| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:38:54 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,801 |
The last case, was on Monday evening, when he inveigled an
interesting little creature under the dry arch of Eden-Bridge.
Another example of something we have discussed here before, This from
the "Carlisle Patriot", 09 Jul 1825
On 25 Aug 2025 at 16:46, petra.mitchinson--- via list-cumbria wrote:
The last case, was on Monday evening, when he inveigled an interesting little creature under the dry arch of Eden-Bridge.
A language question: what does "interesting" mean in this context?
It seems to have been quite common for 19th-century newspapers to speak of "interesting children" or "an interesting child", but I wonder what it meant?
Another example of something we have discussed here before, This
from the "Carlisle Patriot", 09 Jul 1825
On 25 Aug 2025 at 16:46, petra.mitchinson--- via list-cumbria wrote:
The last case, was on Monday evening, when he inveigled an
interesting little creature under the dry arch of Eden-Bridge.
A language question: what does "interesting" mean in this context?
It seems to have been quite common for 19th-century newspapers to
speak of "interesting children" or "an interesting child", but I
wonder what it meant?
On 26/08/25 14:42, Steve Hayes wrote:
It seems to have been quite common for 19th-century newspapers to
speak of "interesting children" or "an interesting child", but I
wonder what it meant?
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were
disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
The meaning must have been clear to 19th-century readers. It's strange
that the meaning, whatever it was, doesn't seem to have been documented anywhere. Clearly the meaning was so obvious that nobody felt any need
to explain it.
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were
disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
On 27/08/2025 03:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were
disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
You may be right. There is a book for sale on Amazon.com called
"Parenting Interesting Children: A real life story of raising a child
with special needs."
On 27/08/25 19:13, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 27/08/2025 03:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were
disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
You may be right. There is a book for sale on Amazon.com called "Parenting Interesting Children: A real life story of raising a child
with special needs."
I mentioned the topic to my wife, who is a nurse, and she said it felt
like a medical term. The modern version might be FLK.
Ar an seacht|| l|i is fiche de m|! L||nasa, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
> On 27/08/25 19:13, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> > On 27/08/2025 03:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> >> I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were
> >> disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
> >
> > You may be right. There is a book for sale on Amazon.com called
> > "Parenting Interesting Children: A real life story of raising a child
> > with special needs."
>
> I mentioned the topic to my wife, who is a nurse, and she said it felt
> like a medical term. The modern version might be FLK.
As part of the long march of making medical jargon as dry and uninteresting as
possible (see also the ongoing attempted deprecation of eponyms in a field where it is unremarkable for abbreviations to be ambiguous), FLK is a deprecated term, so not currently modern.
Another example of something we have discussed here before, This from
the "Carlisle Patriot", 09 Jul 1825
On 25 Aug 2025 at 16:46, petra.mitchinson--- via list-cumbria wrote:
The last case, was on Monday evening, when he inveigled an
interesting little creature under the dry arch of Eden-Bridge.
A language question: what does "interesting" mean in this context?
It seems to have been quite common for 19th-century newspapers to
speak of "interesting children" or "an interesting child", but I
wonder what it meant?
As part of the long march of making medical jargon as dry and uninteresting as
possible (see also the ongoing attempted deprecation of eponyms in a field where it is unremarkable for abbreviations to be ambiguous), FLK is a deprecated term, so not currently modern. [...]
Le 27/08/2025 |a 11:52, Aidan Kehoe a |-crit :
As part of the long march of making medical jargon as dry and
uninteresting as
possible (see also the ongoing attempted deprecation of eponyms
in a field
where it is unremarkable for abbreviations to be ambiguous),
FLK is a
deprecated term, so not currently modern. [...]
I hope eponyms don't disappear from science and engineering.
Where should we be without Ohm's Law, Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle, Maxwell's Equations, and Feynman Diagrams?
On 27/08/2025 16:44, Hibou wrote:
Le 27/08/2025 |a 11:52, Aidan Kehoe a |-crit :
As part of the long march of making medical jargon as dry and
uninteresting as
possible (see also the ongoing attempted deprecation of eponyms in a
field
where it is unremarkable for abbreviations to be ambiguous), FLK is a
deprecated term, so not currently modern. [...]
I hope eponyms don't disappear from science and engineering. Where
should we be without Ohm's Law, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle,
Maxwell's Equations, and Feynman Diagrams?
You forgot the Cat.
Easily done. It's been so long now I'm not even sure it's still alive.
Le 26/08/2025 |a 05:42, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Another example of something we have discussed here before, This from
the "Carlisle Patriot", 09 Jul 1825
On 25 Aug 2025 at 16:46, petra.mitchinson--- via list-cumbria wrote:
The last case, was on Monday evening, when he inveigled an
interesting little creature under the dry arch of Eden-Bridge.
A language question: what does "interesting" mean in this context?
It seems to have been quite common for 19th-century newspapers to
speak of "interesting children" or "an interesting child", but I
wonder what it meant?
Ha! It seems you have indeed wondered this before (22 years ago), and received lots of possible answers:
'Interesting children' - <https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/pQKiqaUnxCw/m/ hHn7mTpg0wMJ>
Ar an seacht|| l|i is fiche de m|! L||nasa, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
On 27/08/25 19:13, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 27/08/2025 03:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were
disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
You may be right. There is a book for sale on Amazon.com called "Parenting Interesting Children: A real life story of raising a child
with special needs."
I mentioned the topic to my wife, who is a nurse, and she said it felt
like a medical term. The modern version might be FLK.
As part of the long march of making medical jargon as dry and uninteresting as >possible (see also the ongoing attempted deprecation of eponyms in a field >where it is unremarkable for abbreviations to be ambiguous), FLK is a >deprecated term, so not currently modern.
Le 26/08/2025 |a 05:42, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Another example of something we have discussed here before, This from
the "Carlisle Patriot", 09 Jul 1825
On 25 Aug 2025 at 16:46, petra.mitchinson--- via list-cumbria wrote:
The last case, was on Monday evening, when he inveigled an
interesting little creature under the dry arch of Eden-Bridge.
A language question: what does "interesting" mean in this context?
It seems to have been quite common for 19th-century newspapers to
speak of "interesting children" or "an interesting child", but I
wonder what it meant?
Ha! It seems you have indeed wondered this before (22 years ago), and >received lots of possible answers:
'Interesting children' - ><https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/pQKiqaUnxCw/m/hHn7mTpg0wMJ>
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:40:02 +0100, Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Le 26/08/2025 |a 05:42, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Another example of something we have discussed here before, This from
the "Carlisle Patriot", 09 Jul 1825
On 25 Aug 2025 at 16:46, petra.mitchinson--- via list-cumbria wrote:
The last case, was on Monday evening, when he inveigled an
interesting little creature under the dry arch of Eden-Bridge.
A language question: what does "interesting" mean in this context?
It seems to have been quite common for 19th-century newspapers to
speak of "interesting children" or "an interesting child", but I
wonder what it meant?
Yes, but none of the possible answers was very convincing.
With the passage of years, some of those who took part in the earlier discussion are no longer with us, and we have some people who weren't
around back then, so when I came across the term again, I thought it
might be worth reopening the topic.
I hope eponyms don't disappear from science and engineering. Where should we be
without Ohm's Law, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Maxwell's Equations, and
Feynman Diagrams?
I thought this could be of interest to lexicography, so I copied several
bits of the recent discussion to a lexicographer I know. Here's his
reply (between === lines). I told him I thought he might find it
interesting.
Ar an seacht. lb is fiche de m0 L.nasa, scr0obh Peter Moylan:
On 27/08/25 19:13, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 27/08/2025 03:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were
disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
You may be right. There is a book for sale on Amazon.com called "Parenting Interesting Children: A real life story of raising a child
with special needs."
I mentioned the topic to my wife, who is a nurse, and she said it felt
like a medical term. The modern version might be FLK.
As part of the long march of making medical jargon as dry and uninteresting as >possible (see also the ongoing attempted deprecation of eponyms in a field >where it is unremarkable for abbreviations to be ambiguous), FLK is a >deprecated term, so not currently modern.
On 28/08/2025 08:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I thought this could be of interest to lexicography, so I copied several
bits of the recent discussion to a lexicographer I know. Here's his
reply (between === lines). I told him I thought he might find it
interesting.
The OED have an EMail address where new words or uses of words can be sent.
Ar an seacht|| l|i is fiche de m|! L||nasa, scr|!obh Hibou:
I hope eponyms don't disappear from science and engineering. Where should we be
without Ohm's Law, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Maxwell's Equations, and
Feynman Diagrams?
They wonrCOt. Most of the criticisms in medicine arenrCOt particularly substantive;
you need a name for things, and mechanistic names have the mechanism disproven
with time. Using trisomy 21 for DownrCOs syndrome is inaccurate for that minority
of those with the disorder who have translocation rather than trisomy. rCLGranulomatosis with polyangiitisrCY is more unwieldy than rCLWegenerrCOsrCY. Wegener
was a Nazi but was clearly a less terrible person than J. Marion Sims, a pivotal figure in gynaecology whose eponyms live on.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 11:52:16 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
wrote:
It was never official unlike other terms involved with e.g. mental
Ar an seacht|| l|i is fiche de m|! L||nasa, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
On 27/08/25 19:13, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 27/08/2025 03:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were
disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
You may be right. There is a book for sale on Amazon.com called
"Parenting Interesting Children: A real life story of raising a child
with special needs."
I mentioned the topic to my wife, who is a nurse, and she said it felt
like a medical term. The modern version might be FLK.
As part of the long march of making medical jargon as dry and uninteresting as
possible (see also the ongoing attempted deprecation of eponyms in a field >> where it is unremarkable for abbreviations to be ambiguous), FLK is a
deprecated term, so not currently modern.
capacity or mental illness. It is more a form of informal shorthand
for s child showing signs of a possible underlying undiagnosed
condition.
On 2025/8/28 7:8:3, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:40:02 +0100, Hibou
<vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Le 26/08/2025 |a 05:42, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Another example of something we have discussed here before, This from
the "Carlisle Patriot", 09 Jul 1825
On 25 Aug 2025 at 16:46, petra.mitchinson--- via list-cumbria wrote:
The last case, was on Monday evening, when he inveigled an
interesting little creature under the dry arch of Eden-Bridge.
A language question: what does "interesting" mean in this context?
It seems to have been quite common for 19th-century newspapers to
speak of "interesting children" or "an interesting child", but I
wonder what it meant?
[snip]
Yes, but none of the possible answers was very convincing.I thought this could be of interest to lexicography, so I copied several
With the passage of years, some of those who took part in the earlier
discussion are no longer with us, and we have some people who weren't
around back then, so when I came across the term again, I thought it
might be worth reopening the topic.
bits of the recent discussion to a lexicographer I know. Here's his
reply (between === lines). I told him I thought he might find it
interesting.
<snip>
"a lexicographer I know"
Do you get a family discount on access to the OED?
P.S. The thread prompted a discussion about meaning of the word - as it
was used in a newspaper article published in 1825, so I doubt if any of
the recent work on the OED would apply.
On 2025/8/28 20:5:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
[]
<snip>
"a lexicographer I know"
Do you get a family discount on access to the OED?
(-:
He's constantly reminding me that we _all_ have access, at least if we
have a library card (and this access can be used from home - just go via
your [probably county] library site, not direct to the OED site).>
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 23:22:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
He's constantly reminding me that we _all_ have access, at least if we
have a library card (and this access can be used from home - just go via
your [probably county] library site, not direct to the OED site).>
Would that that be true! Not all libraries provide access to the OED
to card holders. The Seminole County (FL) library system does not
provide access, it serves a population of almost 500,000 in a fairly
affluent part of Florida. Libraries, like many other public service facilities, are subject to budget constraints.
On 2025/8/28 20:5:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
[]
<snip>
"a lexicographer I know"
Do you get a family discount on access to the OED?
(-:
He's constantly reminding me that we _all_ have access, at least if we
have a library card (and this access can be used from home - just go via
your [probably county] library site, not direct to the OED site).>
P.S. The thread prompted a discussion about meaning of the word - as itThat was one of the reasons I forwarded it [and selections from this discussion] to (OK, my brother); I thought they might not have that particular example. His reply did not clarify whether they did. It might
was used in a newspaper article published in 1825, so I doubt if any of
the recent work on the OED would apply.
not get into the dictionary itself for one of several reasons, such as
it isn't all that clear from it what the intended meaning _is_, or they
may have earlier(and/or better) citations illustrating that particular meaning, and so on; they may have (or may have now put) it in their
database - not all such "cardings" get put into the dictionary itself:
for each shade of meaning, only a representative few are, to show things
like first use, and evidence of continued use over the years/decades/centuries. They have a lot more citations (originally, and still for those who wish to submit them in that form, on - I think about
4 by 6 inch - cards) than are actually used in the dictionary.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 23:22:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/8/28 20:5:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
[]
<snip>
"a lexicographer I know"
Do you get a family discount on access to the OED?
(-:
He's constantly reminding me that we _all_ have access, at least if
we have a library card (and this access can be used from home -
just go via your [probably county] library site, not direct to the
OED site).>
Would that that be true! Not all libraries provide access to the
OED to card holders. The Seminole County (FL) library system does
not provide access, it serves a population of almost 500,000 in a
fairly affluent part of Florida. Libraries, like many other public
service facilities, are subject to budget constraints.
Ah, sorry - I'm reading this in soc.genealogy.britain, where I assume
many of the readers are in the UK. Of course, the same constraints apply here, but AFAIK English counties at least still provide that access.
On 2025/8/28 7:8:3, Steve Hayes wrote:
I thought this could be of interest to lexicography, so I copied several
bits of the recent discussion to a lexicographer I know. Here's his
reply (between === lines). I told him I thought he might find it
interesting. >========================================================================
Yes, interesting. Depressing, though, that nobody bothered to look up
the entries for either interest v. or interesting adj. in OED Online:
using just OED2 guarantees that you're not looking at anything the >lexicographers have done since 1989, and in fact for most of the
established words in the language you're mostly looking at what the >lexicographers thought at least 97 years ago - mostly considerably
longer. Not that there's a huge amount that's new in the revised
entries. The use of interesting to refer to someone whose condition
might be 'interesting' in a way that people didn't want to refer to
directly is there, in the specific sense of 'pregnant' (which was added
to the OED in the 1933 Supplement). I suppose it's possible that people >sometimes chose the word for similarly euphemistic reasons that weren't
to do with pregnancy: e.g. some of the references to 'interesting
children' that your correspondent mentions may indeed have been
referring to disability. But it doesn't look as though this usage ever
became strongly established - certainly not as strongly established as
the 'pregnant' sense. And I'd read that book title as using the word in
a different way: being determinedly positive, making the assertion that
if a child has special needs that can be seen as making them
interesting. Not the same as euphemism.
(I didn't know the abbreviation FLK - and neither does the OED - but a
quick search showed me it's medical slang for 'Funny Looking Kid'. Note >made.) >========================================================================
What he's referring to as online: in most cases, if you have a library
card, you have access to the OED online - and you don't have to go to
your library to access it - you can do so from home; just approach it
via your local (probably meaning your county, rather than town/village) >library website, rather than going direct to the OED.
Anyway, thought I'd pass on his reply!
On 2025/8/28 20:5:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
He's constantly reminding me that we _all_ have access, at least if we
have a library card (and this access can be used from home - just go via
your [probably county] library site, not direct to the OED site).>
P.S. The thread prompted a discussion about meaning of the word - as it
was used in a newspaper article published in 1825, so I doubt if any of
the recent work on the OED would apply.
That was one of the reasons I forwarded it [and selections from this >discussion] to (OK, my brother); I thought they might not have that >particular example. His reply did not clarify whether they did. It might
not get into the dictionary itself for one of several reasons, such as
it isn't all that clear from it what the intended meaning _is_, or they
may have earlier(and/or better) citations illustrating that particular >meaning, and so on; they may have (or may have now put) it in their
database - not all such "cardings" get put into the dictionary itself:
for each shade of meaning, only a representative few are, to show things
like first use, and evidence of continued use over the >years/decades/centuries. They have a lot more citations (originally, and >still for those who wish to submit them in that form, on - I think about
4 by 6 inch - cards) than are actually used in the dictionary.
Does anyone here have access to the online Oxford dictionary, and if
so, does it say anything about this usage. [...]
Le 29/08/2025 |a 10:18, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Does anyone here have access to the online Oxford dictionary,
and if
so, does it say anything about this usage. [...]
I can see nothing relevant. (I think J. P. Gilliver's tame
lexicographer has already indicated that there isn't anything.)
On 28/08/2025 14:35, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 11:52:16 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
wrote:
It was never official unlike other terms involved with e.g. mental
Ar an seacht|| l|i is fiche de m|! L||nasa, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
On 27/08/25 19:13, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 27/08/2025 03:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were
disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
You may be right. There is a book for sale on Amazon.com called
"Parenting Interesting Children: A real life story of raising a child >>>>> with special needs."
I mentioned the topic to my wife, who is a nurse, and she said it felt >>>> like a medical term. The modern version might be FLK.
As part of the long march of making medical jargon as dry and
uninteresting as
possible (see also the ongoing attempted deprecation of eponyms in a
field
where it is unremarkable for abbreviations to be ambiguous), FLK is a
deprecated term, so not currently modern.
capacity or mental illness. It is more a form of informal shorthand
for s child showing signs of a possible underlying undiagnosed
condition.
The most well known such notation here was "NFN" = "Normal for Norfolk"
- a county which was said to have unusual levels of inbreeding.
I have no idea if either the notation or the inbreeding is/was true.
According to Stephen Fry (of QI fame) the notation is true.
(Why is the ph pronounced v?)
On 27/08/2025 03:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" wereYou may be right. There is a book for sale on Amazon.com called
disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
"Parenting Interesting Children: A real life story of raising a child
with special needs."
On 29/08/2025 11:08, Hibou wrote:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 10:18, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Does anyone here have access to the online Oxford dictionary, and if
so, does it say anything about this usage. [...]
I can see nothing relevant. (I think J. P. Gilliver's tame
lexicographer has already indicated that there isn't anything.)
I can't help wondering. What do lexicographers actually eat? And do you
need a licence?
In article <108s1li$1upv8$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> wrote:
According to Stephen Fry (of QI fame) the notation is true.
(Why is the ph pronounced v?)
The original pronunciation was f, as in most European versions of
the name.
f -> v is a change that has occurred in the plural and other
inflections of many words in English like shelf, calf, leaf.
I can't immediately think of any other examples like Stephen though.
Spanish has Esteban.
You may be able to help me. My relationship with OED goes back to the
years when it was all done by paper and post. (I believe my first communication was to point out a spurious citation for "mako (species of shark)".) During the 1990s - early 2000s I fairly regularly sent lists
of notes from my readings of mainly 18th- and 19th-century books about
the Pacific, which sometimes filled a gap in documentation or clarified
a meaning. (As a side project I explored the mysterious origins of the
term "missionary position", and somewhere I have a letter from one of
the editors declaring that my solution -- Kinsey misquoting Malinowski
-- is the correct one.)
Nowadays I access OED Online via the library of the university where ISorry, can't really help: I don't want to (publicly or privately) give
used to teach. There is an online submission form for people who want to contribute, but it is set up for one word at a time. My problem is that
I have one last list which, I'm pretty sure, I never got around to submitting. It's maybe 30 items (from one source), with context and my
notes about possible relevance to OED. A small Word document. It would
put my mind at rest if I could send it to them, even if it does no more
than disappear into the great database. Can you suggest a suitable address?
Le 29/08/2025 |a 11:11, Richard Heathfield a |-crit :
On 29/08/2025 11:08, Hibou wrote:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 10:18, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Does anyone here have access to the online Oxford dictionary, and if
so, does it say anything about this usage. [...]
I can see nothing relevant. (I think J. P. Gilliver's tame
lexicographer has already indicated that there isn't anything.)
I can't help wondering. What do lexicographers actually eat? And do you
need a licence?
I think they may be related to bookworms, and we know what they eat. It would appear that both species excrete dust....Ooh, unkind! (Though _some_ truth!)>
I remember noticing archaeological layers of dust on some of the books
in our local library - this was in the English literature section, and,
as I recall, Sterne was sleeping under a particularly heavy blanket. (I didn't disturb him.) I did wonder whether a chemical analysis might
reflect the history of the town's air, with coal dust, lead from petrol,
and diesel particles in different strata....
According to Stephen Fry (of QI fame) the notation is true.
(Why is the ph pronounced v?)
as it was used in a newspaper article published in 1825, so I doubt if
any of the recent work on the OED would apply.
Ah, sorry - I'm reading this in soc.genealogy.britain, where I assume
many of the readers are in the UK. Of course, the same constraints apply here, but AFAIK English counties at least still provide that access.
On 29/08/2025 05:02, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Ah, sorry - I'm reading this in soc.genealogy.britain, where I assume
many of the readers are in the UK. Of course, the same constraints apply
here, but AFAIK English counties at least still provide that access.
I was just going to post something similar.-a Many libraries also allow membership to people outside their own area - I have membership of
several libraries.
On 2025/8/29 15:10:20, Hibou wrote:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 11:11, Richard Heathfield a |-crit :
On 29/08/2025 11:08, Hibou wrote:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 10:18, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Does anyone here have access to the online Oxford dictionary, and if >>>>> so, does it say anything about this usage. [...]
I can see nothing relevant. (I think J. P. Gilliver's tame
lexicographer has already indicated that there isn't anything.)
(As another has worked out, he's my brother. [Author of "The Making of
the Oxford English Dictionary" - i. e. its latest {few years ago now}
history - which was well received as a good read, but be warned it's
priced as academic works often are. {Still, you could ask if your local library can borrow a copy ...} He tends to pop up on TV occasionally,
when something needs a talking head, or on "Balderdash and Piffle" for
those that remember that.])>>
Actually, he likes cooking! Yes, you'd probably need a licence - they're weird beasts ... (-:>I can't help wondering. What do lexicographers actually eat? And do you
need a licence?
I think they may be related to bookworms, and we know what they eat. ItOoh, unkind! (Though _some_ truth!)>
would appear that both species excrete dust....
I remember noticing archaeological layers of dust on some of the books(-:I remember when an American cousin and I were looking at archives in
in our local library - this was in the English literature section, and,
as I recall, Sterne was sleeping under a particularly heavy blanket. (I
didn't disturb him.) I did wonder whether a chemical analysis might
reflect the history of the town's air, with coal dust, lead from petrol,
and diesel particles in different strata....
the Northumberland record office near Ashington, we were delighted to
find the pay ledger for a colliery at which some of our ancestors had
worked - huge (about 3 by 2 feet IIRR) thing, with big pages listing,
for example, all the miners, with how much coal each had hewed each day
for a fortnight, and similar. I remember at the end of days finding my
hands had a thin layer of coal dust, which I remember thinking was
150-odd years old ...
On 28/08/2025 at 19:55, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 28/08/2025 14:35, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 11:52:16 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
wrote:
It was never official unlike other terms involved with e.g. mental
Ar an seacht|| l|i is fiche de m|! L||nasa, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
On 27/08/25 19:13, Jenny M Benson wrote:
On 27/08/2025 03:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have always had the impression that "interesting children" were >>>>>>> disabled in some way, but I can't find any evidence of that.
You may be right.-a There is a book for sale on Amazon.com called
"Parenting Interesting Children: A real life story of raising a child >>>>>> -a with special needs."
I mentioned the topic to my wife, who is a nurse, and she said it felt >>>>> like a medical term. The modern version might be FLK.
As part of the long march of making medical jargon as dry and
uninteresting as
possible (see also the ongoing attempted deprecation of eponyms in a
field
where it is unremarkable for abbreviations to be ambiguous), FLK is a
deprecated term, so not currently modern.
capacity or mental illness. It is more a form of informal shorthand
for s child showing signs of a possible underlying undiagnosed
condition.
The most well known such notation here was "NFN" = "Normal for
Norfolk" - a county which was said to have unusual levels of inbreeding.
I have no idea if either the notation or the inbreeding is/was true.
According to Stephen Fry (of QI fame) the notation is true.
(Why is the ph pronounced v?)
f -> v is a change that has occurred in the plural and other
inflections of many words in English like shelf, calf, leaf.
On 29/08/2025 05:02, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Ah, sorry - I'm reading this in soc.genealogy.britain, where I
assume many of the readers are in the UK. Of course, the same
constraints apply here, but AFAIK English counties at least still
provide that access.
I was just going to post something similar. Many libraries also
allow membership to people outside their own area - I have membership
of several libraries.
While I was listening to the radio yesterday, it struck me: we write
roofs but we say rooves.
On 28/08/2025 20:05, Sam Plusnet wrote:
as it was used in a newspaper article published in 1825, so I doubt if
any of the recent work on the OED would apply.
The OED always gives examples of the usage of words with dates, oftenAnd, where they can, they show the _continuity_ of usage, by showing
going back hundreds of years.
On 29/08/2025 18:14, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(-:I remember when an American cousin and I were looking at archives inI think the coal was quite a bit older than that (Devonian?).
the Northumberland record office near Ashington, we were delighted to
find the pay ledger for a colliery at which some of our ancestors had
worked - huge (about 3 by 2 feet IIRR) thing, with big pages listing,
for example, all the miners, with how much coal each had hewed each day
for a fortnight, and similar. I remember at the end of days finding my
hands had a thin layer of coal dust, which I remember thinking was
150-odd years old ...
On 29/08/25 23:02, Richard Tobin wrote:
f -> v is a change that has occurred in the plural and other
inflections of many words in English like shelf, calf, leaf.
While I was listening to the radio yesterday, it struck me: we write
roofs but we say rooves.
Followups set to SUE/AEU only [I won't see any further]
On 2025/8/29 5:8:13, Ross Clark wrote:
[snip]
You may be able to help me. My relationship with OED goes back to the
years when it was all done by paper and post. (I believe my first
communication was to point out a spurious citation for "mako (species of
shark)".) During the 1990s - early 2000s I fairly regularly sent lists
of notes from my readings of mainly 18th- and 19th-century books about
the Pacific, which sometimes filled a gap in documentation or clarified
a meaning. (As a side project I explored the mysterious origins of the
term "missionary position", and somewhere I have a letter from one of
the editors declaring that my solution -- Kinsey misquoting Malinowski
-- is the correct one.)
(Not the great Murray, was it?) That's fascinating! I always thought the usually-given explanation didn't sound very plausible.>
Nowadays I access OED Online via the library of the university where ISorry, can't really help: I don't want to (publicly or privately) give
used to teach. There is an online submission form for people who want to
contribute, but it is set up for one word at a time. My problem is that
I have one last list which, I'm pretty sure, I never got around to
submitting. It's maybe 30 items (from one source), with context and my
notes about possible relevance to OED. A small Word document. It would
put my mind at rest if I could send it to them, even if it does no more
than disappear into the great database. Can you suggest a suitable address?
out my brother's email address.
websites? There might be something there. You could always still use the post - using whatever address you had before! - and I'm sure it'd get processed; however, electronic communication would probably be better.
It was Ra*liff* colliery, one of the pits around a village near
Hauxley; the village (on what is now the A1068) was called Radcliffe
Terrace, but despite the "Terrace" part, was actually a quite large
village (bigger than Hauxley at times), until it disappeared almost
entirely in the 1970s. The first part of its name was variously
Ratliff, Radcliffe, and variations. Hmm, we've had another hot
summer, so maybe its outlines will have become visible again, let me
look ... Hmm, not very, certainly not as clear as it was in 2018.
(Google Maps aerial views are often great for seeing vanished
outlines!)
On 30/08/25 09:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
It was Ra*liff* colliery, one of the pits around a village near
Hauxley; the village (on what is now the A1068) was called Radcliffe Terrace, but despite the "Terrace" part, was actually a quite large village (bigger than Hauxley at times), until it disappeared almost entirely in the 1970s. The first part of its name was variously
Ratliff, Radcliffe, and variations. Hmm, we've had another hot
summer, so maybe its outlines will have become visible again, let me
look ... Hmm, not very, certainly not as clear as it was in 2018.
(Google Maps aerial views are often great for seeing vanished
outlines!)
When I was about 18 years old, so in the 1960s, my father showed me the ghost town of Whroo in Victoria. It had had a population of 10,000 in
the gold rush era, but afterwards it just disappeared. My father had
grown up halfway between Whroo and Moora (another town that's close to disappearing), so he was one of the few people who knew where Whroo was.
When we got there, all I could see was bush. Then, gradually, I noticed faint straight lines in the grass, that showed where the foundations of buildings had been. That was all there was to see.
Years later I went back there, and by following an overgrown bush track
I discovered the cemetery. It was mostly unmarked graves, but I did find
the grave of a French distant relative.
Later on the town was rediscovered by the local historical society, so
now there's an information board.
Ar an triochad|| l|i de m|! L||nasa, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
When I was about 18 years old, so in the 1960s, my father showed me
the ghost town of Whroo in Victoria. It had had a population of
10,000 in the gold rush era, but afterwards it just disappeared. My
father had grown up halfway between Whroo and Moora (another town
that's close to disappearing), so he was one of the few people who
knew where Whroo was.
When we got there, all I could see was bush. Then, gradually, I
noticed faint straight lines in the grass, that showed where the
foundations of buildings had been. That was all there was to see.
Years later I went back there, and by following an overgrown bush
track I discovered the cemetery. It was mostly unmarked graves, but
I did find the grave of a French distant relative.
Later on the town was rediscovered by the local historical society,
so now there's an information board.
rCLThe name is pronounced rCyroorCO, and is thought to be derived from an Aboriginal word meaning lips. The word refers to a small, natural
basin in the hilly terrain which held spring water. It is about 400
metres south-east of the Whroo cemetery.rCY
ItrCOs a striking name.
On 30/08/25 09:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
village (bigger than Hauxley at times), until it disappeared almost
entirely in the 1970s. The first part of its name was variously
(Google Maps aerial views are often great for seeing vanished
outlines!)
When I was about 18 years old, so in the 1960s, my father showed me the
ghost town of Whroo in Victoria. It had had a population of 10,000 in
the gold rush era, but afterwards it just disappeared. My father had
grown up halfway between Whroo and Moora (another town that's close to disappearing), so he was one of the few people who knew where Whroo was.
When we got there, all I could see was bush. Then, gradually, I noticed
faint straight lines in the grass, that showed where the foundations of buildings had been. That was all there was to see.
Years later I went back there, and by following an overgrown bush track
I discovered the cemetery. It was mostly unmarked graves, but I did find
the grave of a French distant relative.
Later on the town was rediscovered by the local historical society, so
now there's an information board.
On 2025/8/30 2:32:40, Peter Moylan wrote:
When I was about 18 years old, so in the 1960s, my father showed me the
ghost town of Whroo in Victoria. It had had a population of 10,000 in
the gold rush era, but afterwards it just disappeared. My father had
grown up halfway between Whroo and Moora (another town that's close to
disappearing), so he was one of the few people who knew where Whroo was.
When we got there, all I could see was bush. Then, gradually, I noticed
faint straight lines in the grass, that showed where the foundations of
buildings had been. That was all there was to see.
Has Google done aerial views of the area? They call them satellite views
on Google Maps, but - in England at least - they're mostly done from aircraft. I'm sure there are empty parts of the planet (and a lot of the oceans) where they do only use satellite views, though. Anyway, have a
look at the area you describe: you might be surprised what's visible.
And do go back from time to time: Google do renew their images sometimes.>
What he's referring to as online: in most cases, if you have a library
card, you have access to the OED online - and you don't have to go to
your library to access it - you can do so from home; just approach it
via your local (probably meaning your county, rather than town/village) library website, rather than going direct to the OED.
|In those early 19th-century newspaper snippets, the adjective
|"interesting" doesn't mean "curious" or "fascinating" in the
|modern sense. Instead, it carried a more affective,
|sympathetic meaning.
|
|In that period, interesting often meant "touching, affecting,
|likely to excite sympathy, pity, or tender feelings." It was
|commonly used in reference to children, young women, or
|unfortunate cases, to suggest they were appealing, pitiable,
|or deserving of compassion.
(As a side project I explored the mysterious origins of the
term "missionary position", and somewhere I have a letter from one of
the editors declaring that my solution -- Kinsey misquoting Malinowski
-- is the correct one.)
On 29/08/2025 11:08, Hibou wrote:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 10:18, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Does anyone here have access to the online Oxford dictionary,
and if
so, does it say anything about this usage. [...]
I can see nothing relevant. (I think J. P. Gilliver's tame
lexicographer has already indicated that there isn't anything.)
I can't help wondering. What do lexicographers actually eat? And
do you need a licence?
Followups set to SUE/AEU only [I won't see any further]
On 2025/8/29 5:8:13, Ross Clark wrote:
[snip]
You may be able to help me. My relationship with OED goes back to the
years when it was all done by paper and post. (I believe my first
communication was to point out a spurious citation for "mako (species of
shark)".) During the 1990s - early 2000s I fairly regularly sent lists
of notes from my readings of mainly 18th- and 19th-century books about
the Pacific, which sometimes filled a gap in documentation or clarified
a meaning. (As a side project I explored the mysterious origins of the
term "missionary position", and somewhere I have a letter from one of
the editors declaring that my solution -- Kinsey misquoting Malinowski
-- is the correct one.)
(Not the great Murray, was it?) That's fascinating! I always thought the usually-given explanation didn't sound very plausible.>
Nowadays I access OED Online via the library of the university where ISorry, can't really help: I don't want to (publicly or privately) give
used to teach. There is an online submission form for people who want to
contribute, but it is set up for one word at a time. My problem is that
I have one last list which, I'm pretty sure, I never got around to
submitting. It's maybe 30 items (from one source), with context and my
notes about possible relevance to OED. A small Word document. It would
put my mind at rest if I could send it to them, even if it does no more
than disappear into the great database. Can you suggest a suitable address?
out my brother's email address.
websites? There might be something there. You could always still use the
post - using whatever address you had before! - and I'm sure it'd get processed; however, electronic communication would probably be better.
(As another has worked out, he's my brother.
On 29/08/2025 18:14, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(As another has worked out, he's my brother.
Is he heavy?
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 16:08:13 +1200, Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
(As a side project I explored the mysterious origins of the
term "missionary position", and somewhere I have a letter from one of
the editors declaring that my solution -- Kinsey misquoting Malinowski
-- is the correct one.)
"Missionary position" like "interesting children" is another odd term
that sometimes appears in written texts with little or no explanation
of its origin or meaning, so perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing your
solution.
On 31/08/2025 08:35, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 29/08/2025 18:14, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(As another has worked out, he's my brother.
Is he heavy?
I'm going to need a bigger cage.
The "big town" in the area is Rushworth, population a little over
1,000. ( went to school there for a short while. A single room,
six grades and one teacher. We didn't have books, only slates and
slate pencils.) It has the widest main street I've ever seen. You
need a packed lunch to cross it. The town was founded in the gold
rush era, and they allowed for growth. These days there's a centre
divider with trees, separating two wide one-way streets, but I
remember when it was just a huge expanse of road, big enough to
contain a football oval.
The anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, in his book _The Sexual Life of >Savages_ (1929) describes in great detail the sexual practices, beliefs
and attitudes of the Trobriand Islanders (southeastern Papua New
Guinea). But the expression "missionary position" is not to be found in
that book.
OED now has a couple of quotes from Malinowski. In one he notes that the >islanders "despise the European position and consider it unpractical and >improper" (p.284).
The other I will quote a little more fully than OED does:
"Even courting is conducted most decorously....I observed once or twice
that Yobukwa'u and his betrothed used to lie together on a mat in broad >daylight, decorously, but unmistakably leaning against each other and >holding hands....but when I mentioned this in discussing the whole
subject with some natives, I was told at once that it was a new fashion
and not correct according to old custom. Tokolibeba, once a famous Don
Juan, now a peppery old conservative and stickler for proprieties,
insisted that this was misinari si bubunela, "missionary fashion", one
of those novel immoralities introduced by Christianity." (p.403)
Note: Tokolibeba is not talking about any form of sexual intercourse.
This is what appears in Alfred C.Kinsey et al., _Sexual Behavior in the >Human Male_ (1948):
"It will be recalled that Malinowski records the nearly universal use of
a totally different position among the Trobrianders in the Southwestern >Pacific; and that he notes that caricatures of the English-American
position are performed around the communal camp-fires, to the great >amusement of the natives who refer to the position as the 'missionary >position'." (p.373).
On 30 Aug 2025, Peter Moylan wrote
-snip-
Many prairie towns in Canada have unnaturally wide streets, which we
The "big town" in the area is Rushworth, population a little over
1,000. ( went to school there for a short while. A single room,
six grades and one teacher. We didn't have books, only slates and
slate pencils.) It has the widest main street I've ever seen. You
need a packed lunch to cross it. The town was founded in the gold
rush era, and they allowed for growth. These days there's a centre
divider with trees, separating two wide one-way streets, but I
remember when it was just a huge expanse of road, big enough to
contain a football oval.
were told were surveyed to allow a standard farm wagon hauled by four
horses to make a U-turn in the street.
I don't know whether that's true or a popular myth, but it seemed a reasonable metric for laying out rural towns in the 19th and early
20th centuries.
On 29/08/2025 18:14, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(As another has worked out, he's my brother.
Is he heavy?
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 11:11:01 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 29/08/2025 11:08, Hibou wrote:
Le 29/08/2025 |a 10:18, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Does anyone here have access to the online Oxford dictionary,
and if
so, does it say anything about this usage. [...]
I can see nothing relevant. (I think J. P. Gilliver's tame
lexicographer has already indicated that there isn't anything.)
I can't help wondering. What do lexicographers actually eat? And
do you need a licence?
You can probably find answers to that, and a few other things on this
topic, in "The Dictionary of Lost Words" -- see my review here:
<https://methodius.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-dictionary-of-lost-words-and-lost.html>
And if you want to see what lexicographers' gentle sense of humour is
like, watch this video made at the time of Brexit about what leaving EU
did to the OED: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E55lG3ZV0EQ
On 2025/8/31 8:35:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 29/08/2025 18:14, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(As another has worked out, he's my brother.
Is he heavy?
(-:
Actually he's lighter than I - he exercises more (not exercise as such,
just walks or cycles more than I do) and eats more healthily - despite
being taller than me by a small amount.
(Given the distribution, I must comment on my deliberations! I thought
about whether to put "me" or "I" towards the end there; "I" would be
more correct by old-fashioned grammar, but I consciously put "me" as I
felt "I" would be stilted. But then I realised I'd put "I" earlier in
the paragraph, without thinking.)