|
I make a flippant remark about slugs being unclean, and end up reading part of a long diatribe that seems to have little point. Ray Drouillard Ray, I am the originator of this string (what role does the snail and/or slug have in the garden) and am amazzzzzzzzzzzzzed at all the nonsense replies. Have a Good Day LenBo |
Dear Mr. David Hill,
Are you being pedantic and does it matter ? Do you have any input on the subject in question instead of acting like a silly five year old ? Happpppppppppppppppppy Everythings, LenBo. P.S. I am new to all three of the Newsgroups. "David Hill" wrote in message ... St George wrote ".......Probably an old Chestnut but am new to this N.G. .........." Which one? You are multiple posting. -- David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk |
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: "Ray Drouillard" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message [...] But most of the world do not follow the outdated Mosaic laws. Franz They are not outdated to the Jews.. I did not say they were. The poster did not mention that they were unclean *as far as Jews were concerned*. He made it sound much more general. I remember a boss saying of a (highly-esteemed, I should say) colleague "For somebody who can't work on Friday evenings, he eats an awful lot of sausages." A Jewish girlfriend whose sister suddenly started keeping Kosher and everything referred to the unexpected transformation as "going Catholic". {:-)) Franz |
"Christopher Green" wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 15:42:48 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: "Christopher Green" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: "Ray Drouillard" wrote in message ... "Stan Goodman" wrote in message news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-dZ8d2UFWwjFE@poblano... On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:28:18 UTC, "Ray Drouillard" opined: "Stan Goodman" wrote in message news:uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-xGzwb8So2ZUw@poblano... On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:17:41 UTC, (paghat) opined: In article uViCr8LlbtmJ-pn2-udOV900dMXzb@poblano, "Stan Goodman" wrote: A slug is a naked snail. Ha-cha-cha-cha. That's exactly what a slug is. The only difference between the two is the shell. Whether that qualifies slugs to appear in rec.gardens.EDIBLE is a question I can't answer. Well... a slug is EDIBLE, and can be found in your garden. Thank you; now I know. Please feel free to help yourself. Sorry. Snails are unclean. What does "unclean" mean? If I understand it correctly, edible snails are fed on bran or suchlike for a couple of days before being dished up at a meal. Franz Not kosher. Treyf. An abomination. Not acceptable as food to observant Jews. (Lev. 11:42, "You shall not eat... anything that crawls on its belly...") But most of the world do not follow the outdated Mosaic laws. Franz That is why I wrote "to observant Jews". Indeed, After I had commented originally. Franz |
On 8/10/04 22:46, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote: snip I reported in the way I did because when I enquired from a hedgehog sanctuary whether they have any hedgehoga to spare, they stipulated that they would only let them go to folks with completely enclosed gardens and no dogs. Franz And no badgers, Franz. I wanted to introduce hedgehogs into my garden but the local sanctuary wouldn't let me have them because I lived in badger country. Interestingly, we have many badgers round here, too but we still get the odd hedgehog in the garden. The dogs (Jack Russells) just stand and bark at them, long and monotonously. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
The message from Stephen Howard contains these words: And you really couldn't have picked a worse word to back up your position....'nice' has evolved in meaning a great many times, and still has many regional variations. Were you to adhere to the principle you seem to keen to uphold then you just said 'his reply was foolish'. Nice going. How's your arse? That's a comparatively modern usage - in fact, 'nice' in its firs recorded form is far closer to the context in which it's used these days. I've got 1290 for the "foolish" meaning, and that's the earliest record in my OED1. Mike. |
|
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:43:08 +0200, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:03:36 +0100, Stephen Howard wrote: I thoroughly recommend a book called Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson. Should you ever read it I think you'll be appalled to find that you're just as guilty as the next 'ignorant wordsmith' when it comes to twisting definitions - and you'll also discover that many of your linguistic tenets have extremely suspect origins ( such as the venerable OED ). Bill Bryson is a more reliable authority, than the compilers of the OED? Not in my opinion. So when you want to find a nice pub in, say, Devon you consult an atlas... as opposed to the Good Beer Guide? You've not really grasped the point. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 18:08:51 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote: The message from Stephen Howard contains these words: And you really couldn't have picked a worse word to back up your position....'nice' has evolved in meaning a great many times, and still has many regional variations. Were you to adhere to the principle you seem to keen to uphold then you just said 'his reply was foolish'. Nice going. How's your arse? That's a comparatively modern usage - in fact, 'nice' in its firs recorded form is far closer to the context in which it's used these days. How's yours? It's as pert, pristine and gorgeously sexy as ever.... for two reasons really.. Firstly...I've never seen any references to the word prior to the late 13th century, at which time its meaning was 'foolish'. If you have any references to its use prior to that I'd be interested to see them. Of course, it's worth bearing in mind that the word 'nice' derives from the Latin 'nescius' ( ignorant ), which in turn has its roots in 'ne' ( not ) and 'scire' ( to know ) - so I'd be very surprised if the word first started out closer in meaning to its modern context. Secondly...that meanings change and evolve is something that doesn't trouble me, rather it fascinates and delights me that language is so vibrant. From that standpoint I'm far more likely to be tickled than bitten. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 15:42:49 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: "Stephen Howard" wrote in message .. . I thoroughly recommend a book called Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson. I have. Although Bryson is not in the same category of authority as the folk who are responsible for the OED, his book is to be recommended most thoroughly, as is everything else he has written.. It's not a question of authority - the OED is a book of reference, Bill's book is a description of patterns of usage and the evolution of English. And as regards authority it depends on whether you view dictionaries as being prescriptive or descriptive. Both have their drawbacks. Should you ever read it I think you'll be appalled to find that you're just as guilty as the next 'ignorant wordsmith' when it comes to twisting definitions - and you'll also discover that many of your linguistic tenets have extremely suspect origins ( such as the venerable OED ). ....and somewhere back in the 16th century there's an URGler who's completely bemused at both your use and spelling of the word 'futile'...and yet another who's wondering what on earth tennis has to do with the topic in question. I fully realise that languages evolve. So why the pedantry then? I also reslise that the evolution is steered by those least equipped to sensibly further the language. Now that's just plain laughable, if not the height of snobbery. We speak a language that was, at one point in time, regarded as the language of the uneducated peasant, and it certainly doesn't seem to have done the language any harm at all. Quite the contrary - its vitality is breathtaking in its depth. I also realise that one should restrain the process from proceeding too fast, otherwise confusion results from the reader misunderstanding what the writer meant. And just how do you propose to define what is and isn't too fast? A couple of hundred years? A few decades? You'd be up for a lot of flak....and you'd better be careful where you place that line or that could mean you're either in for some criticism...or someone's going to start chucking anti-aircraft fire at you.... Either option appeals ;) Have you noticed what a merry mix up the Dutch language has become through embracing the worst elements of many other languages? Have you noticed how much English is suffering from accepting so much of the worst elements of American slang? Gosh....and that would be something the English language has never entertained before, eh? Just where d'you think the modern English language came from??? Obviously you feel a need to draw a linguistic line, but where in time do you propose to place that line? Today...yesterday...last year? How about the dawn of Old English - assuming you could find it ( not that you'd have quite so many words to play with )? Many distinguished scholars have attempted the very same thing - and all have failed spectacularly...and a bloody good job too! To attempt to maintain a status quo when it comes to the English language is a cause so Quixotic in its intent that it borders on bizarre fetishism - and Joseph Priestly dismissed the notion of the formation of an academy to arrest the natural development of the English language as being "unsuitable to the genius of a free nation... We need make no doubt but that the best forms of speech will establish themselves through their own superior excellence". 'Nuff said. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
|
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:08:59 GMT, "Charles Newton"
wrote: Botton line is snails and slugs are good for nothing except bird food. But you do have entertainment value.... |
"Stephen Howard" wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 15:42:49 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: "Stephen Howard" wrote in message .. . I thoroughly recommend a book called Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson. I have. Although Bryson is not in the same category of authority as the folk who are responsible for the OED, his book is to be recommended most thoroughly, as is everything else he has written.. It's not a question of authority - the OED is a book of reference, Quite. That is what I call a book of authority. Bill's book is a description of patterns of usage and the evolution of English. And as regards authority it depends on whether you view dictionaries as being prescriptive or descriptive. Both have their drawbacks. I use the OED as if it were prescriptive of the English language, and have managed very well in that mode for all my life. Should you ever read it I think you'll be appalled to find that you're just as guilty as the next 'ignorant wordsmith' when it comes to twisting definitions - and you'll also discover that many of your linguistic tenets have extremely suspect origins ( such as the venerable OED ). ....and somewhere back in the 16th century there's an URGler who's completely bemused at both your use and spelling of the word 'futile'...and yet another who's wondering what on earth tennis has to do with the topic in question. I fully realise that languages evolve. So why the pedantry then? What pedantry? I also reslise that the evolution is steered by those least equipped to sensibly further the language. Now that's just plain laughable, if not the height of snobbery. Then so be it. We speak a language that was, at one point in time, regarded as the language of the uneducated peasant, and it certainly doesn't seem to have done the language any harm at all. Quite the contrary - its vitality is breathtaking in its depth. I also realise that one should restrain the process from proceeding too fast, otherwise confusion results from the reader misunderstanding what the writer meant. And just how do you propose to define what is and isn't too fast? A couple of hundred years? A few decades? You'd be up for a lot of flak....and you'd better be careful where you place that line or that could mean you're either in for some criticism...or someone's going to start chucking anti-aircraft fire at you.... Either option appeals ;) Have you noticed what a merry mix up the Dutch language has become through embracing the worst elements of many other languages? Have you noticed how much English is suffering from accepting so much of the worst elements of American slang? Gosh....and that would be something the English language has never entertained before, eh? Just where d'you think the modern English language came from??? Over an evolutionary period. The Dutch language became muddied over a period of only a generation or two. Obviously you feel a need to draw a linguistic line, but where in time do you propose to place that line? Today...yesterday...last year? How about the dawn of Old English - assuming you could find it ( not that you'd have quite so many words to play with )? Many distinguished scholars have attempted the very same thing - and all have failed spectacularly...and a bloody good job too! To attempt to maintain a status quo when it comes to the English language is a cause so Quixotic in its intent that it borders on bizarre fetishism - and Joseph Priestly dismissed the notion of the formation of an academy to arrest the natural development of the English language as being "unsuitable to the genius of a free nation... We need make no doubt but that the best forms of speech will establish themselves through their own superior excellence". 'Nuff said. You're telling me. Let me summarise my position before I call it a day: A language which is allowed to develop in a completely unfettered way acquires a huge baggage of redundant grammatical nonsense which continues to grow as time passes. My mother tongue has a language academy which defines the state of the language at any time. Some of the effects of this are that: It is totally phonetic. Spelling exercises are unknown in school. It uses unly 22 letters of the alphabet. It has only 3 tenses. That, contrary to what you might think, does not limit the range of temporal relationships which may be expressed in the language. It has no concept of gender There are no strong verbs.All tenses are constructed using the same formulation. There are no conjugations of verbs. There are no declensions of nouns. None of these presented any obstacles to my learning mathematical, scientific and engineering subjects at University, except for the lack of specialist textbooks. It has a literature which is very rich in comparison with the size of its population. Franz |
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:43:08 +0200, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:03:36 +0100, Stephen Howard wrote: On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:28:00 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: "Stephen Howard" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 21:46:31 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: "Stephen Howard" wrote in message .. . [snip] You might have to spend a week doing this, but it will decimate the population to such an extent that a weekly patrol will probably be adequate. There is only one extent to which a population can be decimated, namely to kill off one in every ten. That leaves 90% fighting fit. {:-(( There's always one... http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/decimate.html Interesting. I suppose it is futile to think that words may retain their definitions when there are so many ignorant wordsmiths bandying them about. And that points up your misconception that language is static in nature. I thoroughly recommend a book called Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson. Should you ever read it I think you'll be appalled to find that you're just as guilty as the next 'ignorant wordsmith' when it comes to twisting definitions - and you'll also discover that many of your linguistic tenets have extremely suspect origins ( such as the venerable OED ). Bill Bryson is a more reliable authority, than the compilers of the OED? Not in my opinion. Martin, remind me... there's about a page and a half on words of Dutch origin in there... did he get any of it right? I remember tootling acceptingly through the book until I got to that bit and then wondering just how accurate any of it was. Liz |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter