Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: "The Old Forest"

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

Fine Porcelain China Blue wrote:
> In article ,
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:

>> example, IIRC, they just left "Atterkop" in, which of course makes no
>> sense at all.

> It doesn't make sense in English, either. Maybe it's Afrikaans.

Well, as we've discussed, "adder" is not so difficult to guess.
So maybe they should have translated it as "Natterkopp", or whatever.
Letting it stand as it is makes no sense in any case.

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

<for reasons unknown to me, this went to a.f.t, which I do not
subscribe to, instead of either both or r.a.b.t, which I do subscribe
to, so this is a separate post, not a duplicate, for which I
apologize>

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:56:35 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote:

>Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>
>> John W Kennedy wrote:
>>> And in the foetid swamp of illiteracy that is the United States, "pant"
>>> has become all but universal in the last ten years, with "scissor" close
>>> behind.
>>
>> Well, I always found it strange that a single object needs a plural
>> word just because it has two legs (or two what-do-you-call-it for
>> scissors -- arms? blades?).
>
>No, no, it's not a plural word. It _is_ "a scissors".
>
>However, I've always been in favor of American simplifications of the
>language. Though I still frequently would write "in favour".

IIRC, it is technically "a /pair/ of scissors".

And, for that matter, "a /pair/ of pants".

The "pair" is singular. The "scissors" or "pants" are plural. I
haven't encountered this myself, but, dropping the "pair" and using "a
scissors" might be expected to lead to "a scissor" sooner or later.

Of course, in /some/ languages, pairs have their own number, in
addition to "singular" and "plural", called (in English) "dual". So,
if one wanted to do such a thing, "a pair of scissors" could be
regarded as a "dual".

<I have taken the liberty of adding this>

Also, we don't say "The scissors is in the drawer" or "My pants is in
the dryer". These words, when used without "pair", are treated as
plurals, even though only one pair is intended. If more than one pair
is involved, then something like "all my pants are in the dryer" is
used. Interestingly, if there are exactly two, "both pairs of scissors
are in the drawar" is used, and, as can be seen, "pair" reappears.
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

Paul S. Person wrote:

> <for reasons unknown to me, this went to a.f.t, which I do not
> subscribe to, instead of either both or r.a.b.t, which I do subscribe
> to, so this is a separate post, not a duplicate, for which I
> apologize>

That's because I use a news reader that for totally ridiculous reasons explicitly writes "Followups-to" headers to the first of cross-posted newsgroups. I edit it to remove the header, but occasionally I forget...

However, then posting back to _only_ r.a.b.t isn't an improvement

> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:56:35 -0400, Derek Broughton
> wrote:
>
>>Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>>
>>> John W Kennedy wrote:
>>>> And in the foetid swamp of illiteracy that is the United States, "pant"
>>>> has become all but universal in the last ten years, with "scissor"
>>>> close behind.
>>>
>>> Well, I always found it strange that a single object needs a plural
>>> word just because it has two legs (or two what-do-you-call-it for
>>> scissors -- arms? blades?).
>>
>>No, no, it's not a plural word. It _is_ "a scissors".
>>
>>However, I've always been in favor of American simplifications of the
>>language. Though I still frequently would write "in favour".
>
> IIRC, it is technically "a /pair/ of scissors".

It was always "technically" "a scissors" according to my English teachers.
I'm not saying that's the way it's generally used - but it _is_ what more
than one teacher tried to drive into us. Also, despite Troels (?) statement
that Ask Oxford says "pair", what it actually says is "also a pair...". I
keep meaning to see if "Modern English Usage" has anything to say....

> And, for that matter, "a /pair/ of pants".
>
> The "pair" is singular. The "scissors" or "pants" are plural.

Merriam-Webster says "noun plural but singular or plural in construction"
which does nothing to clear things up
> I
> haven't encountered this myself, but, dropping the "pair" and using "a
> scissors" might be expected to lead to "a scissor" sooner or later.

Probably, but I'd also want to see which came first ("scissors" or "pair
of...").

> <I have taken the liberty of adding this>
>
> Also, we don't say "The scissors is in the drawer" or "My pants is in
> the dryer". These words, when used without "pair", are treated as
> plurals, even though only one pair

or just "one"

> is intended.

True, mostly. M-W would suggest that "The scissors is in the drawer" is at
least equally correct.

> If more than one pair
> is involved, then something like "all my pants are in the dryer" is
> used. Interestingly, if there are exactly two, "both pairs of scissors
> are in the drawar" is used, and, as can be seen, "pair" reappears.

Also true.
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:17:58 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote:

>Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> <for reasons unknown to me, this went to a.f.t, which I do not
>> subscribe to, instead of either both or r.a.b.t, which I do subscribe
>> to, so this is a separate post, not a duplicate, for which I
>> apologize>
>
>That's because I use a news reader that for totally ridiculous reasons explicitly writes "Followups-to" headers to the first of cross-posted newsgroups. I edit it to remove the header, but occasionally I forget...
>
>However, then posting back to _only_ r.a.b.t isn't an improvement

The original went to a.f.t.. This will go to both.

>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:56:35 -0400, Derek Broughton
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dirk Thierbach wrote:
<snippo>
>>>
>>>No, no, it's not a plural word. It _is_ "a scissors".
>>>
>>>However, I've always been in favor of American simplifications of the
>>>language. Though I still frequently would write "in favour".
>>
>> IIRC, it is technically "a /pair/ of scissors".
>
>It was always "technically" "a scissors" according to my English teachers.
>I'm not saying that's the way it's generally used - but it _is_ what more
>than one teacher tried to drive into us. Also, despite Troels (?) statement
>that Ask Oxford says "pair", what it actually says is "also a pair...". I
>keep meaning to see if "Modern English Usage" has anything to say....

I looked this up in the American Heritage Dictionary, which was
published in the late 1960's.

I find myself apalled. It agrees with the above. And the below.

It occurs to me that, while I regard "a scissors" and "a pants" as
just plain /wrong/, other English speakers may not do so. In
particular, since I am from the USA, those in the UK may feel
differently about the matter.

>> And, for that matter, "a /pair/ of pants".
>>
>> The "pair" is singular. The "scissors" or "pants" are plural.
>
>Merriam-Webster says "noun plural but singular or plural in construction"
>which does nothing to clear things up
>> I
>> haven't encountered this myself, but, dropping the "pair" and using "a
>> scissors" might be expected to lead to "a scissor" sooner or later.
>
>Probably, but I'd also want to see which came first ("scissors" or "pair
>of...").
>
>> <I have taken the liberty of adding this>
>>
>> Also, we don't say "The scissors is in the drawer" or "My pants is in
>> the dryer". These words, when used without "pair", are treated as
>> plurals, even though only one pair
>
>or just "one"
>
>> is intended.
>
>True, mostly. M-W would suggest that "The scissors is in the drawer" is at
>least equally correct.

As would the American Heritage Dictionary. I, on the other hand, would
regard it a very, very wrong. This is a very interesting topic; it
isn't often that I find myself reacting to an English expression that
clearly appears to be allowable as being so totally, utterly,
unacceptably, wrong! Usually, when I have this reaction to an
expression, my reaction is supported by the various works on "proper
English". Or, at the very least, clearly stated to reflect a
difference between English as spoken in the USA and English as spoken
somewhere else (usually the UK). But not in this case.

>> If more than one pair
>> is involved, then something like "all my pants are in the dryer" is
>> used. Interestingly, if there are exactly two, "both pairs of scissors
>> are in the drawar" is used, and, as can be seen, "pair" reappears.
>
>Also true.

Oh, to answer an earlier inquiry: I would call the parts of a pair of
scissors "blades" or "scissor-blades"; I would call the relevant parts
of a pair of pants "pants-legs" or (perhaps) "pant-legs" or (if the
context is clear) "legs" -- each of which can also be used in the
singular, of course.

Other paired items, such as shoes, socks, or gloves, are much easier
to handle, mostly, I suppose, because it is not only possible but
reasonably common to be referring to a single shoe, sock, or glove.
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

Dirk Thierbach wrote:

> Taemon wrote:
>> Ahem. </me clears throat>
>>
>> Ouwe dikke spin, wevend stuk verdriet!
>> Ouwe dikke spin ziet me lekker niet!
>> Etterkop! Etterkop!
>> Hou maar op,
>> Hou op met weven tot je me ziet!
>>
>> Ouwe dikke sufkop, met je dikke buik,
>> Ouwe dikke sufkop, ik zit hier puik!
>> Etterkop! Etterkop!
>> Val maar op!
>> Ik loop heus toch nooit in je fuik!
>>
>> Gods. It's... horrible
> Of course I can't judge the style, but it does look better than the
> German translation

Can't be. It's awful. I have no words. The stress is all wrong.

> (the poems in TH are all *really* horrible,
> fortunately LotR had a different translator for the poems, who did
> a very good job).

No, it must have been in the book itself. Tolkien, in other words The
translation of "De Hobbit" was done by Max Schuchart, who did "In de ban van
de Ring" too, and is a genius. Thomas Covenant too, which I was forced to
read because of a review, I begged them not to sent me any Covenant anymore
But the translation was beautiful, beautiful.

> I can't get the book at the momement, but for
> example, IIRC, they just left "Atterkop" in, which of course makes no
> sense at all.

Huh.

> Is "sufkop" related to "Saufkopf", literally "drunken head"?

No, "suf" is either drowsy, unattentive or (as in this case) stupid.

> And what does "Tomnoddy" mean, anyway? I would guess it's probably just
> another word for "spider", but if so, what's the etymology?

I haven't got the slightest. Where did that come from? The orinigal?

T.
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

Raven wrote:

> "Taemon" skrev i meddelelsen
>
>> I feel secure enough in my language (whatever that means) that I can
>> afford to joke about it
> So do I. Norwegian: a hybrid between Old Norse and Medieval
> German, with a few contributions of mainly French and English added,
> case declensions mainly abandoned.

I'm not even sure about the origins of Dutch, of course it's very like
German and the Scand languages. But I don't care, it's my language and I
have a very good grasp of it.

> Still don't know if Scand lost case declensions on our own
> initiative or if it was coordinated, so to speak, with English. How
> is Dutch for cases? If I say (Old Norse) maðr (Nominative) - mann
> (Accusative) - manni (Dative) - manns (Genitive), what do you say?

Hm. I think "huuuuh?" would be most accurate. I did follow some linguistic
courses back in the day when I was a cognitive psychologist, but never much
syntax. I could look it up of course, but I have a severe cold and not in
the possession of the slightest bit of initiative.

T.
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

Derek Broughton writes:
> It was always "technically" "a scissors" according to my English teachers.
> I'm not saying that's the way it's generally used - but it _is_ what more
> than one teacher tried to drive into us.

Ouch.

My teachers didn't generally escalate to anything deadlier than a
thrown eraser.



--
Jeff
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

On 2009-01-14, Derek Broughton wrote:

> It was always "technically" "a scissors" according to my English teachers.
> I'm not saying that's the way it's generally used - but it _is_ what more
> than one teacher tried to drive into us. Also, despite Troels (?) statement
> that Ask Oxford says "pair", what it actually says is "also a pair...". I
> keep meaning to see if "Modern English Usage" has anything to say....

You had very strange English teachers.

The word "scissors" is usually grammatically plural, and has been
since its first recorded occurrence in 1384.

The OED records a few "rare" occurrences of the word "scissors" being
grammatically singular, and marks it "erroneous" (a marking they no
longer use in the New Edition).

Five hundred years ago, people occasionally used "a scissor", but the
last record of that was in 1611.
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

On 1/12/09 2:52 PM, NY Teacher wrote:
> Where? I have never heard anyone say "pant" or "scissor."

I can only assume that you're living in an advertising-free vacuum.
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

"John W Kennedy" wrote in message

> On 1/12/09 2:52 PM, NY Teacher wrote:
>> Where? I have never heard anyone say "pant" or "scissor."
>
> I can only assume that you're living in an advertising-free vacuum.

Pish and tosh. I've never heard or seen either in any of the
increasingly-many adverts here in the UK, I'm glad to say. Nor have I ever
heard anyone use them in day to day speech - nor read such singular usage in
a book. Must be an American thing - let's hope it doesn't catch on over
here. As Paul says, it's "totally, utterly, unacceptably, wrong"!

There; spleen vented.
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest"" 

"Phil Quiller" wrote in message

> "John W Kennedy" wrote in message
>
>> On 1/12/09 2:52 PM, NY Teacher wrote:
>>> Where? I have never heard anyone say "pant" or "scissor."
>>
>> I can only assume that you're living in an advertising-free vacuum.
>
> Pish and tosh. I've never heard or seen either in any of the
> increasingly-many adverts here in the UK, I'm glad to say. Nor have I ever
> heard anyone use them in day to day speech - nor read such singular usage
> in a book. Must be an American thing - let's hope it doesn't catch on over
> here. As Paul says, it's "totally, utterly, unacceptably, wrong"!
>
> There; spleen vented.
>

No, it's not an American thing, since it doesn't occur here either. I have
neither seen nor heard these errors anywhere, advertising included. We
Americans certainly have our linguistic follies, but "cutting a pair of pant
with a scissor" is not one of them.

NYT
 >> Stay informed about: Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: ""The Old Forest""