Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 08:29 AM
St. George
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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


  #62   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 08:32 AM
St. George
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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






  #63   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 08:44 AM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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But most of the world do not follow the outdated Mosaic laws.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They are not outdated to the Jews..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


  #64   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 08:46 AM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #65   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 12:05 PM
Sacha
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)



  #67   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 12:51 PM
Mike Lyle
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #69   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 06:14 PM
Stephen Howard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #70   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 06:14 PM
Stephen Howard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #71   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 06:14 PM
Stephen Howard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #73   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 08:43 PM
hippy gardener
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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....
  #74   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2004, 10:34 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #75   Report Post  
Old 11-10-2004, 12:21 AM
FF
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RSPB / SNH led slaughter of hedgehogs was a serious mistake. Hedgehogs now on Endangered list. crazyhorse United Kingdom 1 29-08-2007 02:49 PM
Snails, Slugs, Hedgehogs etc. Glenna Rose Edible Gardening 3 20-12-2004 10:17 PM
Snails, Slugs, Hedgehogs etc. St. George Gardening 46 13-10-2004 07:12 PM
Snails, Slugs, Hedgehogs etc. St. George Edible Gardening 53 13-10-2004 07:12 PM
Slugs or no slugs Kate Morgan United Kingdom 9 04-04-2003 03:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017