|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] impudently irrelevant
| [I] impudently irrelevant [message #276364] |
Fr, 02 Juni 2006 16:14 |
|
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10655-2178405,00.htm l
errr . . . The Smothers Brothers?
--
Cheers,
Elliott
Every adult must at some point have paused during some slapstick
piece of debauchery and thought, "Christ,
this is ridiculous".
[Harry Hutton, "Chase me, ladies, I'm in the cavalry"]
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #276973 ] |
Fr, 02 Juni 2006 22:37 |
|
Elliott Grasett <egrasett [at] sympatico.ca> wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10655-2178405,00.htm l
>
> errr . . . The Smothers Brothers?
All women I've been close enough to to know called them "right breast" and
"left breast". Why would anyone name their body parts?
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #276976 ] |
Fr, 02 Juni 2006 22:53 |
|
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:37 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Elliott Grasett <egrasett [at] sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10655-2178405,00.htm l
> >
> > errr . . . The Smothers Brothers?
>
> All women I've been close enough to to know called them "right breast" and
> "left breast". Why would anyone name their body parts?
>
I wonder if my wife can sue for Prior Art, as she uses the exact same
vernacular as the article target...
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277011 ] |
Fr, 02 Juni 2006 23:52 |
|
Staffan Tjernstrom <news [at] staffan.tjernstrom.name> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:37 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>
>> All women I've been close enough to to know called them "right
>> breast" and "left breast". Why would anyone name their body parts?
>>
> I wonder if my wife can sue for Prior Art, as she uses the exact same
> vernacular as the article target...
I swear I haven't seen your wife!
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277014 ] |
Sa, 03 Juni 2006 00:02 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Staffan Tjernstrom <news [at] staffan.tjernstrom.name> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:37 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>
>>> All women I've been close enough to to know called them "right
>>> breast" and "left breast". Why would anyone name their body parts?
>>>
>> I wonder if my wife can sue for Prior Art, as she uses the exact same
>> vernacular as the article target...
>
> I swear I haven't seen your wife!
Not you, the Art before.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277241 ] |
Sa, 03 Juni 2006 13:00 |
|
The time: 02 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com>
> Elliott Grasett <egrasett [at] sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10655-2178405,00.ht
>> ml
>>
>> errr . . . The Smothers Brothers?
>
> All women I've been close enough to to know called them
> "right breast" and "left breast". Why would anyone name
> their body parts?
Don't ask me.
Ask Clicky the Mouse-Finger...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277288 ] |
Sa, 03 Juni 2006 17:36 |
|
"Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97D77A3645AB3daibhid [at] 130.133.1.4...
> The time: 02 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com>
>
>> Elliott Grasett <egrasett [at] sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10655-2178405,00.ht
>>> ml
>>>
>>> errr . . . The Smothers Brothers?
>>
>> All women I've been close enough to to know called them
>> "right breast" and "left breast". Why would anyone name
>> their body parts?
>
> Don't ask me.
>
> Ask Clicky the Mouse-Finger...
>
Talk to the hand, huh?
There is a tradition of naming body parts though, at least when it comes to
men and women bits.
In vain attempts to teach the "real names" we have ended up with several
excellent variations.
Women have ovaries, and men (supplied the attentive child) have underies
Another child in our house has testwiggles.
In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles after an onomatapoeic
naming by a three year old some fifty years ago.
We also have an in house name for breasts which I'll keep private.
Most naming of things that don't really have names seems to be done by
children.
I'd almost forgotten, another child once asked what the proper name for "the
bum of your face" is. She meant the upper lip to base of nose.
I find naming by adults almost always ends up with cars called Mabel and
homes called Duncommute
Not anything like as creative or apt
Louise
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277365 ] |
Sa, 03 Juni 2006 19:33 |
|
Louise Mac Mahon <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote:
>
> In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles after an
> onomatapoeic naming by a three year old some fifty years ago.
How, this incredulous mind wants to know, can you get breasts to make a
spoogle sound?
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277377 ] |
Sa, 03 Juni 2006 19:42 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Louise Mac Mahon <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles after an
>> onomatapoeic naming by a three year old some fifty years ago.
>
>
> How, this incredulous mind wants to know, can you get breasts to make a
> spoogle sound?
This lot can do anything.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277403 ] |
Sa, 03 Juni 2006 20:26 |
|
Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
> I find naming by adults almost always ends up with cars called Mabel and
> homes called Duncommute
> Not anything like as creative or apt
I deg to biffer !
My first car was called Teapot (it was a Morris Minor and was later
found to have a floor made of brown paper, tar and holes where the rust
had been, but that's another story); at one time we had a budgie called
Porridge (it was blue and yellow, which is probably the colour porridge
will go if you leave it long enough - we didn't do the experiment). They
were named by yours truly at the age of around 30 of your earth years.
But I don't think we have pet names for body parts. As a child (I'm
told) I referred to ladies' mammaries as Chesticles. But I know better now.
Rgemini
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277427 ] |
Sa, 03 Juni 2006 20:33 |
|
Louise Mac Mahon <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote
(on Sat, 3 Jun 2006 16:36:24 +0100):
> There is a tradition of naming body parts though, at least when it comes to
> men and women bits.
> In vain attempts to teach the "real names" we have ended up with several
> excellent variations.
> Women have ovaries, and men (supplied the attentive child) have underies
> Another child in our house has testwiggles.
> In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles after an onomatapoeic
> naming by a three year old some fifty years ago.
> We also have an in house name for breasts which I'll keep private.
> Most naming of things that don't really have names seems to be done by
> children.
My left breast is called "Milk" and my right breast is called "Other side."
I tried to argue that milk came from both sides but she didn't believe me.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277522 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 00:30 |
|
"Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:e5sh5u$584$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com...
> Louise Mac Mahon <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote:
>>
>> In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles after an
>> onomatapoeic naming by a three year old some fifty years ago.
>
> How, this incredulous mind wants to know, can you get breasts to make a
> spoogle sound?
>
Well you know something springy and wobbly and round, fun and a bit rude.
With two oo's. Use your imagination man.
Is onomatapoeia only "sounds like", not "sounds like it looks and acts"?
If so I've taken licence with the word, sorry
Louise
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277536 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 00:47 |
|
Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
> "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:e5sh5u$584$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com...
>
>>Louise Mac Mahon <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles after an
>>>onomatapoeic naming by a three year old some fifty years ago.
>>
>>How, this incredulous mind wants to know, can you get breasts to make a
>>spoogle sound?
>>
>
> Well you know something springy and wobbly and round, fun and a bit rude.
> With two oo's. Use your imagination man.
> Is onomatapoeia only "sounds like", not "sounds like it looks and acts"?
> If so I've taken licence with the word, sorry
Pseudomatopoeic?
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277557 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 01:14 |
|
The time: 03 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com>
> Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
>> Is onomatapoeia only "sounds like", not "sounds like it
>> looks and acts"? If so I've taken licence with the word,
>> sorry
>
> Pseudomatopoeic?
Yes!
For years and years (between ER and WFM, IIRC) Pterry's been
saying there ought to be a word for words that sounds like the
noise something *would* make if it made a noise, and now we've
got one!
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277567 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 01:24 |
|
Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
<snip>
> I find naming by adults almost always ends up with cars called Mabel...
In the home of the late John Robert Parker Ravenscroft (aka John Peel),
"Mabel" was the family word for what, bearing in mind the sensitivies of
*certain people* at the moment, I can only call "the female frontbottom".
There was even a derived adjective, "mabelular".
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
www.judgemental.plus.com
<reply-to will bounce>
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277586 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 02:00 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> speaker: Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com>
>>Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
>
>>>Is onomatapoeia only "sounds like", not "sounds like it
>>>looks and acts"? If so I've taken licence with the word,
>>>sorry
>>
>>Pseudomatopoeic?
>
> Yes!
>
> For years and years (between ER and WFM, IIRC) Pterry's been
> saying there ought to be a word for words that sounds like the
> noise something *would* make if it made a noise, and now we've
> got one!
Feel free to use it extensively in conversation, particularly if
accompanied by an attrib. :-)
Would be nice to have one of my own neologisms make it into the OED,
wouldn't it? Or even "just" the next DW book.... (hint, hint...)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277601 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 02:58 |
|
"Elliott Grasett" wrote ...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10655-2178405,00.htm l
>
> errr . . . The Smothers Brothers?
>
>
I know women who refer to their breasts as "the girls."
They are mothers with children. If you've ever had the pleasure
of hearing a piping little voice repeating something you've said,
you soon learn to be guarded, not to say eliptical, in your
word choices.
"But I heard Tiffany's mom say ..."
April.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277632 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 04:19 |
|
April Goodwin-Smith <agoodwinsmith [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Elliott Grasett" wrote ...
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10655-2178405,00.htm l
> >
> > errr . . . The Smothers Brothers?
> >
> >
>
> I know women who refer to their breasts as "the girls."
>
> They are mothers with children. If you've ever had the pleasure
> of hearing a piping little voice repeating something you've said,
> you soon learn to be guarded, not to say eliptical, in your
> word choices.
>
> "But I heard Tiffany's mom say ..."
"Mrs. <censored>, Mrs. <censored>, did you know the
octopus has eight testicles?!"
A friends mother, working at a school in OR, got to hear
this.
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277676 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 10:38 |
|
In article <4edojvF1e4m72U1 [at] individual.net>,
Louise Mac Mahon <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote:
>There is a tradition of naming body parts though,
>at least when it comes to men and women bits.
And today we have naming of parts...
>In vain attempts to teach the "real names"
>we have ended up with several excellent variations.
>Women have ovaries, and men [...] have underies
>Another child in our house has testwiggles.
>In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles
Yesterday birthdays and recrimination, and tomorrow panto,
but today there was fine weather,
> cars called Mabel and homes called Duncommute
and naming of parts.
=Tamar
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277678 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 10:43 |
|
Torak wrote:
> Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
<snip>
>> Is onomatapoeia only "sounds like", not "sounds like it looks and
>> acts"? If so I've taken licence with the word, sorry
>
> Pseudomatopoeic?
Nice one!
Diane L. (trying to think of ways to work 'pseudomatopeic' into
conversations)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277721 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 13:57 |
|
The time: 04 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: dicconf [at] radix.net (Richard Eney)
> In article <4edojvF1e4m72U1 [at] individual.net>,
> Louise Mac Mahon <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote:
>
>>There is a tradition of naming body parts though,
>>at least when it comes to men and women bits.
>
> And today we have naming of parts...
>
>>In vain attempts to teach the "real names"
>>we have ended up with several excellent variations.
>>Women have ovaries, and men [...] have underies
>>Another child in our house has testwiggles.
>>In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles
>
> Yesterday birthdays and recrimination, and tomorrow panto,
> but today there was fine weather,
>
>> cars called Mabel and homes called Duncommute
>
> and naming of parts.
If we'd stuck to breasts, I'd have said "Which in my case I
have not got" here...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277750 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 15:49 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com wrote in
<Xns97D883C59D842daibhid [at] 130.133.1.4>:
> The time: 04 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: dicconf [at] radix.net (Richard Eney)
>
> > and naming of parts.
>
> If we'd stuck to breasts, I'd have said "Which in my case I
> have not got" here...
>
If we stuck to breasts...
we'd never be weaned.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277754 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 16:07 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>
>
> If we'd stuck to breasts, I'd have said "Which in my case I
> have not got" here...
>
You've forgotten the cartoonist, Kliban:
"mammaries" and "dadaries".
--
Cheers,
Elliott
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277769 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 17:11 |
|
"Eric Jarvis" <usenet [at] ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1eecf542a5e7a959989c8e [at] cenote.gkhs.net...
> Daibhid Ceanaideach daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com wrote in
> <Xns97D883C59D842daibhid [at] 130.133.1.4>:
> > The time: 04 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> > speaker: dicconf [at] radix.net (Richard Eney)
> >
> > > and naming of parts.
> >
> > If we'd stuck to breasts, I'd have said "Which in my case I
> > have not got" here...
> >
>
> If we stuck to breasts...
>
> we'd never be weaned.
>
> --
> eric
> www.ericjarvis.co.uk
> "live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
If we stuck to breasts, it would be rather embarrassing having to walk
around with hands, lips, etc. permanently attached to somebody elses
chest...
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277770 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 17:16 |
|
On 2006-06-04 10:11:41 -0500, "Shmoe" <packersrock [at] earthlink.net> said:
> If we stuck to breasts, it would be rather embarrassing having to walk
> around with hands, lips, etc. permanently attached to somebody elses
> chest...
Who said anything about walking around?
--
Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border. Take the dirt, raise the
levees in New Orleans, and put the Florida alligators in the moat.
Are there any other problems you would like for me to solve?
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277780 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 17:55 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach:
>
> For years and years (between ER and WFM, IIRC) Pterry's been
> saying there ought to be a word for words that sounds like the
> noise something *would* make if it made a noise, and now we've
> got one!
There is such a word. It's... onomatopoeic.
*Non-auditory onomatopoeia*
It is sometimes the case that an item of onomatopoeia describes a
phenomenon apart from the aural. The Japanese language is especially
renowned for utilizing onomatopoeia to describe soundless concepts.
For instance, Japanese bara bara and shiiin are onomatopoeic forms
reflecting a scattered state and silence, respectively. These words
are considered to be imitative without being auditory. (See Japanese
sound symbolism.)
While almost all examples in common English usage imitate sounds,
the language is not entirely devoid of non-auditory onomatopoeia. A
few such words have gaining parlance recently, including bling
bling, the "sound" of light reflecting off diamonds; and the
Simpsons-inspired "yoink", the "sound" of stealing something.
Another example would be flump, which seems to perfectly sum up the
'soundless experience' of flumping (dropping) heavily into/onto a
settee or chair when exhausted.
-- Wikipedia
Now, I'm sure someone will come along and point out that in dictionary
X, onomatopoeia is defined only for sound-imitating words; different
dictionaries disagree. Someone else will surely point out the etymology
of the word, as though this is in some way relevant to what is the
"correct" present-day meaning. I'm reasonably sure that linguists and
students of rhetoric use it in the more generalised sense, though, but
I'm prepared to defer if one contradicts me.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277782 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 18:00 |
|
Hendrik Schober:
>
> "Mrs. <censored>, Mrs. <censored>, did you know the
> octopus has eight testicles?!"
>
> A friends mother, working at a school in OR, got to hear
> this.
For all I know, it could be true.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277786 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 18:03 |
|
The time: 04 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: Jens Ayton <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com>
> Daibhid Ceanaideach:
>>
>> For years and years (between ER and WFM, IIRC) Pterry's
>> been saying there ought to be a word for words that sounds
>> like the noise something *would* make if it made a noise,
>> and now we've got one!
>
> There is such a word. It's... onomatopoeic.
>
> *Non-auditory onomatopoeia*
<snip>
> While almost all examples in common English usage
> imitate sounds,
> the language is not entirely devoid of non-auditory
> onomatopoeia. A few such words have gaining parlance
> recently, including bling bling, the "sound" of light
> reflecting off diamonds; and the Simpsons-inspired
> "yoink", the "sound" of stealing something. Another
> example would be flump, which seems to perfectly sum up
> the 'soundless experience' of flumping (dropping)
> heavily into/onto a settee or chair when exhausted.
> -- Wikipedia
I can see that. Although, in my experience, when you collapse
onto a setee, it does indeed make a noise that sounds like
"flump".
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277792 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 18:45 |
|
René wrote:
> On 2006-06-04 10:11:41 -0500, "Shmoe" <packersrock [at] earthlink.net>
> said:
>> If we stuck to breasts, it would be rather embarrassing having to
>> walk around with hands, lips, etc. permanently attached to somebody
>> elses chest...
>
>
> Who said anything about walking around?
Who said anything about somebody else's?
Diane L.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277805 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 19:31 |
|
Diane L wrote:
> René wrote:
>> On 2006-06-04 10:11:41 -0500, "Shmoe" <packersrock [at] earthlink.net>
>> said:
>>> If we stuck to breasts, it would be rather embarrassing having to
>>> walk around with hands, lips, etc. permanently attached to
>>> somebody elses chest...
>>
>>
>> Who said anything about walking around?
>
> Who said anything about somebody else's?
Great minds....but *I* refrained. That'll larn me.
--
Anastasia, 4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons, Bondage-happy predator,
Speaker-To-Students, SadoMangoist, AFPMistress to peachy ashie
passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED AFPFiancee to Andrew Nevill
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277813 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 19:42 |
|
in article 128570dhrf1v66 [at] corp.supernews.com, Richard Eney at
dicconf [at] radix.net wrote on 04/06/2006 1:38 AM:
> In article <4edojvF1e4m72U1 [at] individual.net>,
> Louise Mac Mahon <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a tradition of naming body parts though,
>> at least when it comes to men and women bits.
>
> And today we have naming of parts...
>
>> In vain attempts to teach the "real names"
>> we have ended up with several excellent variations.
>> Women have ovaries, and men [...] have underies
>> Another child in our house has testwiggles.
>> In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles
>
> Yesterday birthdays and recrimination, and tomorrow panto,
> but today there was fine weather,
>
>> cars called Mabel and homes called Duncommute
>
> and naming of parts.
Very nice!
".......merely
The mechanical movement of bodies, and that is what we mean by it.
Or perhaps I should say: by them."
etc.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277814 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 19:43 |
|
in article Xns97D883C59D842daibhid [at] 130.133.1.4, Daibhid Ceanaideach at
daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com wrote on 04/06/2006 4:57 AM:
> The time: 04 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: dicconf [at] radix.net (Richard Eney)
>
>> In article <4edojvF1e4m72U1 [at] individual.net>,
>> Louise Mac Mahon <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a tradition of naming body parts though,
>>> at least when it comes to men and women bits.
>>
>> And today we have naming of parts...
>>
>>> In vain attempts to teach the "real names"
>>> we have ended up with several excellent variations.
>>> Women have ovaries, and men [...] have underies
>>> Another child in our house has testwiggles.
>>> In my extended family breasts are known as spoogles
>>
>> Yesterday birthdays and recrimination, and tomorrow panto,
>> but today there was fine weather,
>>
>>> cars called Mabel and homes called Duncommute
>>
>> and naming of parts.
>
> If we'd stuck to breasts, I'd have said "Which in my case I
> have not got" here...
Equally nice!
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277836 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 20:58 |
|
Jens Ayton <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach:
>>
>> For years and years (between ER and WFM, IIRC) Pterry's been
>> saying there ought to be a word for words that sounds like the
>> noise something *would* make if it made a noise, and now we've
>> got one!
>
> There is such a word. It's... onomatopoeic.
>
> *Non-auditory onomatopoeia*
> It is sometimes the case that an item of onomatopoeia describes a
> phenomenon apart from the aural. The Japanese language is
> especially renowned for utilizing onomatopoeia to describe
> soundless concepts. For instance, Japanese bara bara and shiiin
> are onomatopoeic forms reflecting a scattered state and silence,
> respectively. These words are considered to be imitative without
> being auditory. (See Japanese sound symbolism.)
> While almost all examples in common English usage imitate sounds,
> the language is not entirely devoid of non-auditory onomatopoeia. A
> few such words have gaining parlance recently, including bling
> bling, the "sound" of light reflecting off diamonds; and the
> Simpsons-inspired "yoink", the "sound" of stealing something.
> Another example would be flump, which seems to perfectly sum up the
> 'soundless experience' of flumping (dropping) heavily into/onto a
> settee or chair when exhausted.
> -- Wikipedia
Ah. Wikipedia. The ultimate authority.
"Bling" is an onomatopoeia, not because of any imaginary sound, but the
impact sound of glittery stuff. Much like pling, ting, ding and ca-ching.
As for "flump", I've never heard that word before, but it is indeed the
sound of a bean bag receiving a body -- nothing imaginary there either.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277838 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 21:00 |
|
Shmoe <packersrock [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com wrote in
>> <Xns97D883C59D842daibhid [at] 130.133.1.4>:
>>>
>>> If we'd stuck to breasts, I'd have said "Which in my case I
>>> have not got" here...
>
> If we stuck to breasts, it would be rather embarrassing having to walk
> around with hands, lips, etc. permanently attached to somebody elses
> chest...
Especially the cetera.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277840 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 21:13 |
|
Jens Ayton <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
> Hendrik Schober:
>>
>> "Mrs. <censored>, Mrs. <censored>, did you know the
>> octopus has eight testicles?!"
>>
>> A friends mother, working at a school in OR, got to hear
>> this.
>
> For all I know, it could be true.
They have either none (being females) or a single rather large gonad near
the back of their head, which should be removed before cooking.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277850 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 22:01 |
|
"Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:e5vbck$cv8$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com...
> Jens Ayton <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
> > Hendrik Schober:
> >>
> >> "Mrs. <censored>, Mrs. <censored>, did you know the
> >> octopus has eight testicles?!"
> >>
> >> A friends mother, working at a school in OR, got to hear
> >> this.
> >
> > For all I know, it could be true.
>
> They have either none (being females) or a single rather large gonad near
> the back of their head, which should be removed before cooking.
Well, obviously! I mean, who would want to eat a rather large gonad when it
still had the back of the head attached? That would be disgusting! ;)
> Regards,
> --
> *Art
>
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277869 ] |
So, 04 Juni 2006 22:44 |
|
"Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:e5vag6$cs6$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com...
> Jens Ayton <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach:
>>>
>>> For years and years (between ER and WFM, IIRC) Pterry's been
>>> saying there ought to be a word for words that sounds like the
>>> noise something *would* make if it made a noise, and now we've
>>> got one!
>>
>> There is such a word. It's... onomatopoeic.
>>
>> *Non-auditory onomatopoeia*
>> It is sometimes the case that an item of onomatopoeia describes
>> a
>> phenomenon apart from the aural. The Japanese language is
>> especially renowned for utilizing onomatopoeia to describe
>> soundless concepts. For instance, Japanese bara bara and shiiin
>> are onomatopoeic forms reflecting a scattered state and silence,
>> respectively. These words are considered to be imitative without
>> being auditory. (See Japanese sound symbolism.)
>> While almost all examples in common English usage imitate
>> sounds,
>> the language is not entirely devoid of non-auditory onomatopoeia.
>> A
>> few such words have gaining parlance recently, including bling
>> bling, the "sound" of light reflecting off diamonds; and the
>> Simpsons-inspired "yoink", the "sound" of stealing something.
>> Another example would be flump, which seems to perfectly sum up
>> the
>> 'soundless experience' of flumping (dropping) heavily into/onto a
>> settee or chair when exhausted.
>> -- Wikipedia
>
> Ah. Wikipedia. The ultimate authority.
>
> "Bling" is an onomatopoeia, not because of any imaginary sound, but
> the impact sound of glittery stuff. Much like pling, ting, ding and
> ca-ching.
> As for "flump", I've never heard that word before, but it is indeed
> the sound of a bean bag receiving a body -- nothing imaginary there
> either.
>
Also Flump is the name of a marshmallow sweet and a pet name given to my
eldest daughter by her uncle :-)
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277945 ] |
Mo, 05 Juni 2006 00:57 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Jens Ayton <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
>> Hendrik Schober:
>>
>>> "Mrs. <censored>, Mrs. <censored>, did you know the
>>> octopus has eight testicles?!"
>>>
>>> A friends mother, working at a school in OR, got to hear
>>> this.
>>
>> For all I know, it could be true.
>
> They have either none (being females) or a single rather large gonad
> near the back of their head, which should be removed before cooking.
Well, obviously. Otherwise yer dinner'd be bollocks.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277950 ] |
Mo, 05 Juni 2006 00:59 |
|
Torak wrote:
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Jens Ayton <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
>>> Hendrik Schober:
>>>
>>>> "Mrs. <censored>, Mrs. <censored>, did you know the
>>>> octopus has eight testicles?!"
>>>>
>>>> A friends mother, working at a school in OR, got to hear
>>>> this.
>>>
>>> For all I know, it could be true.
>>
>> They have either none (being females) or a single rather large
>> gonad near the back of their head, which should be removed before
>> cooking.
>
> Well, obviously. Otherwise yer dinner'd be bollocks.
"bollock"
--
Anastasia, 4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons, Bondage-happy predator,
Speaker-To-Students, SadoMangoist, AFPMistress to peachy &
AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED AFPFiance to Andrew Nevill & Graycat's
Guttersnipe
|
|
|
| Re: [I] impudently irrelevant [message #277968 ] |
Mo, 05 Juni 2006 01:26 |
|
Anastasia wrote:
> Torak wrote:
>>Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>Jens Ayton <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>Hendrik Schober:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mrs. <censored>, Mrs. <censored>, did you know the
>>>>> octopus has eight testicles?!"
>>>>>
>>>>> A friends mother, working at a school in OR, got to hear
>>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>>For all I know, it could be true.
>>>
>>>They have either none (being females) or a single rather large
>>>gonad near the back of their head, which should be removed before
>>>cooking.
>>
>>Well, obviously. Otherwise yer dinner'd be bollocks.
>
> "bollock"
Meal like that, you don't use just one octopus.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 06:50:04 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,18950 Sekunden |
