs, but not for the derivative
> meaning--e.g., blockbuster deal, blockbuster trade, blockbuster story, etc.
> Not even a hint that I found. OK, I'm lying--there is hint"
>
> > 1957    G. Smith Friends vi a. 114   One day I had what seemed to me like
> a block~buster of an idea for a musical play.
>
> Right meaning, wrong function in a sentence (part of speech? It's still
> N-N=
> ,
> right?). "Block-buster of an idea" is not the same as "blockbuster idea".
>
> On the other hand, the other "block-buster" and "block-busting" appearances
> seem to be quite distinct:
>
> > 1967    Spectator 6 Oct. 394/2   The =E2=80=98block-buster=E2=80=99 is a
> =
> figure in
> American urban life who has yet to emerge in this country. He is a property
> dealer who by subterfuge introduces black residents into all-white
> neighbourhoods.
>
> > 1959    Economist 31 Jan. 415/2   Once a single negro moves into a
> block=E2=80=A5the houses on both sides of the street from corner to corner
> =
> are bound
> to become=E2=80=A5Negro.=E2=80=A5 Such =E2=80=98block-busting=E2=80=99
> [etc=
> .].
> > 1961    Nation 7 Oct. 223/2   The block-busting real-estate men show
> home=
> s
> in integrated districts=E2=80=A5only to prospective Negro buyers.
>
> It's the same sense of "block", but a different sense of "bust" that these
> expressions rely on. IMO it seems closer to "breaking in[to]" than
> "destroying".
>
> Speaking of "bust", "busted"--discovered, uncovered--is not in OED. It
> seem=
> s
> to be a variant of bust v.2 e., but it's a variant that's not mentioned.
> "Jailed, arrested" is not the same thing as "uncovered, discovered,
> unmasked", etc. In fact, I'm wondering which came first. The other meanings
> listed under e. are "dismissed, demoted". These seem to be unrelated to
> "jailed, arrested"--if anything, the latter are closer to the "discovered"
> sense (again, not sure what came first).  I also suspect that people had
> been "busted in rank" long before 1918, which is the earliest citation. But
> being "busted"=3D=3D"in jail" or "arrested" is likely later. But is it
> real=
> ly
> only post-WWII? And, if so, was it derived from "busted in rank"? Both seem
> unlikely--just by looking at  bust n.3 f., which shows up at least as of
> 1938.
>
> And when someone says, in isolation, "You are going to get busted," does
> that mean "discovered" or "busted in rank" or "arrested"?
>
> Then, there is bust v.2 d. --breaking into a house. What about "breaking
> out"--"busting out of prison"? To make matters worse, transitivity is at
> stake here--"He is going to bust his brother out [of prison]" vs. "His
> brother is going to bust out of prison". Nor does it need to be a prison to
> get "bust out of".
>
> Also, when someone "is busting X's balls", I don't think he's either
> breaking or bursting the aforementioned "balls"--not even squeezing them.
> Sure, it's figurative, but what literal meaning is it attached to? And does
> it deserve a separate sub-entry. It gets worse when someone "is busting X's
> chops".
>
> And I am not even going to get into all the gym senses of "bust" and
> "busted".
>
> Back to "block".
>
> Block letter, capital, print, printing is also very limited--in fact,
> limited to literal meaning of being printed with a block and an alternate
> o=
> f
> sans-serif type that's printed or written. But the main use of "block
> letters, caps, print, type", etc., today--at least, in the US--is to
> hand-print something in capital letters (although this is is hardly a
> requirement, just like being sans-serif) for legibility. This sense
> certainly does not come across from reading the definitions under "block".
>
> "Down the block", which is a derivative--if idiomatic--expression from the
> one Joel identifies appears in two citations, neither one under "down" or
> "block". This seems to be a serious omission. Note that the last citation
> under 14.b. gives "cruised around the block". What about metaphorical "been
> around the block"? Furthermore, when someone say, "You drive seven blocks,
> then look for ...", does this not mean "pass seven streets" before looking?
> Or does it literally refer to seven city blocks that you have to "pass"?
>
> There is a "football" use of "block" in 19.f., but not basketball (although
> the two are similar, the effect is different--in football, both American
> an=
> d
> soccer/association, this is something you want to do; in basketball, it's a
> foul; both are derived from the verb; not sure about hockey). Speaking of
> American football--do blocking dummies deserve an entry? It's not an
> obviou=
> s
> construct.
>
> I strongly suspect 19.d. gets the derivation wrong. It's not derived from
> the verb "block" or from "blocking up". "Nerve block" is short for
> "blockade", but it's listed under "Senses from BLOCK v.". This is
> completel=
> y
> different. I would venture to say that this use of "block" as a verb was in
> fact back-derived. Furthermore, you still hear "blockade" as a verb in
> medical jargon (sorry, my father is an anesthesiologist--I hear too much of
> this). It's not going to be obvious without going to early medical
> literature on nerve-blocking, but I am pretty confident that I am right.
>
> VS-)
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Wilson Gray <hwgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "The bombs called 'blockbusters' were given that name because one of
> > them was powerful enough to destroy an entire block"
> >
> > wherein _block_ easily meets the definition:
> >
> > "A compact or connected mass of houses or buildings, with no
> > intervening spaces; (esp. in U.S. and Canada) the
> > quadrangular mass of buildings included between four streets, or two
> > 'avenues' and two streets at right angles to them"
> >
> > to a greater degree than does the _block_ in Joel's example.
> >
> > FWIW, IMO, Joel is correct WRT the need for additional definition. In
> > Joel's example, _two blocks_ can be represented simply by two lines
> > joined so as to form an angle of any kind or even by two lines joined
> > so as to form a straight line and not only so as to express a right
> > angle. That's not possible, if we're restricted to the OED definition.
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Wilson
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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