Adventures in the English language; AkaThe YGS thread

[The_Piper]

A cuteness of squirrels
A superiority of cats
A wiseacre of parrots.
Instead of a pack of dogs, a slobbering of dogs might be more appropriate. But we love them anyway.

[Hermit]

A couple of things strike me about the queen picture above, not counting the bizarrity of carrying "royalty" in a heavy, awkward contraption that if it were to fall, would hurt and possibly kill the royal.

Litters were made for comfort. They certainly were much less bone jarring than travelling by wheeled coaches without suspensions even on the relatively level cobblestones of London's streets. I also doubt that they are more dangerous. It is less likely to harm the occupant(s) if one of the eight carriers should stumble and fall than if one of the coach wheels breaks. The coach is almost guaranteed to crash on its side. The litter is not.

Also, the litter is a public demonstration of wealth, and moreso of power. I bet the litter carriers are members of the upper aristocracy and that every on of their faces would have been recognisable by the lesser nobles, traders and others who mattered somewhat.

1. What the hell is up with the collars.
2. People back then had really skinny legs and high knees. They're buttoned up to the ears on top, but their skinny nerd thighs are exposed to the elements. I guess back then it was sexy for men to show a little leg... a skinny little leg.

It's an improvement on the the fashion of the time Liz's dad was king.



Fashion has always seemed absurd to me. It's just seems more absurd, and is easier to perceive as such, the further it lies in the past. I mean, look at the bell-bottomed pants and body shirts of the 1970s and 80s. Nobody laughed at them at the time. They were regarded as snazzy.



I wonder what people will think of the 2000 dollar business suits, and the ties that go with them, in 50, 100 or 300 years.

[Hermit]

A cuteness of squirrels
A superiority of cats
A wiseacre of parrots.
Instead of a pack of dogs, a slobbering of dogs might be more appropriate. But we love them anyway.

A flight of squirrels. Remembering them gliding from poplar to poplar along the side of our garden when I was a child.

Ah, yes, that would have been a stand of trees.

A wisdom of cats. My previous moggy used to meditate for hours, sitting upright, eyes closed, paws neatly together and tail curled around them. I used to intone: "You are beautiful, elegant and wiiiiiiise beyond measure". Here she is in one of her more playful moods.



With their status among Egyptians in Pharaonic times one could also go with a divinity of cats.

An earbleed of parrots. If you've ever been near trees while a hundred cockatoos or a thousand galahs land in them you'll know why.

A single one's screech had my ears ringing for several minutes. It was sitting on my chest at the time. I was telling my mother a joke I heard earlier that day in school. The galah felt ignored and got jealous. I had to tell the rest of the joke to the bird. Mum was allowed to listen in.

[The_Piper]

Pretty kitty.
A wisdom of cats, I like that. I suppose the word should be as few syllables as possible to ring.
I've never been near a tree full of wild parrots. I'd like to be sometime. The closest I can say is the bird room (aviary?) at a large pet store. As kids, my friends and I used to go to the pet store just to look at the cool creatures, it was our zoo. The bird room was very loud and contentious, and at that age, intimidating. If one of us stuck a finger into the cage of a large parrot, it would try to destroy it. Poor guys.
A friend had a conure who would make all sorts of racket in the background of phone calls. I found it endearing. The friend found it annoying, which only further increased my appreciation for the bird for some reason. The little guy was adorable.

[The_Piper]

I like the pockets in the flannel bell-bottoms. Utility. I already find modern suits to be something outdated. It's something I think about sometimes. I think we stopped needing ties when buttons were invented. The tie just exists to get caught in machinery or pulled on in a fight. Plus the jackets offer very little warmth.
That outfit has already been around for decades, at least. I'm not a fan.

[arugula2]

Er... possibly the right thread?

Just an observation. Came across the phrase "say less" today. Didn't know what it meant, but guessed right: a variant of "say no more". Apparently evolved in & around Toronto? I like it.

edit: originally for the Rant thread.

[arugula2]

^^^^^ Fashion is absurd. Typical suit & tie, to me, looks supremely absurd, despite it being part of the cultural background my whole life. The idea of any single fashion item becomes absurd, once you think about it historically. The idea of trousers is a bit absurd - and the idea that men wearing anything other than trousers/breeches/culottes on their legs is absurd... is absurd.

[The_Piper]

How about shorts? Also sweatpants and other elastic-waisted atheletic-y pants. Are those still trousers? I looked up breeches, and thought of britches, which are apparently the same thing. I always though britches was underwear.
I agree there should be other publicly acceptable forms of men's legwear, but I'm not sure I'd wear them. Having individual leg compartments was a landmark invention.

[arugula2]

I always though britches was underwear.

I want to believe the Celtic connection (britches/breeches from "bracca") because in modern Greek the word βρακιά ("brakia" or "vrakia") is the common word for underpants, which presumably the Greeks borrowed from encounters with Celts. I remember reading about the reported shock classical Greeks & Romans felt when they first saw men's legs individually ensconced like that.

Also, everything linguistic is at least twice as interesting when there's a plausible Celtic contamination.

How about shorts?

I think of shorts as short trousers/pants.

[Hermit]

The idea of trousers is a bit absurd - and the idea that men wearing anything other than trousers/breeches/culottes on their legs is absurd... is absurd.

Trousers are eminently practical, especially the ones with at least four pockets, like denim jeans. Trousers are also the favoured garment of riders. The oldest pair we know of was found in the Yanghai graveyard in China’s Tarim Basin. It belonged to a nomadic herder and is somewhere between 3000 and 3300 years old.

How about shorts? Also sweatpants and other elastic-waisted atheletic-y pants. Are those still trousers? I looked up breeches, and thought of britches, which are apparently the same thing. I always though britches was underwear.
I agree there should be other publicly acceptable forms of men's legwear, but I'm not sure I'd wear them. Having individual leg compartments was a landmark invention.

The thesaurus lists 16 synonyms for 'trousers'.

knickers
slacks
bloomers
breeches
britches
chaps
chinos
cords
corduroys
denims
dungarees
jeans
overalls
pantaloons
rompers
blue jeans

To be sure, many of those are subsets of garments we wear between our waists and ankles.

It does not mention 'pants', which derives from 'pantaloons'. In Australia we also colloquially refer to pants as strides.

[The_Piper]

I thought bloomers were underwear too. My garment world is being turned upside down here.
I have cargo sweatpantaloons which are publicly acceptable, I think. No one's told me otherwise.

[don't get me started]

knickers
slacks
bloomers
breeches
britches
chaps
chinos
cords
corduroys
denims
dungarees
jeans
overalls
pantaloons
rompers
blue jeans

To be sure, many of those are subsets of garments we wear between our waists and ankles.


What is interesting about this list is that all items are plural tantum. This is a category of English nouns that appear or function as either pairs or sets. On one end of the scale we have pair/individual differentiation. A pair of socks or a sock. Both the plural and singular are available. Then we have plural, paired sets – trousers, pants, scissors, glasses. No singular is available, and it is understood that the items appear conceptually in twos. Then we have classes that can contain only plurals, but not limited to two – clothes, shenanigans, doldrums.
Leg division wear is a fundamental concept in English. Anything which separates the legs, however far up or down the leg the separation occurs, is plural tantum. Gusset only? knickers. (British meaning). Down to the knees? – shorts. Down to the ankle? – jeans/trousers. Right to the tip of the toe? -Tights.

(Note that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t really go in for leg division as a clothing style - the various togas and over-the-head/over the shoulder robes were the default. For women, leg division clothing was quite scandalous in Europe until well into the 20th century.)

Now, the ways that languages talk about clothing can vary in ways that may be surprising. In English the basic verb is ‘wear’. Shirts, jackets, shoes, hats, glasses, wigs, contact lenses, bracelets, necklaces and even moustaches all collocate with the verb ‘wear’.

In Japanese different verbs are used depending on what kind of item is worn.

Hat, cap, helmet- Kaburu
Glasses- Kakeru
Bracelet, wristwatch – Tsukeru
Shirt, Jacket, Vest – Kiru
Pants, socks, shoes – Haku

(You’ll recognize Kiru… The Ki of Kiru appears in the stripped-down form in the word ‘Ki- mono’, literally, ‘Wear thing’)

So, in English the verb ‘wear’ covers all clothing items (and other items as well- a ring is not conceptually in the class of clothing, but it is definitely described as being worn. )

Well, actually there are some nuances here, things that English speakers know but don’t usually notice. English speakers can also use the word ‘in’ to describe clothing.

The guy in the leather jacket, the woman in the red dress.

In this case, the purpose is to identify a person by their clothing rather than merely describe what a person is wearing.

Compare:

1) Look at that woman in the red dress/ See that guy in the black leather jacket?

2) Why are you in those shoes/ Why are you in that jacket? Completely impractical for hiking!

Examples from 2) sounds a bit hokey to me.

There also exists the option to use ‘with’ but this seems to divide up clothing in way that makes a distinction between different clothing items.

See that guy with the red tie/silver bracelet? – Seems okay as an identifying purpose.

See that guy in the red tie/ in the silver bracelet? – Seems a bit strange to me. These items seem more properly to collocate with ‘with’ than ‘in’.

Then we have the inchoative distinction in English. ‘Put on’ is the onset, change of state verb in English. The state that results from putting on is ‘wear’. In Japanese the same verb is used for both with different grammar. Ki-ru is ‘put on’ ‘ki-teiru’ is the state that results – wearing, manipulating the stem ‘ki’ rather than using a completely different verb like in English.

Grammar, lexis, culture all intertwine in complex ways in language to give an account of reality which speakers tacitly agree is fit for the purpose at hand rather than objectively comprehensive.

[arugula2]

knickers
slacks
bloomers
breeches
britches
chaps
chinos
cords
corduroys
denims
dungarees
jeans
overalls
pantaloons
rompers
blue jeans

Language is fascinating and excessive... Pantaloon (pantaloons) was a popular character in Venetian stage plays, derived from the name of the saint Pantaleone, might be a Greek-Italian hybrid - Greek panta meaning "always", Italian leone meaning "lion". (The character is depicted wearing a distinctive set of trousers.) The Italian version of the word (pantalone) probably produced the common word for trousers in both standard modern Italian and Greek ("pantaloni", "pantelonia"). Italian stage comedy flourished in the 16th-17th centuries, which would've roughly corresponded to the height of Venice's influence in Greece... but if French and English derived the word through French fashion, and it's the standard French for "trousers" ("pantalon"), I wonder if diverging influences explains the story. Maybe the word found popularity in Italy & Greece through the influence of French fashion, which would be so meta.

In English, lions became loons. Yay.

Corduroy, I would've guessed French "corde du roi" or "cord of the king"... which is apparently what most people would guess - but turns out "duroy" refers to an English coarse woolen fabric.

[arugula2]

I thought bloomers were underwear too. My garment world is being turned upside down here.
I have cargo sweatpantaloons which are publicly acceptable, I think. No one's told me otherwise.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

I keep forgetting to buy more... I can't remember the last time I had these. I don't remember ever using the 'cargo' pockets, even though they seem practical.

[The_Piper]

I keep my wallet in the left leg pocket, and camera or cell phone in the right. In it's case the camera never slides out, but you have to be careful with the cellphone when sitting, it slips right out.

I love all the quirks of language and am continually impressed that linguists and enthusiasts can unravel the origins of words so well.

[arugula2]

I love all the quirks of language and am continually impressed that linguists and enthusiasts can unravel the origins of words so well.

A ton of it is guesswork & overlap... it's both frustrating & enjoyable that thousands of words' origins are a muddy mess that'll never get sorted out. They're a collection of stories. Stories are often not true or false, they just are.

[arugula2]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

knickers
slacks
bloomers
breeches
britches
chaps
chinos
cords
corduroys
denims
dungarees
jeans
overalls
pantaloons
rompers
blue jeans

To be sure, many of those are subsets of garments we wear between our waists and ankles.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

What is interesting about this list is that all items are plural tantum. This is a category of English nouns that appear or function as either pairs or sets. On one end of the scale we have pair/individual differentiation. A pair of socks or a sock. Both the plural and singular are available. Then we have plural, paired sets – trousers, pants, scissors, glasses. No singular is available, and it is understood that the items appear conceptually in twos. Then we have classes that can contain only plurals, but not limited to two – clothes, shenanigans, doldrums.
Leg division wear is a fundamental concept in English. Anything which separates the legs, however far up or down the leg the separation occurs, is plural tantum. Gusset only? knickers. (British meaning). Down to the knees? – shorts. Down to the ankle? – jeans/trousers. Right to the tip of the toe? -Tights.

(Note that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t really go in for leg division as a clothing style - the various togas and over-the-head/over the shoulder robes were the default. For women, leg division clothing was quite scandalous in Europe until well into the 20th century.)

Now, the ways that languages talk about clothing can vary in ways that may be surprising. In English the basic verb is ‘wear’. Shirts, jackets, shoes, hats, glasses, wigs, contact lenses, bracelets, necklaces and even moustaches all collocate with the verb ‘wear’.

In Japanese different verbs are used depending on what kind of item is worn.

Hat, cap, helmet- Kaburu
Glasses- Kakeru
Bracelet, wristwatch – Tsukeru
Shirt, Jacket, Vest – Kiru
Pants, socks, shoes – Haku

(You’ll recognize Kiru… The Ki of Kiru appears in the stripped-down form in the word ‘Ki- mono’, literally, ‘Wear thing’)

So, in English the verb ‘wear’ covers all clothing items (and other items as well- a ring is not conceptually in the class of clothing, but it is definitely described as being worn. )

Well, actually there are some nuances here, things that English speakers know but don’t usually notice. English speakers can also use the word ‘in’ to describe clothing.

The guy in the leather jacket, the woman in the red dress.

In this case, the purpose is to identify a person by their clothing rather than merely describe what a person is wearing.

Compare:

1) Look at that woman in the red dress/ See that guy in the black leather jacket?

2) Why are you in those shoes/ Why are you in that jacket? Completely impractical for hiking!

Examples from 2) sounds a bit hokey to me.

There also exists the option to use ‘with’ but this seems to divide up clothing in way that makes a distinction between different clothing items.

See that guy with the red tie/silver bracelet? – Seems okay as an identifying purpose.

See that guy in the red tie/ in the silver bracelet? – Seems a bit strange to me. These items seem more properly to collocate with ‘with’ than ‘in’.

Then we have the inchoative distinction in English. ‘Put on’ is the onset, change of state verb in English. The state that results from putting on is ‘wear’. In Japanese the same verb is used for both with different grammar. Ki-ru is ‘put on’ ‘ki-teiru’ is the state that results – wearing, manipulating the stem ‘ki’ rather than using a completely different verb like in English.

Grammar, lexis, culture all intertwine in complex ways in language to give an account of reality which speakers tacitly agree is fit for the purpose at hand rather than objectively comprehensive.

How did I know you were soon to appear...

Very interesting stuff.

[don't get me started]

Language is fascinating and excessive... Pantaloon (pantaloons) was a popular character in Venetian stage plays, derived from the name of the saint Pantaleone, might be a Greek-Italian hybrid - Greek panta meaning "always", Italian leone meaning "lion". (The character is depicted wearing a distinctive set of trousers.) The Italian version of the word (pantalone) probably produced the common word for trousers in both standard modern Italian and Greek ("pantaloni", "pantelonia"). Italian stage comedy flourished in the 16th-17th centuries, which would've roughly corresponded to the height of Venice's influence in Greece... but if French and English derived the word through French fashion, and it's the standard French for "trousers" ("pantalon"), I wonder if diverging influences explains the story. Maybe the word found popularity in Italy & Greece through the influence of French fashion, which would be so meta.

In English, lions became loons. Yay.

Corduroy, I would've guessed French "corde du roi" or "cord of the king"... which is apparently what most people would guess - but turns out "duroy" refers to an English coarse woolen fabric.

Fascinating stuff arugula. The ways in which words shift and drift, get borrowed, reappraised, and move in and out of fashion is an endlessly engaging subject. I always love discovering some root of a word I use. It is especially true when I find out the Proto-Indo European root of a word. The notion that I am saying something that has come down to me from wagon folk of the Pontic Steppe 7,000 years ago and has a parallel form in Hindi, Russian and Irish is always a little bit special.

If you go into an Irish pub, sometimes the gent's bogs are labeled 'fir'. This is Irish but it is paralleled in the word 'virile' (F and V being the voiced and unvoiced pair) meaning 'manly' and also in the word 'werewolf' - literally 'man wolf'. All going back to PIE *wi-ro = man. This kind of thing just tickles me no end.

I'm just finishing a book on Elizabethan social mores and found out that the word 'recover' came from Elizabethan rules of courtesy. Removing your hat was an expected show of respect to one's social superiors. Once the niceties had been observed the hat was replaced - the head was re-covered. Over time the word came to mean any reversion to the previous and default state.
Recover from illness has nothing to do with headgear, but the word has expanded out from it's initial meaning... one thing is certain in language is that everything is changing, all the time.

[don't get me started]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

knickers
slacks
bloomers
breeches
britches
chaps
chinos
cords
corduroys
denims
dungarees
jeans
overalls
pantaloons
rompers
blue jeans

To be sure, many of those are subsets of garments we wear between our waists and ankles.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

What is interesting about this list is that all items are plural tantum. This is a category of English nouns that appear or function as either pairs or sets. On one end of the scale we have pair/individual differentiation. A pair of socks or a sock. Both the plural and singular are available. Then we have plural, paired sets – trousers, pants, scissors, glasses. No singular is available, and it is understood that the items appear conceptually in twos. Then we have classes that can contain only plurals, but not limited to two – clothes, shenanigans, doldrums.
Leg division wear is a fundamental concept in English. Anything which separates the legs, however far up or down the leg the separation occurs, is plural tantum. Gusset only? knickers. (British meaning). Down to the knees? – shorts. Down to the ankle? – jeans/trousers. Right to the tip of the toe? -Tights.

(Note that the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t really go in for leg division as a clothing style - the various togas and over-the-head/over the shoulder robes were the default. For women, leg division clothing was quite scandalous in Europe until well into the 20th century.)

Now, the ways that languages talk about clothing can vary in ways that may be surprising. In English the basic verb is ‘wear’. Shirts, jackets, shoes, hats, glasses, wigs, contact lenses, bracelets, necklaces and even moustaches all collocate with the verb ‘wear’.

In Japanese different verbs are used depending on what kind of item is worn.

Hat, cap, helmet- Kaburu
Glasses- Kakeru
Bracelet, wristwatch – Tsukeru
Shirt, Jacket, Vest – Kiru
Pants, socks, shoes – Haku

(You’ll recognize Kiru… The Ki of Kiru appears in the stripped-down form in the word ‘Ki- mono’, literally, ‘Wear thing’)

So, in English the verb ‘wear’ covers all clothing items (and other items as well- a ring is not conceptually in the class of clothing, but it is definitely described as being worn. )

Well, actually there are some nuances here, things that English speakers know but don’t usually notice. English speakers can also use the word ‘in’ to describe clothing.

The guy in the leather jacket, the woman in the red dress.

In this case, the purpose is to identify a person by their clothing rather than merely describe what a person is wearing.

Compare:

1) Look at that woman in the red dress/ See that guy in the black leather jacket?

2) Why are you in those shoes/ Why are you in that jacket? Completely impractical for hiking!

Examples from 2) sounds a bit hokey to me.

There also exists the option to use ‘with’ but this seems to divide up clothing in way that makes a distinction between different clothing items.

See that guy with the red tie/silver bracelet? – Seems okay as an identifying purpose.

See that guy in the red tie/ in the silver bracelet? – Seems a bit strange to me. These items seem more properly to collocate with ‘with’ than ‘in’.

Then we have the inchoative distinction in English. ‘Put on’ is the onset, change of state verb in English. The state that results from putting on is ‘wear’. In Japanese the same verb is used for both with different grammar. Ki-ru is ‘put on’ ‘ki-teiru’ is the state that results – wearing, manipulating the stem ‘ki’ rather than using a completely different verb like in English.

Grammar, lexis, culture all intertwine in complex ways in language to give an account of reality which speakers tacitly agree is fit for the purpose at hand rather than objectively comprehensive.

How did I know you were soon to appear...

Very interesting stuff.

I'm pretty predictable, I know

The thing is, I wrote that last night after a few* beers.
I was quite surprised this morning that I had managed to get most of the words in the right order!!

(* The word 'few' may be open to a wide variety of interpretations. )

[arugula2]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Fascinating stuff arugula. The ways in which words shift and drift, get borrowed, reappraised, and move in and out of fashion is an endlessly engaging subject.

I always love discovering some root of a word I use. It is especially true when I find out the Proto-Indo European root of a word. The notion that I am saying something that has come down to me from wagon folk of the Pontic Steppe 7,000 years ago and has a parallel form in Hindi, Russian and Irish is always a little bit special.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

If you go into an Irish pub, sometimes the gent's bogs are labeled 'fir'. This is Irish but it is paralleled in the word 'virile' (F and V being the voiced and unvoiced pair) meaning 'manly' and also in the word 'werewolf' - literally 'man wolf'. All going back to PIE *wi-ro = man. This kind of thing just tickles me no end.

I'm just finishing a book on Elizabethan social mores and found out that the word 'recover' came from Elizabethan rules of courtesy. Removing your hat was an expected show of respect to one's social superiors. Once the niceties had been observed the hat was replaced - the head was re-covered. Over time the word came to mean any reversion to the previous and default state.
Recover from illness has nothing to do with headgear, but the word has expanded out from it's initial meaning... one thing is certain in language is that everything is changing, all the time.

Same same! I wish I could devote myself to it. There must be something in that region of the brain that needs scratching, and it tickles me to imagine this 'urge to know' is partly expressing the same biology that gave rise to our languages in the first place.

^Those are delicious anecdotes... Speaking of Elizabethan customs: do you have any particular love of Shakespearean language? Is that too narrow for your tastes, or is there enough there to send you on meaningful excursions in other directions? Or do you not have enough time for it?