Q: "lanechtskipt"

[Douglas G. Wilson]

On 11/11/2013 6:46 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Q: "lanechtskipt"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> George, very important findings and questions!
>
> 1)  As an aside, I blundered with "black and whight hare"; it's
> "bare" (bear [likely a plural], the "whight" bear being a polar bear,
> known to have been exhibited in Boston in 1733).
>
> 2)  "limbs" vs. "times" -- George, where did you find the
> interpretation "[times]"?  I don't see it.
>
> In any case, "times" is correct and "limbs" makes no sense.  (More
> evidence that there was mistranscription by the transcriber of the
> manuscript record into the printed volume of the Reports of the
> [Boston] Records Commissioners.)  The petitioner -- Burlesson -- was
> being warned out of town, denied permission to exhibit his puppets,
> and was reminding the selectmen that his animals had been permitted
> to stay "as long as they pleased".  (In Boston theatre performances
> were discountenanced; animal exhibitions were tolerated.)
>
> 3)  The three items clearly were all animals.  I've been reminded by
> a correspondent that the only exotic animals known to have been
> exhibited in Boston before 1735 were the lion, the camel, and the
> polar bear.  So it's natural to associate the second of Burlesson's
> three "items" with the camel.
>
> 4)  The original manuscript may indeed be enlightening.  I do not
> know whether it is still accessible (presumably at the Massachusetts
> Archives), but I will inquire.
>
> 5)  Instead of a model of a Viking "long ship", one might imagine a
> "moving picture" that showed the long boat sailing away from the
> shore, engaging in a battle, and sinking in flames.  I don't think
> I'll follow that path.
>
> Joel
>
> At 11/11/2013 04:37 PM, Douglas G. Wilson wrote:
>> What (if anything) does the expression "that had their limbs as long as
>> they pleased" mean? One instance at G-books shows "[times]" following
>> "limbs", as if a correction or interpretation by someone. I still don't
>> know exactly what the phrase means, but (especially if there were
>> originally no limbs mentioned) maybe the item doesn't have to be an animal.
>>
>> Burlesson apparently showed puppets as well as animals, and maybe he
>> showed other things.
>>
>> As an example of a wild speculation which is of little or no value in
>> isolation, one might postulate that there was (along with a lion and
>> some sort of bear[s]) a fine tabletop model of a Viking ship on display,
>> labeled with a grotesque 'word' based on a misheard Scandinavian
>> pronunciation of "long-ship" ("langskip" or so). If "white" was spelled
>> "whight" then I suppose a "ch" or so could be similarly deployed?
>> Couldn't a "t" be added (as a definite article or whatever) here or
>> there (rightly or wrongly)?
>>
>> By imagining different errors, different scenarios can be entertained.
>>
>> The original manuscript might be enlightening.....
--

The "[times]" is in a book by Benes (snippet). I think it can be found
by searching G-books for <<their limbs times as>> (exact phrase).

If the transcription/handwriting is so bad as to take "times" as
"limbs", then one might consider any number of possibilities for
"Lanechtskipt", e.g., perhaps "Camelsteed" or something like that if it
denotes a camel.

-- Doug Wilson

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