fun with phrases

Fri Oct 14 15:29:51 UTC 2011

> "I don't believe in labels."

Sounds like an anti-labelist.

Tom Zurinskas, Conn 20 yrs, Tenn 3, NJ 33, now Fl 9.
See how English spelling links to sounds at http://justpaste.it/ayk

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster: Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject: Re: fun with phrases
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "I don't believe in labels."
>
> 1915 J. D. Beresford _The Mountains of the Moon_ (London: Cassell) 60"
> "But you are a Socialist?" Lady Downham interposed, almost on a note
> of expostulation. ... "I believe in a collective purpose," he said,
> with a touch of brusqueness; "but I don't believe in labels or in
> cut-and-dried schemes."
>
> The phrase turns up in GB now and again, but it isn't common till the
> '60s, often in discussions of art or politics.
>
> In response to questions about their political views, both Robert
> Kennedy and Ronald Reagan are quoted as saying that they "don't
> believe in labels."
>
> JL
>
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "It was a * that * would never forget."
> >
> > One in the '30s. One in the '40s. Lots beginning in the 1950s.
> >
> > JL
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "create one's own reality"
> >>
> >> One infamous quotation of the W years came - allegedly - from Karl Rove in 2004:
> >> "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
> >> while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act
> >> again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
> >> that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all
> >> of you, will be left to just study what we do."
> >>
> >> Not in YBQ.
> >>
> >> As usual, there are no 19th C. exx. of "create * own reality," though
> >> Google claims 141,000,000 right now. Only a 19th C. lunatic would
> >> have used the phrase.
> >>
> >> Now we get serious:
> >>
> >> 1907 Savila Alice Elkus _The Concept of Control_ [N.Y.: Science Press]
> >> 88:The problematic judgment is the judgment which states that further
> >> evidence is necessary in order to determine the truth. The assumption
> >> upon which the validity of this argument bases, is, of course, the
> >> 'will for truth' in him who judges, and not the will for action; thus
> >> in cases where belief or judgment is said to create its own reality
> >> and thus its own validity, the nature of the decision is immaterial
> >> from the logical point of view, as any decision whatsoever verifies
> >> itself.
> >>
> >> 1908 Percy F. Bicknell, in _The Unitarian Register_ (Feb. 6) 147: Why
> >> need we assume that there is anything in the "force of circumstances"
> >> to paralyze the will and fetter one's free agency? Let us rather, with
> >> the Italian pragmatist Papini, exult in our power to create our own
> >> reality as we go along, and refuse to believe that man is made for
> >> truth rather than that truth is made for man, and perhaps even by man,
> >> so far as such belief is not inconsistent with modesty, mother of the
> >> virtues, and with due reverence for "the power, not ourselves, which
> >> makes for righteousness."
> >>
> >> 1912 W. H. Hadow, in_Quarterly Review_ (Jan.) 103 : Is the main
> >> function of art to interpret reality and "paint man man, whatever the
> >> issue," or to create its own reality by presenting, through a chosen
> >> medium, some vision of ideal beauty?
> >>
> >> After that, steady occasional use in artistic, psychological, and
> >> literary contexts until the '60s, when it begins to burgeon. It comes
> >> into its own in the '70s and just goes wild thereafter, sometimes as
> >> practical advice.
> >>
> >> Someone might write a thesis on the Elkus-Papini connection, I assume.
> >>
> >> JL
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Great work, G.
> >>> I recall hearing or reading a variation of the same joke in the late 1950s. I can't recall any of the details, but the gist was the same.
> >>> "That was then, this is now."
> >>> In YBQ as the title of S. E. Hinton's 1971 teen novel. However:
> >>> 1876 Bertha de Jongh _We are Worldlings_ (London: Bentley) I 30: "He would have been so useful; think how I used to make him fetch and carry — " " Yes ; that was _then_ ; this is now ;" said Jenny.
> >>>
> >>> 1911 _American Florist_ (June 21) 1327: Don't go back to stage coach days! ... That was then, this is now!
> >>>
> >>> 1920 _Printers' Ink Monthly_ (Feb.) 84: When you used to think of the neighbors, it was only the stone's-throw-folks.... But that was _then_. This is _now_. The Huns changed all that when they crossed the Belgian frontier.
> >>>
> >>> Occasional use from then on. Most of the 1970's hits seem to be ads for Hinton's novel. A flood later.
> >>>
> >>> I have a friend who says it frequently.
> >>>
> >>> JL
> >>> .
> >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Garson O'Toole <adsgarsonotoole at gmail.com> 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: fun with phrases
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> "What have you done for me lately?"
> >>>>
> >>>> This is my candidate for a vogue phrase. I was asked about its
> >>>> "origin" recently, and I did not think that a phrase of this type
> >>>> would have an origin. But I may have discovered an important locus of
> >>>> popularization.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Google Books Ngram Viewer for the shortened phrase "you done for
> >>>> me lately" shows a flat line (roughly zero) until the early 1940s and
> >>>> then a rapid ascent up until the 1970s. There is a dip in the late
> >>>> 1980s and then another ascent.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://goo.gl/mjI2q
> >>>>
> >>>> What happened in the early 1940s? Versions of the joke below were
> >>>> printed in important periodicals, e.g., the mass circulation Reader's
> >>>> Digest. The instance given here was published by Bennett Cerf, the
> >>>> influential quotation and anecdote collector, in his column in the
> >>>> Saturday Review magazine.
> >>>>
> >>>> The wide dissemination of this joke might be coincidental, but I
> >>>> cannot find earlier examples of the cliché catch phrase. The joke is
> >>>> an elaborate extended "groaner" in my opinion, but the punch line may
> >>>> have been new to many readers in 1943.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cite: 1943 March 13, Saturday Review, Trade Winds by Bennett Cerf,
> >>>> page 13, Column 2, Saturday Review Associates, New York. (Verified on
> >>>> paper)
> >>>>
> >>>> A TRAVELER for a big publishing house couldn't wait to get to St.
> >>>> Louis, where his oldest friend owned a prosperous bookstore. "Sam," he
> >>>> said to the owner the moment they were alone, "I want you to lend me
> >>>> $2000.00." "The answer, Joe," said Sam, "is positively no." "But,
> >>>> Sam," protested the salesman, "In 1929, when Bond and Share broke from
> >>>> 189 to 50, who gave you ten thousand dollars to keep you from being
> >>>> wiped out?" "You did," admitted Sam. "And in 1931, when your daughter
> >>>> Shirley had that tropical disease, who took her down to Florida
> >>>> because you couldn't get away from business, who did, Sam?" "You, my
> >>>> friend, you did."
> >>>>
> >>>> "And in 1933, when we were fishing together, who dove into the rapids
> >>>> and saved you from drowning at the risk of his own life?" "You did,
> >>>> Joe. It was wonderful!" "Well, then, Sam, in Heaven's name, why won't
> >>>> you lend me $2000.00 now when I need it?" "All the things you say are
> >>>> true," said Sam, nodding his head slowly, "But what have you done for
> >>>> me lately?" . . .
> >>>>
> >>>> Garson
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Ben Zimmer
> >>>> <bgzimmer at babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote:
> >>>> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> >>>> > Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >>>> > Poster: Ben Zimmer <bgzimmer at BABEL.LING.UPENN.EDU>
> >>>> > Subject: Re: fun with phrases
> >>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> "Suddenly, the rules had changed."
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Not usu. "rules" but conditions, common practice, etc. Another dramatic
> >>>> >> rhetorical cliche'.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Nothing in GB before 1991. Nothing in Time archives.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > "Plays by his own rules."
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Virtually nonexistent before the '70s. The Ngram Viewer shows a big
> >>>> > jump in the '90s.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --bgz
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --
> >>>> > Ben Zimmer
> >>>> > http://benzimmer.com/
> >>>> >
> >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 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."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "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